top of page
Search

Autonomous Integration and Reproductive Rights in the European Union

  • Human Rights Research Center
  • 3 hours ago
  • 20 min read

Author: Calvin Mouw, PhD

February 17, 2026

 

Within the European Union (EU), few policy areas generate as much division as reproductive rights. Alongside migration policy, as well as foreign and security affairs, questions of abortion access and contraceptive protections expose deep rifts among EU Member States. Countries such as Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Norway have each established robust frameworks that guarantee reproductive rights and abortion access, while others, notably Hungary and Poland, enforce restrictive regimes that severely limit access.


This divergence underscores a central tension within the EU’s governance model. As a collective institution, the Union seeks deeper integration and fairness across its Member States, yet its formal framework prevents it from enforcing uniformity in social policy, leaving reproductive rights primarily within national jurisdiction. Still, under the UN‑endorsed framework of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR), European states remain obligated to safeguard women’s health and autonomy by ensuring access to healthcare, education, and protection from discrimination or violence.


Although the EU lacks direct competence to legislate reproductive rights uniformly, its institutions—the European Parliament, the Court of Justice, and the European Commission—are increasingly exercising autonomous influence that sets integration in motion. Through resolutions, jurisprudence, and policy initiatives such as the European Commission’s Roadmap for Women’s Rights (March 2025), which explicitly incorporates SRHR into its long‑term vision for gender equality, these bodies are beginning to establish precedents and mobilize resources that extend the Union’s reach into reproductive policy. What is emerging is not a fixed framework but the early stages of a dynamic process of autonomous integration, where institutional innovation and contestation with organized counter‑movements gradually redefine the boundaries of EU authority in the domain of reproductive rights.


[Image source: The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights]
[Image source: The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights]

The Integration Dilemma


At the heart of the European Union’s constitutional order lies the principle of conferral, codified in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). This principle stipulates that the Union may act only within the competences expressly conferred upon it by the founding treaties, while all other powers remain the exclusive prerogative of the Member States. In practice, competences define the specific domains of policy or regulation allocated to the EU, thereby delineating the scope of its institutional authority. By circumscribing the Union’s powers in this way, the principle of conferral safeguards national sovereignty and ensures that the EU does not evolve into a federal entity with autonomous sovereignty, but instead continues to operate as a derivative polity whose legitimacy depends on the collective will of its members.


Politically, the principle of conferral has long been a source of contention. Article 5(2) TEU makes clear that “the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein.” [1] Yet crises repeatedly test these limits, prompting debates over whether the EU should expand its reach. As the European Parliament noted in its 2021 Resolution on the Conference on the Future of Europe, “the principle of conferral remains a constant source of debate, as crises repeatedly test the limits of Union competences,”[2]. Some Member States emphasize sovereignty and resist deeper integration, particularly in sensitive areas such as migration or defense. Others highlight the EU’s identity as a “community of values,” stressing solidarity, democracy, and human rights—domains that often require collective or integrated sovereignty to be effective. This enduring tension between national autonomy and collective purpose defines the EU’s constitutional framework and explains why questions of competence remain central to European politics.


This tension becomes especially visible in the regulation of reproductive rights, where divergent national frameworks collide with the Union’s broader commitments to fundamental rights.[3] Abortion access varies widely across Member States: countries such as Sweden, France, and the Netherlands permit abortion on request in the first trimester, while Germany and Italy impose counseling or waiting periods. In stark contrast, Poland and Malta remain highly restrictive, allowing abortion only in exceptional circumstances or banning it outright (Center for Reproductive Rights). These differences illustrate the difficulty of reconciling diverse national policies with the EU’s aspiration to act as a “community of values” grounded in solidarity, democracy, and human rights. The ongoing tension between national autonomy and collective purpose thus defines the EU’s constitutional framework and explains why questions of competence remain central to European politics.


Reproductive rights exemplify how autonomous EU institutions—through rulings of the Court of Justice, parliamentary resolutions, and funding mechanisms—bring social issues into the European arena. Their politicization demonstrates how the Union’s evolving autonomy reshapes political contestation: European Parliament elections increasingly function as genuinely transnational contests, where voters are not only choosing ideological positions but also determining the balance between national sovereignty and supranational authority. This dynamic is reinforced by the rise of digital campaigning, which transcends national borders and amplifies the European dimension of electoral politics. As Politico reports, far‑right leaders such as Jordan Bardella are using TikTok to reach millions of young followers, turning the platform into a central battleground in the European Parliament elections.[4] The spread of such strategies underscores how questions of sovereignty and integration are increasingly contested in a transnational public sphere, where social issues like reproductive rights become emblematic of the Union’s shifting constitutional boundaries.


The European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (EPF) has developed two indices designed to systematically evaluate national approaches to sexual and reproductive health policy. The first, the Abortion Policy Index, calculates country scores on the basis of more than thirty indicators. These indicators are organized into categories such as legislation, service availability, and quality of care, thereby offering a comprehensive overview of how abortion is regulated and accessed across Europe.


The second index, the Contraception Policy Index, assesses governmental frameworks in three principal domains: access to contraceptive supplies, family planning counselling, and the provision of online information. Scores are aggregated into percentage rankings, enabling comparative analysis across member states and exposing gaps in service provision and policy support.


Taken together, these indices illuminate both the diversity of national regulatory models. At the same time, they underscore the persistent tension between the prerogatives of national sovereignty and European-level initiatives aimed at promoting common standards.


Figure 1 presents the comparative results of both indices across all EU countries, as reported in the 2025 edition of the Index.

 

Figure 1. Member State Scores on Abortion and Contraceptive EPF Index, 2025


The chart reveals significant uniformity, but also a sharp divide across certain countries. At the bottom of both indices sit Poland and Hungary. Poland scores 0% for access to contraception and only 14% for access to abortion, reflecting extremely restrictive policies that leave citizens with almost no access to modern reproductive health services. Hungary fares slightly better, but still poorly relative to other nations, with a score of 44.4% for contraception and 22% for abortion, showing systemic barriers such as mandatory counseling and waiting periods.


At the other end of the spectrum, countries like Sweden and France demonstrate strong commitments to reproductive rights. Sweden leads with 97.2% for contraception and 94.6% for abortion, offering comprehensive access, decriminalized abortion, and robust public health support. France also performs well, scoring 93.2% for contraception and 85.2% for abortion, reflecting broad coverage and progressive policies.


The chart makes clear that reproductive health policies are interconnected. Nations that invest in accessible contraception tend to also support abortion rights, while restrictive states limit both. This alignment underscores a broader cultural and political divide within the EU: Western and Northern countries generally uphold reproductive autonomy, while Central and Eastern countries impose significant restrictions. This uneven playing field undermines the principle of equal rights across the Union and creates public health disparities.

 

Autonomous Integration in the EU


The European Union is unique among political institutions— unlike the United States, it is not a federation, but rather a distinctive blend of supranational authority and national sovereignty. Its supranational dimension provides a measure of collective power, enabling common policies and shared decision-making, while its sovereign dimension preserves member states’ control over core national interests.


This dual structure of supranationalism and sovereignty directly mirrors the horizontal–vertical axes of EU politics: the horizontal left–right ideological divide shapes how parties frame reproductive rights as progressive or conservative values, while the vertical integration–sovereignty divide determines whether authority over those rights rests with the Union or remains with member states. In this way, the EU’s institutional blend produces a politics that is simultaneously ideological and constitutional, making issues like reproductive policy central to both dimensions of contestation.


Vertical conflicts emerge between EU institutions and member states, centering on disputes over authority, sovereignty, and the extent of supranational involvement in reproductive policy. In contrast, horizontal conflicts arise among the member states themselves, as divergent national traditions, constitutional frameworks, and political cultures generate sharp disagreements over how reproductive health services should be regulated and made available.

 

Figure 2. Three-Dimensional View of EU Integration Dynamics

[Image created by AI using Microsoft Copilot 2026]
[Image created by AI using Microsoft Copilot 2026]

Over time, the Union’s constitutional development has moved steadily beyond the intergovernmental model. Successive treaty reforms—from Maastricht to Lisbon—expanded the competences of supranational institutions, strengthening the European Parliament’s legislative role, enhancing the Court of Justice’s authority, and empowering the Commission to initiate policy across diverse domains. These changes have gradually eroded the purely state‑controlled character of integration, opening space for EU institutions to assert greater autonomy and reshape the balance between national sovereignty and supranational authority.


Within the domain of reproductive rights, however, the older framework has perpetuated fragmentation, limiting progress to the lowest common denominator of state consensus. For advocates of a more activist Union, this arrangement offers little scope to harmonize policy or embed reproductive rights within the EU’s broader architecture of shared values. Increasingly, though, EU institutions act as independent actors, advancing their own objectives rather than merely executing the will of Member States. The Commission, Parliament, and Court of Justice exemplify this shift, embedding rights and promoting their expansion in ways that both deepen integration and reconfigure conflict—transforming vertical tensions into struggles over institutional authority and mediating horizontal divisions among Member States through supranational initiatives.


By embedding rights and promoting their expansion, these institutions both transform and deepen integration. In doing so, they reconfigure the dynamics of conflict: vertical tensions are recast as struggles over institutional authority, while horizontal divisions among member states are mediated, or even superseded, through supranational initiatives.


This emerging tension is central to contemporary EU politics, as institutions increasingly leverage their authority and coalition-building capacity to promote convergence and equity among member states. In the realm of reproductive rights, they assert that such rights are fundamental and should be uniformly safeguarded across the Union. To advance this agenda, EU institutions deploy a combination of legal and political instruments.[5]


The model’s logical structure lends itself to extension, making it well suited to capture the evolving dynamics of EU politics. As European institutions acquired greater authority, the stakes of parliamentary contestation shifted. Once the European Parliament began enacting binding legislation, it increasingly resembled a traditional legislature, performing the core functions of law‑making, budgetary control, and executive oversight much like national parliaments. This transformation prompted Members of the European Parliament to organize into disciplined ideological blocs, reinforcing the left–right divide while politicizing the very question of authority. In turn, the integration–sovereignty dimension emerged as a central axis of contestation: as supranational institutions exercised greater independence, parties and voters were compelled to confront whether power should remain at the EU level or be reclaimed nationally. In this way, the Union’s institutional autonomy reshaped electoral cleavages, rendering the future of integration inseparable from the politics of contestation within the Parliament.

 

The Evidence for Autonomy and the Transnationality of Elections


The analysis begins by examining evidence of institutional activity that promotes integration independently of the member states, thereby elevating issues such as rights protection to the European level. It then demonstrates how these developments have reshaped European Parliament elections, transforming them from “second-order” contests into genuinely transnational competitions structured around ideological polarization and the integration–sovereignty divide.

 

Institutional Activity


At the center of the European Union’s engagement with reproductive rights stand three institutions that increasingly act with autonomy: the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Each has moved beyond the role of neutral mediator of member state preferences to assert itself as an independent actor. The Parliament advances reproductive rights through resolutions and agenda-setting debates; the Commission deploys funding instruments and policy initiatives to support access to contraception and sexual health services; and the Court of Justice, through its jurisprudence, embeds reproductive rights within the broader framework of fundamental freedoms and equality.


The European Parliament has positioned itself as a vocal defender of reproductive rights, most notably through two landmark resolutions. In July 2022, it voted 324–155 in favor of a resolution calling for abortion rights to be enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, proposing the addition of the phrase “everyone has the right to safe and legal abortion” to Article 7 of the Charter. This demand was reaffirmed in April 2024, when Parliament declared that “sexual and reproductive health and rights are essential elements of women’s rights and gender equality, and must be guaranteed across the Union.”[6]


The European Commission has complemented parliamentary activism through its Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025. This strategy explicitly situates Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) at the core of the Union’s equality agenda, affirming that “access to sexual and reproductive health and rights is essential for gender equality and for women’s participation in the labour market and society.” By embedding SRHR within a broader framework of economic participation and social inclusion, the Commission underscores its autonomous role in advancing a rights-based vision of integration, extending EU influence into domains traditionally reserved to national sovereignty.[7]

The Court of Justice of the European Union has influenced reproductive rights not by directly legislating on abortion or contraception, but by situating them within broader EU law principles such as non-discrimination, free movement, and access to healthcare.


An analysis by Fien De Meyer and Céline Romainville in the European Constitutional Law Review (2024) is particularly relevant here, as it demonstrates how the CJEU acts autonomously in shaping debates on reproductive rights. Their work highlights the Court’s capacity to embed rights-based claims into the constitutional fabric of the Union, thereby reframing reproductive rights as a matter of supranational authority rather than purely national competence.[8]


For example, the Court has intervened when reproductive rights intersect with EU law, such as free movement of services, gender equality, or cross-border healthcare. In C-157/99, Geraets-Smits and Peerbooms and related rulings on cross-border healthcare, the Court applied free movement principles to medical services, requiring member states to reimburse treatments abroad. This interpretation indirectly broadened access to reproductive care, showing how the CJEU embeds rights within EU law and asserts supranational authority in a domain traditionally left to national sovereignty.[9]


These institutional efforts are supported by specialized agencies such as the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), which serves as the EU’s dedicated body for promoting gender equality, combating gender-based discrimination, and providing evidence-based research to inform policymaking across Member States.[10]


Strategically, rather than treating sexual and reproductive health and rights as a narrow or isolated issue, the EU integrates them into broader frameworks of human rights, gender equality, and social justice.[11] This approach allows the EU to influence policy by expanding the scope of application and embedding SRHR into multiple areas of governance.


SRHR are recognized as fundamental human rights under international treaties ratified by EU member states, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).


The EU has also provided funding to reproductive rights organizations, primarily through the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) program and external action instruments like the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe (NDICI–Global Europe). These mechanisms have supported CSOs working on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), gender equality, and related advocacy.[12]


A concrete example of this support can be seen in the She Decides Movement. Founded in 2017 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden, She Decides emerged as a direct response to the reinstatement of the U.S. Global Gag Rule (Mexico City Policy), which restricted U.S. funding to CSOs that provided abortion services or even engaged in abortion advocacy.[13]


She Decides has since grown into a global movement advocating for women’s and girls’ right to decide freely about their bodies, sex, and reproduction. The EU’s involvement in such initiatives demonstrates how its funding and political backing can empower CSOs to resist restrictive policies and promote reproductive freedom worldwide.

 

The Increasing Transnationality of EU Parliamentary Elections


Autonomous integration is most evident in the politicization of reproductive rights. When EU institutions advance protections for abortion and contraception, they elevate these issues beyond national frameworks and place them on the European agenda. This institutional activity reshapes electoral competition, as reproductive rights become contested along both the left–right divide and the integration–sovereignty axis, illustrating how institutional development feeds directly into the rise of transnational EU elections.


Initially, European parliamentary elections were shaped by national agendas and often functioned as referenda on domestic governments. Yet as integration advanced autonomously, citizens increasingly recognized that their votes carried direct implications for EU-level governance. In effect, autonomous integration introduced a vertical dimension of accountability, transforming elections from national exercises into genuinely European contests.


This transformation is evident in the way transnational cleavages now structure electoral competition. Issues such as reproductive rights and migration are debated across borders, with European party groups coordinating campaigns that transcend national contexts. Autonomous integration has rendered these issues European in scope, as decisions made in Brussels or Strasbourg reverberate throughout the Union. Consequently, voters are no longer merely selecting representatives of their national parties; they are engaging in a collective struggle over the future direction of the EU itself. The Union has become a political arena in its own right, and parliamentary elections increasingly function as a mechanism for legitimizing its authority at the transnational level.


This is one of the most contested questions in EU politics, because parliamentary elections sit at the intersection of national independence and supranational authority. On one hand, a recent report by the European Policy Center underscores how domestic concerns continue to dominate. Examining France, Germany, Italy, and Poland, the authors note that voters remain primarily focused on issues such as inflation, migration, energy prices, and the performance of leaders like Emmanuel Macron. On this basis, they conclude that the 2024 elections were “second order through and through.”[14]

Yet this framing obscures deeper dynamics. As political scientists Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks have shown, the “second-order” perspective fails to capture two transformative shifts reshaping EU politics. The first is ideological: traditional left–right divisions are increasingly organized along transnational cleavages. The second is structural: the emergence of the integration–sovereignty dimension, which places questions of EU authority and national autonomy at the very core of electoral competition.[15]


Early research suggested that the European Parliament lacked strong ideological structuring, but over time evidence shows that ideology became increasingly central. Hix, Noury, and Roland’s study of more than 11,500 roll-call votes between 1979 and 2001 found that party cohesion rose steadily across elections. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) began voting in disciplined ideological blocs rather than fragmented national delegations.[16] Their conclusion was clear: the left–right ideological dimension was the strongest predictor of coalition patterns in the chamber. Later studies (such as Hix & Marsh 2011) confirmed that cohesion remained strong in subsequent parliaments, and that ideological structuring grew even more pronounced as the EP gained legislative power.[17]


Alongside the traditional left–right divide, a new cleavage has emerged: integration versus sovereignty. As Hooghe and Marks note, European integration has produced a transnational conflict pitting pro-EU parties against Eurosceptic challengers.[18]  Figure 3 offers a conceptual view of this. From 2004 to 2014, parliamentary competition was largely ideological, but between 2014 and 2019 the integration–sovereignty axis rose sharply, reaching parity with the left–right spectrum. By the 2019–2024 term, sovereignty blocs had expanded to nearly one third of the chamber, making this axis the central line of conflict and redefining EU politics beyond traditional ideological boundaries.


 

Figure 3. A Conceptual Illustration of the Voting Dimensions in EU Parliamentary Elections Over Time

[Image created using AI with Microsoft Copilot 2026)]
[Image created using AI with Microsoft Copilot 2026)]

 This new axis is clearly visible in debates over reproductive rights. Rulings of the Court of Justice on reproductive health challenge restrictive national laws, while parliamentary resolutions elevate rights protections to the European level. In these cases, the conflict is not only ideological but also institutional—about whether decisions should be made collectively at the EU level or remain firmly within national control. Reproductive rights thus demonstrate that elections are no longer simply about domestic agendas: they have become contests over the balance between integration and sovereignty, and ultimately over the trajectory of the Union itself.


We see this illustrated in Figure 4. This map positions reproductive rights within the broader cleavage structure of European politics by plotting them across two axes: the traditional left–right ideological divide and the newer integration–sovereignty dimension. On the horizontal axis, progressive parties on the left tend to support reproductive freedoms such as access to abortion and contraception, while conservative parties on the right often resist these measures on moral or cultural grounds. On the vertical axis, pro-integration actors argue that reproductive rights should be guaranteed collectively at the EU level, framing them as part of a shared European identity, whereas sovereignty-focused parties insist that such decisions must remain under national control. Reading the map in this way shows that reproductive rights are not confined to ideological debates about liberalism versus conservatism; they also embody institutional struggles over whether authority should rest with member states or be exercised collectively by the Union.

 


Figure 4. A Conceptual Illustration of Reproductive Rights, Party Positions, and the Two-Dimensions

[Image created by AI using Microsoft Copilot 2026]
[Image created by AI using Microsoft Copilot 2026]

 

Reproductive rights provide a vivid illustration of how the integration–sovereignty cleavage reshapes European politics. On the ideological axis, progressive parties frame access to abortion and contraception as fundamental freedoms, while conservative parties often resist such measures on moral grounds. On the institutional axis, pro-integration actors argue that reproductive rights should be guaranteed collectively at the EU level, whereas sovereigntist parties insist they remain under national control. This tension was evident in the European Parliament’s 2021 Matić Resolution, which declared sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) fundamental to EU values and called for universal access to safe abortion and contraception.[19] It resurfaced in April 2024, when the Parliament voted to include abortion in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, elevating reproductive rights to constitutional status.[20] At the judicial level, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against Poland’s restrictive abortion laws in 2025, finding them in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.[21] Each of these interventions sparked resistance from sovereignty-focused parties, who denounced EU-level involvement as illegitimate encroachment on national authority. Taken together, these episodes show that reproductive rights are not only ideological questions of liberalism versus conservatism, but also institutional struggles over whether authority should rest with member states or be exercised collectively by the Union.


In this broader context, reproductive rights exemplify how autonomous EU institutions have propelled social issues into the heart of European politics. While not a distinct cleavage on their own, they intersect both the traditional left–right ideological divide and the integration–sovereignty axis, making them emblematic of the Union’s evolving political landscape. By advancing rights protections through legal rulings, parliamentary resolutions, and funding mechanisms, EU institutions act as independent drivers of integration, reframing reproductive rights as questions of shared European values rather than purely national prerogatives. Their politicization demonstrates how autonomous development and the rise of these two dimensions have transformed European Parliament elections into genuinely transnational contests, where voters are not only choosing ideological positions but also deciding the balance between national sovereignty and supranational authority.


Conclusion and Recommendations


Looking ahead, the trajectory of reproductive rights in the European Union will depend on whether integration is driven primarily by autonomous institutional action or by electoral dynamics.

If autonomous integration dominates:


If EU institutions continue to drive integration independently of member state consensus, reproductive rights could become locked into EU law as part of the Union’s constitutional identity. The European Parliament may push for binding directives guaranteeing access to abortion and contraception, while the Court of Justice could expand its jurisprudence to strike down restrictive national laws. This would create a supranational floor of protection, ensuring that reproductive rights are safeguarded across all member states regardless of domestic politics. The effect would be a more uniform rights landscape, but it would also intensify sovereignty-based resistance, with governments in Poland, Hungary, or other conservative states framing EU action as illegitimate interference in cultural and moral domains.


If electoral effects dominate:


Electoral dynamics will strongly shape the trajectory of reproductive rights in the EU, particularly as the rise of far-right parties intensifies the integration–sovereignty cleavage. Integrationist parties may continue to campaign on expanding reproductive freedoms as part of a progressive European identity, but far-right sovereigntist parties are increasingly mobilizing opposition by framing reproductive health as a matter of national sovereignty and cultural preservation. Their growing presence in the European Parliament, nearly one-third of seats by 2024, means reproductive rights could become a clash with integrationist states advancing protections while sovereigntist governments resist EU-level mandates.


The evolution from a primarily left–right ideological divide to a two-dimensional framework that now includes the integration–sovereignty cleavage reveals how profoundly the European Union is changing. What began as a parliament gradually disciplined by ideology has become a chamber where questions of authority and belonging to the Union are just as decisive as traditional ideological conflicts. This shift is crucial for the future of integration: it means that the EU is no longer only going to deliberate policy differences; it will also be negotiating its own identity.

 

Glossary


  • Agenda Setting -- Agenda setting refers to the process by which institutions determine which issues are prioritized, debated, and acted upon in the public or political sphere.

  • Autonomous Integration – Autonomous integration describes the process by which supranational institutions of the European Union advance integration in policy domains where the Union lacks explicit or extensive formal competences.

  • Competences -- In EU law, competences are the powers and responsibilities conferred upon the European Union by its treaties.

  • CSOs – Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are citizen-led groups that operate independently of government; non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are generally considered a subset of CSOs.

  • European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) -- an international treaty adopted in 1950 under the auspices of the Council of Europe. It is distinct from the European Union but highly influential for EU member states.

  • EU Charter of Fundamental Rights -- is the European Union’s core human rights instrument. It was proclaimed in 2000 and became legally binding with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009.

  • European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (EPF) -- a network of parliamentarians across Europe committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR).

  • Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) -- the EU’s highest judicial authority. It ensures that EU law is interpreted and applied consistently across all member states.

  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) – what is frequently offered as the international bill of rights for women. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979 and entered into force in 1981.

  • Dimension of Conflict – A dimension of conflict describes the axis along which political or institutional disputes are structured, such as left–right ideology or integration versus sovereignty in EU politics.

  • Free Movement Principles -- The principle in the EU that guarantees citizens and certain non-EU nationals can live, work, study, and travel freely across member states, subject to specific conditions.

  • Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 -- the European Commission’s roadmap for building a “Union of Equality,” focusing on ending gender-based violence, challenging stereotypes, ensuring equal participation in the labor market, and achieving pay transparency.

  • Horizontal Dimension – The horizontal dimension refers to disputes and tensions that occur across or within EU member states.

  • Index -- is a statistical measure that tracks changes in a group of related variables.

  • Intergovernmentalism -- a theory of European integration that emphasizes the dominant role of Member States in shaping the EU, rather than supranational institutions like the European Commission or the Court of Justice.

  • Lowest Common Denominator – in politics, it refers to the simplest, most basic standard that everyone can agree on

  • Mexico City Policy -- is a US government policy (also known as the US Global Gag Rule), that prohibits foreign NGOs receiving US global health assistance from providing, advocating for, or even referring to abortion services—even with their own non-US funds.

  • Political Network for Values (PNfV) -- is a transnational, ultra-conservative platform founded in 2014 that unites politicians, NGOs, and activists to promote “family, life, and freedom” in opposition to abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and progressive gender policies.

  • Reproductive Health -- a state of physical, mental, and social well-being in matters relating to the reproductive system

  • Reproductive Rights – the human rights that guarantee individuals the freedom to make decisions about reproduction, sexuality, and family planning without discrimination, coercion, or violence.

  • Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) – the framework that combines both the health dimension (medical services, prevention, care) and the rights dimension (autonomy, equality, freedom from discrimination and coercion).

  • State Sovereignty – a foundational principle of international law that claims a state has supreme authority over its territory, population, and internal affairs

  • Supranational – Supranational refers to a level of authority or governance that exists above the nation-state, with binding power over member states.

  • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) -- one of the two core treaties that form the constitutional basis of the European Union (the other being the Treaty on the European Union, TEU).

  • Treaty on the European Union (TEU) -- one of the two core treaties that form the constitutional basis of the European Union (the other being the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU).

  • Transnational – processes that cross national borders

  • US Global Gag Rule -- The US Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) is a US government policy that prohibits foreign NGOs receiving US global health assistance from providing, advocating for, or even referring to abortion services—even with their own non-US funds.

  • Vertical Dimension -- The vertical dimension refers to tensions between different levels of governance, particularly between supranational EU institutions and member states.

 


Footnotes/References


[16] Hix, Simon; Noury, Abdul; Roland, Gérard. Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, No. 2 (April 2006), pp. 494–511. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00198.x

[17] Hix, Simon, & Marsh, Michael. Second-order effects plus pan-European political swings: An analysis of European Parliament elections across time. Electoral Studies, Vol. 30, Issue 1 (2011), pp. 4–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.017

 

​Address:

2000 Duke Street, Suite 300

Alexandria, VA 22314, USA

​​Email us:

info@humanrightsresearch.org

Tax exempt 501(c)(3)

EIN: 87-1306523

© 2026 HRRC

bottom of page