1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 20, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 20, 2024

Abortion Law Illiberalism and Feminist Politics in Comparative Perspective

Abstract

Since the 1970s, a liberal politics has dominated comparative abortion law, one almost too ubiquitous to name. This article tracks departures from liberal abortion law in Europe and the Americas that have reshaped the field of comparative abortion law. Section 2 examines the repurposing of liberal abortion law for illiberal ends in a conservative moment of authoritarian governments and their anti-gender campaigns. Drawing on larger ideas of autocratic legalism, the article analyzes how governments and courts have used the features of liberal abortion law to revoke or defeat abortion rights. Section 3 examines the counter-emergence of a feminist protest politics that has abandoned liberal abortion law in a democratic remaking of society and state. Today, in abortion lawmaking through democratized institutions and in the unmaking of abortion law through direct action, feminist movements are reclaiming comparative abortion law and its politics.

Keyword(s): abortion law, constitutional reform, democracy, feminist politics, illiberalism, liberalism
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-030149
2024-10-17
2025-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/20/1/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-030149.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-030149&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ahmed A. 2021.. The future of facts: the politics of public health and medicine in abortion law. . Univ. Colo. Law Rev. 92::1151–62
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ainsworth SL, Diaz-Tello F. 2023.. From the front lines of serving abortion seekers' legal needs, a call to the legal profession. . Crim. Justice 38:(2):45–50
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Albert R, Stacy R, eds. 2022.. The Limits and Legitimacy of Referendums. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alves J. 2020.. Brazilian doctors condemn new rules on abortion. . Lancet 396::808
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Atienzo EE, Cruz V, Garduño S, Lomelí S, Meza M, et al. 2023.. Safe abortion in Latin America: a look at abortion accompaniment collectives from the perspective of their activists. . Cult. Health Sex. 26:(5):588–604
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Belfrage M. 2023.. Revolutionary pills? Feminist abortion, pharmaceuticalization, and reproductive governance. . Int. Fem. J. Politics 25:(1):6–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergallo P, Michel AR. 2016.. Abortion. . In The Latin American Casebook: Courts, Constitutions, and Rights, ed. JF González Bertomeu, R Gargarella. Abingdon, UK:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Boland R, Katzive L. 2008.. Developments in laws on induced abortion: 1998–2007. . Int. Fam. Plann. Perspect. 34:(3):110–20
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonifaz Alfonzo L, Mora Sierra R. 2024.. Decriminalization of abortion by the Mexican Supreme Court. . Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 165::375–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Borja MS. 2021.. Lasso y el aborto en Ecuador: cuando respetar los derechos de la ciudadanía es la excepción. . Washington Post, May 2
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Botero S, Brinks DM, González Ocantos E, eds. 2022.. The Limits of Judicialization: From Progress to Backlash in Latin America. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Boyle EH, Minzee K, Longhofer W. 2015.. Abortion liberalization in world society 1960–2009. . Am. J. Sociol. 121:(3):882–913
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Braine N. 2023.. Abortion Beyond the Law: Building a Global Feminist Movement for Self-Managed Abortion. London:: Verso
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bucholc M. 2022.. Abortion law and human rights in Poland: the closing of the jurisprudential horizon. . Hague J. Rule Law 14:(1):73–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bulman-Pozen J, Seifter M. 2023.. The right to amend state constitutions. . Yale Law J. Forum 133::191–227
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Burton J, Peralta G. 2016.. Redes en torno al aborto clandestino: vínculos de socorristas y sistema de salud en Neuquén, Argentina. . Clivajes 3:(6):158–81
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Calkin S. 2020.. Abortion pills in Ireland and beyond: What can the 8th Amendment referendum tell us about the future of self-managed abortion?. In After Repeal: Rethinking Abortion Politics, ed. K Brown, S Calkin , pp. 73–89. London:: Bloomsbury
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Calkin S, de Londras F, Heathcote G. 2020.. Abortion in Ireland: introduction to the themed issue. . Fem. Rev. 124:(1):1–14
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Casas L, Maira G, eds. 2019.. Aborto en Tres Causales en Chile: Lecturas del Proceso de Despenalización. Santiago:: Gráfica LOM
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Castillo A. 2018.. De la revuelta feminista, la historia y Julieta Kirkwood. . In Mayo Feminista: La Rebelión Contra el Patriarcado. Colección Ciencias Sociales y Humanas, ed. F Zerán , pp. 35–48. Santiago:: LOM , Ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Chełstowska A, Ignaciuk A. 2023.. Criminalization, medicalization, and stigmatization: genealogies of abortion activism in Poland. . Signs: J. Women Cult. Soc. 48:(2):423–53
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. Chua LJ. 2019.. Legal mobilization and authoritarianism. . Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 15::355–76
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Citiz. Assem. 2017.. First report and recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly: the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Rep. , Citiz. Assem., Irel.:
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Contiades X, Fotiadou A. 2017.. Participatory Constitutional Changes: The People as Amenders of the Constitution. New York:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cook RJ, Dickens BM, Bliss LE. 1999.. International developments in abortion law from 1988 to 1998. . Am. J. Public Health 89:(4):579–86
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. Cook RJ, Erdman JN, Dickens BM, eds. 2014.. Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies. Philadelphia:: Univ. Pa. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cruz M. 2023.. “ A revolt within a revolt”: feminist political ideas in Chile's social uprising. . Fem. Rev. 135::61–78
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Cupać J, Ebetürk I. 2022.. Competitive mimicry: the socialization of antifeminist NGOs into the United Nations. . Glob. Const. 11:(3):379–400
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. Daby M, Moseley M. 2022.. Feminist mobilization and the abortion debate in Latin America: lessons from Argentina. . Politics Gend. 18:(2):359–93
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Davis S. 2002.. United States, Germany, and South Africa: constitutional legislation and judicial decisions on abortion—testing judicial globalization. . Temple Int. Comp. Law J. 16:(1):175–98
     [Google Scholar]
  31. de Assis Machado MR. 2023.. Antiabortion legal mobilization in Brazil: human rights as a field of contention. . Int. J. Const. Law 21:(1):308–38
     [Google Scholar]
  32. de Londras F. 2020.. “A hope raised and then defeated”? The continuing harms of Irish abortion law. . Fem. Rev. 124:(1):33–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. de Londras F, Enright M. 2018.. Repealing the 8th: Reforming Irish Abortion Law. Bristol, UK:: Policy
     [Google Scholar]
  34. de Londras F, Markicevic M. 2018.. Reforming abortion law in Ireland: reflections on the public submissions to the Citizens’ Assembly. . Women's Stud. Int. Forum 70::89–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. de Sa e Silva F. 2022.. Law and illiberalism: a sociological review and research road map. . Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 18::193–209
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. de Sa e Silva F. 2023.. Good-bye, liberal legal democracy!. Law Soc. Inq. 48:(1):292–313
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Deutscher P. 2017.. Foucault's Futures: A Critique of Reproductive Reason. New York:: Columbia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  38. De Zordo S, Mishtal J, Anton L, eds. 2016.. A Fragmented Landscape: Abortion Governance and Protest Logics in Europe. New York:: Berghahn
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Dickens B, Cook RJ. 2003.. Human rights dynamics of abortion law reform. . Hum. Rights Q. 25:(1):1–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Dinan J. 2023.. The constitutional politics of abortion policy after Dobbs: state courts, constitutions, and lawmaking. . Mont. Law Rev. 84:(1):27–74
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 US __ ( 2022.)
  42. Doyle O, Walsh R. 2021.. Deliberative mini-publics as a response to populist democratic backsliding. . In Constitutional Change and Popular Sovereignty, pp. 224–43. Abingdon, UK:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Duffy DN. 2020.. From feminist anarchy to decolonization: understanding abortion health activism before and after the repeal of the 8th Amendment. . Fem. Rev. 124:(1):69–85
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Duffy DN, Freeman C, Rodríguez Castañeda S. 2023.. Beyond the state: abortion care activism in Peru. . Signs 48:(3):609–34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. Dyer O. 2023.. Protests flare up across Poland as another pregnant woman's death is blamed on abortion law. . BMJ 381::1405
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Dzięgielewska A. 2022.. A mimicry of international law compliance: how the abusive interpretation of international norms serves Poland's illiberal regime. . Chicago J. Int. Law 23::90–102
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Enright M. 2018.. “ The enemy of the good”: reflections on Ireland's new abortion legislation. . Feminists@law 8:(2). https://doi.org/10.22024/UniKent/3/fal.658
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Erdman JN. 2014a.. The procedural turn: abortion at the European Court of Human Rights. . See Cook et al. 2014 , pp. 121–42
  49. Erdman JN. 2014b.. Procedural abortion rights: Ireland and The European Court of Human Rights. . Reprod. Health Matters 22:(44):22–30
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Erdman JN. 2017.. The politics of global abortion rights. . Brown J. World Aff. 22:(2):39–57
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Erdman JN, Cook RJ. 2020.. Decriminalization of abortion—a human rights imperative. . Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 62::11–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Eser A, Koch HG. 2005.. Abortion and the Law: From International Comparison to Legal Policy. The Hague, Neth.:: T.M.C. Asser
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Etienne M. 2005.. The ethics of cause lawyering: an empirical examination of criminal defense lawyers as cause lawyers. . J. Crim. Law Criminol. 95:(4):1195–260
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Farrell DM, Suiter J, Cunningham K, Harris C. 2023.. When mini-publics and maxi-publics coincide: Ireland's national debate on abortion. . Representation 59:(1):55–73
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Fernández Anderson C. 2020.. Fighting for Abortion Rights in Latin America: Social Movements, State Allies and Institutions. New York:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Ferretti P, Dragnic M. 2020.. Chile: la revuelta en el laboratorio neoliberal. . In Escrituras Feministas en la Revuelta, ed. O Grau, L Follegati, S Aguilera , pp. 121–32. Santiago:: LOM , Ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Field L. 2018.. The abortion referendum of 2018 and a timeline of abortion politics in Ireland to date. . Ir. Political Stud. 33:(4):608–28
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Forman-Rabinovici A, Johnson OCA. 2023.. Political equality, gender, and democratic legitimation in Dobbs. . Harvard J. Law Gend. 46::81–130
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Forstenzer N. 2017.. Feminism and gender politics in post-dictatorship Chile (1990–2010). . In Social Movements in Chile: Organization, Trajectories, and Political Consequences, ed. S Donoso, M von Bülow , pp. 161–89. London:: Palgrave Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Frankenberg G. 1985.. Critical comparisons: re-thinking comparative law. . Harvard Int. Law J. 26::411–55
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Galli B, Dillon J. 2022.. Challenges to the implementation of telemedicine in abortion care for victims of sexual violence in Brazil. . Front. Glob. Womens Health 3::902390
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Gianella C, Álvarez B. 2021.. Judicial lawfare: analysis of legal arguments against abortion rights in Peruvian courts. . Rev. Direito GV 17::e2146
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Girgis S. 2022.. Misreading and transforming Casey for Dobbs. . Georgetown J. Law Public Policy 20::331–50
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Gliszczyńska-Grabias A, Sadurski W. 2021.. The judgment that wasn't (but which nearly brought Poland to a standstill): “judgment” of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal of 22 October 2020, K1/20. . Eur. Const. Law Rev. 17:(1):130–53
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Gloppen S. 2021.. Conceptualizing abortion lawfare. . Rev. Direito GV 17::e2143
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Graff A, Korolczuk E. 2022.. Anti-Gender Politics in the Populist Moment. Abingdon, UK:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Green Rioja RA. 2021.. Collective trauma, feminism and the threads of popular power: a personal and political account of Chile's 2019 social awakening. . Radic. Am. 6:(1):2
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Green Rioja RA. 2024.. From “armies of love” to demanding legal abortion: Piqueteras and women workers at the forefront of forging new feminist politics in Argentina (1990–2005). . Radic. Hist. Rev. 148::69–89
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Griffin G, O'Connor O, Smyth A, O'Connor A. 2019.. It's a Yes!: How Together for Yes Repealed the Eighth and Transformed Irish Society. Dublin:: Orpen
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Grosso B, Zurbriggen R. 2016.. Coaliciones y alianzas entre activistas feministas y el sistema de salud: Relato de una experiencia situada en pos del derecho a abortar. Ser. Doc. 8 , REDAAS, Buenos Aires:
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Guzmán V. 2022.. La agenda feminista en la propuesta de una nueva Constitución para Chile. . Deusto J. Hum. Rights 10::161–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Gwiazda A. 2020.. Right-wing populism and feminist politics: the case of Law and Justice in Poland. . Int. Political Sci. Rev. 42::580–95
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Halliday S, Romanis EC, de Proost L, Verweij EJ. 2023.. The (mis)use of fetal viability as the determinant of non-criminal abortion in the Netherlands and England and Wales. . Med. Law Rev. 31:(4):538–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Holm S. 2022.. The stability of political compromise—abortion legislation in Denmark and Norway. . CQ 32:(3):337–43
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Huckerby J, Knuckey S. 2023.. Appropriation and the rewriting of rights. . Int. J. Const. Law 21:(1):243–65
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Hunter W, Power TJ. 2019.. Bolsonaro and Brazil's illiberal backlash. . J. Democr. 30::68–82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Issacharoff S, Verdugo S. 2023.. The uncertain future of constitutional democracy in the era of populism: Chile and beyond. . Univ. Miami Law Rev. 78::1–63
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Jacobs MG, Boing AC. 2022.. How does the regulation of abortion provision for pregnancies resulting from rape affect its supply in the municipalities?. Ciênc. Saúde Colet. 27::3689–700
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Jaramillo Sierra IC. 2023.. The new Colombian law on abortion. . Int. J. Gynecol. Obst. 160:(1):345–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, 591 US 1101 ( 2020.)
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Kasztelan M. 2024.. Will Poland's new government legalize abortion?. Foreign Policy, Febr. 12. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/12/poland-abortion-rights-pro-choice-election-coalition-pis-law-ban/
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Kovalčík M. 2022.. The instrumental abuse of constitutional courts: how populists can use constitutional courts against the opposition. . Int. J. Hum. Rights 26:(7):1160–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. Krauss A. 2019.. The ephemeral politics of feminist accompaniment networks in Mexico City. . Fem. Theory 20:(1):37–54
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Kubal A. 2023.. The Women's Complaint: sociolegal mobilization against authoritarian backsliding following the 2020 abortion law in Poland. . J. Contemp. Centr. East. Eur. 31:(3):585–605
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. Kulczycki A. 1995.. Abortion policy in postcommunist Europe: the conflict in Poland. . Popul. Dev. Rev. 21:(3):471–505
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. Landau D, Dixon R. 2024.. Utopian constitutionalism in Chile. . Glob. Const. 13::228–38
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. Lopreite D. 2023.. The long road to abortion rights in Argentina (1983–2020). . Bull. Lat. Am. Res. 42::357–71
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Lovenduski J, Outshoorn J, eds. 1986.. The New Politics of Abortion Reform. London:: SAGE Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Maira G, Casas L, Vivaldi L. 2019.. Abortion in Chile: the long road to legalization and its slow implementation. . Health Hum. Rights J. 21:(2):121–31
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Markowski R. 2019.. Creating authoritarian clientelism: Poland after 2015. . Hague J. Rule Law 11::111–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. Marx Ferree M. 2002.. Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  92. McBride Stetson D, ed. 2001.. Abortion Politics, Women's Movements, and the Democratic State: A Comparative Study of State Feminism. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  93. McCaffrey B. 2023.. Technologies of protest in Irish abortion activism. . Fem. Anthropol. 4:(1):115–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. McReynolds-Pérez J. 2017.. No doctors required: lay activist expertise and pharmaceutical abortion in Argentina. . Signs 42:(2):349–75
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. Metzger GE. 1994.. Unburdening the undue burden standard: orienting Casey in constitutional jurisprudence. . Columbia Law Rev. 94:(7):2025–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. Millar E. 2021.. Maintaining exceptionality: interrogating gestational limits for abortion. . Soc. Legal Stud. 31:(3):439–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. Mishtal J. 2015.. The Politics of Morality: The Church, the State, and Reproductive Rights in Postsocialist Poland. Athens:: Ohio Univ. Press/Swallow
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Morgan L. 2023.. Anti-abortion strategizing and the afterlife of the Geneva Consensus Declaration. . Dev. World Bioethics 23:(2):185–95
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. Morris BJ, Withers DM, Gay R. 2018.. The Feminist Revolution: The Struggle for Women's Liberation. Washington, DC:: Smithson. Books
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Mullally S, Murray C. 2016.. Regulating abortion: dissensus and the politics of rights. . Soc. Legal Stud. 25:(6):645–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Nonet P, Selznick P. 1978.. Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. London:: Taylor and Francis. , 1st ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Outshorn J. 2013.. The stability of compromise: abortion politics in Western Europe. . In Abortion Politics, pp. 145–64. Florence:: Taylor & Francis
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Paro HB, Catani RR, Cordeiro Freire R, Rondon G. 2023.. Bottom-up advocacy strategies to abortion access during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned towards reproductive justice in Brazil. . Dev. World Bioethics 23:(2):147–53
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. Piscopo JM, Siavelis PM. 2021.. Chile's constitutional moment. . Curr. Hist. 120:(823):43–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. Ploszka A. 2023.. It never rains but it pours. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal declares the European Convention on Human Rights unconstitutional. . Hague J. Rule Law 15:(1):51–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. Prandini Assis M, Erdman JN. 2021.. In name of public health: misoprostol and the new criminalization of abortion in Brazil. . J. Law Biosci. 8:(1):lsab009
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. Prandini Assis M, Erdman JN. 2022.. Abortion rights beyond the medico-legal paradigm. . Glob. Public Health 17:(10):2235–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. Rahman A, Katzive L, Henshaw SK. 1998.. A global review of laws on induced abortion, 1985–1997. . Int. Fam. Plann. Perspect. 24:(2):56–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. Ramos S, Keefe-Oates B, Romero M, Ramón Michel A, Krause M, et al. 2023.. Step by step in Argentina: putting abortion rights into practice. . Int. J. Women's Health 2023::1003–15
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Reidy T. 2023.. Constitutionalising abortion: consequences for politics and policy. . King's Law J. 34:(2):238–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. Roberti A. 2021.. “ Women deserve better:” the use of the pro-woman frame in anti-abortion policies in U.S. states. . J. Women Politics Policy 42:(3):207–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 ( 1973.)
  113. Romanis EC. 2023.. R v Foster: exemplifying the urgency of the decriminalisation of abortion. . Med. Law Rev. 31:(4):606–14
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. Romero M, Ramón Michel A. 2022.. The shift from criminalization to legalization of abortion in Argentina. . JAMA 328:(17):1699–700
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  115. Ruibal A. 2021.. Using constitutional courts to advance abortion rights in Latin America. . Int. Fem. J. Politics 23:(4):579–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. Ruibal A, Fernández Anderson C. 2022.. Legal obstacles and social change: strategies of the abortion rights movement in Argentina. . Politics Groups Identities 8:(4):698–713
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. Ruiz-Tagle P. 2023.. Five Republics and One Tradition: A History of Constitutionalism in Chile 1810–2020. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Sadurski W. 2019a.. Poland's Constitutional Breakdown. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Sadurski W. 2019b.. Polish Constitutional Tribunal under PiS: from an activist court, to a paralysed tribunal, to a governmental enabler. . Hague J. Rule Law 11::63–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. Sanders R. 2018.. Norm spoiling: undermining the international women's rights agenda. . Int. Aff. 94:(2):271–91
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. Sanders R, Jenkins LD. 2022.. Control, alt, delete: patriarchal populist attacks on international women's rights. . Glob. Const. 11:(2):401–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  122. Scheppele KL. 2018.. Autocratic legalism. . Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 85:(2):545–84
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Sheldon S, Lord J. 2023.. Care not criminalisation: reform of British abortion law is long overdue. . J. Med. Ethics 49::523–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  124. Siavelis PM. 2016.. Crisis of representation in Chile? The institutional connection. . J. Politics Lat. Am. 8:(3):61–93
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  125. Side K. 2022.. “ Changed utterly”: the Citizens’ Assembly on the 8th Amendment. . Fem. Encount. 6:(1):5
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Siegel RB. 2007.. The new politics of abortion: an equality analysis of woman-protective abortion restrictions. . Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2007::991–1054
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Siegel RB. 2012.. The constitutionalization of abortion. . In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, ed. M Rosenfeld, A Sajó , pp. 1057–78. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Singer EO. 2018.. Realizing abortion rights at the margins of legality in Mexico. . Med. Anthropol. 38:(2):167–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. Śledzińska-Simon A. 2023.. Constitutional framings of the right to abortion: a global view. . Int. J. Const. Law 21:(2):399–406
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Smart C. 1989.. Feminism and the Power of Law. New York:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Smyth L. 2017.. Abortion and Nation: The Politics of Reproduction in Contemporary Ireland. New York:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Stevenson L. 2021.. Feminist movements in Chile: joining forces from institutions and the streets toward a new constitution. . In Twenty-First-Century Feminismos: Women's Movements in Latin America and the Caribbean, ed. S Bohn, C Levy , pp. 115–43. Montreal, Can:.: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Stith R. 1987.. New constitutional and penal theory in Spanish abortion law. . Am. J. Comp. Law 35:(3):513–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. Strzyżyńska W. 2023.. Polish court convicts activist for helping woman get abortion pills. . The Guardian, March 14
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Suiter J, Deligiaouri A. 2023.. Introduction to the special issue From Mini-publics to Mass Publics. . Representation 59:(1):1–12
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  136. Sutton B, Vacarezza NL, eds. 2021.. Abortion and Democracy: Contentious Body Politics in Argentina Chile and Uruguay. Abingdon, UK:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Szczepańska D, Marchlewska M. 2023.. Unfree to speak and forced to hate? The phenomenon of the All-Poland Women's Strike. . In Challenges and Perspectives on Hate Speech Research, ed. C Strippel, S Paasch-Colberg, M Emmer, J Trebbe , pp. 55–71. Berlin:: Böhland & Schremmer
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Tate CN, Vallinder T. 1997.. The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York:: N.Y. Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Teles SM. 2008.. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Tijoux ME. 2020.. Octubre 2019: ¿Rebelión popular en Chile?. Pléyade 2020:(Espec.):3134
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Torres Carrasco MW. 2022.. Neoconservative camouflage: the datafication of abortion debates in Ecuador. . Tapuya 5:(1):2110356
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Undurraga V. 2019.. Criminalisation under scrutiny: how constitutional courts are changing their narrative by using public health evidence in abortion cases. . Sex. Reprod. Health Matters 27:(1):41–51
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  143. Undurraga V. 2020.. Engendering a constitutional moment: the quest for parity in the Chilean Constitutional Convention. . Int. J. Const. Law 18:(2):466–70
     [Google Scholar]
  144. UN Gen. Assembly. 2020.. Annex to the letter dated 2 December 2020 from the Permanent Representative to the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General: Geneva Consensus Declaration on promoting women's health and strengthening the family. UN Doc. A/75/626. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n20/344/30/pdf/n2034430.pdf?token=GWqs1aXq8VC2SVnsHF&fe=true
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Vacarezza NL. 2023.. Abortion rights in Uruguay, Chile, and Argentina: movements shaping legal and policy change. . Southwest. J. Int. Law 29::309–47
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Vallejo Toledo E. 2023.. Legal abortion in Ecuador: how the Constitutional Court decriminalized abortion in cases of rape. . Can. J. Lat. Am. Caribb. Stud. 48:(2):165–91
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Yamin AE, Michel AR. 2023a.. Engendering democracy and rights: the legalization of abortion in Argentina. . In Research Handbook on International Abortion Law, ed. M Ziegler , pp. 394–419. Cheltenham, UK:: Edward Elgar Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Yamin AE, Michel AR. 2023b.. Using rights to deepen democracy: making sense of the road to legal abortion in Argentina. . Fordham Int. Law J. 46::377–424
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-030149
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error