This article examines the collecting that occurred after the 2018 referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, using the collections database as a lens for understanding how this recent period of Irish history is currently being narrativized. The Eighth Amendment prohibited abortion in almost all circumstances by equating the life of a pregnant person to that of the unborn child; its repeal was a result of four decades of grassroots, feminist campaigning. The collections now being preserved depict this activism, and are made up of campaign documents, photographs, and first-person stories archived from Facebook. Through a close analysis of the database of the Digital Repository of Ireland, where most of these materials are held, this article argues for an interpretation of the database as a political infrastructure, which refracts existing tensions surrounding the future of Irish feminisms and the activist archive. It also examines the database’s politics of visibility in relation to the shame and silence that defined women’s position in Ireland prior to the referendum and advances a theorisation of the archival database as a historiographical technology, which plays an active role in the production of Irish identity in the wake of the Eighth.

While abortion has been a contentious and salient political issue in the United States for decades, the debate around abortion has evolved in terms of the rhetorical frames employed by advocates on both sides. Using vignettes of statements made by hypothetical lawmakers, we evaluate responsiveness to some of these emergent frames. Specifically, we evaluate “pro-woman” framing employed by pro-life advocates, which positions abortion restrictions as being in the interests of women. The experiment also manipulates to whom the frame is attributed in two ways, the gender and the partisanship of the lawmaker. This 2 × 2 × 2 experiment explores the intersection of how abortion restrictions are framed, including the roles gender and partisanship in the persuasiveness of the frames. We find that voters are more receptive to the pro-woman frame compared to the classic fetal rights framing. Importantly, this holds even among supporters of abortion rights, casting substantial light on persuadable groups.

Women’s reproductive autonomy matters for gender equality, but abortion laws rarely pass without limitations and restrictions on access. Legislative abortion reform also triggers conservative resistance, forcing feminists to develop new strategies to protect rights. While scholars often study abortion laws’ adoption and implementation separately, we identify patterns in feminists’ decisions during adoption, on the one hand, and conservative actors’ responses and feminists’ strategies during implementation, on the other. We propose an analytic framework that maps different decisions during adoption onto different strategies during implementation. During adoption, we distinguish between acceptable conditions and strategic sacrifices. During implementation, the latter allows feminists to play offense while the former forces feminists into playing defense. We develop this framework through in-depth primary research in Chile and Uruguay alongside evidence from three additional Global South cases. Our framework helps scholars and policy makers alike to anticipate how decisions during adoption affect actors’ behavior during implementation.

This article examines multi-vector pro-life exchanges between Poland and two American countries: the United States and Chile. We make the case that the 1970s through 1990s represent a significant historical moment that yielded both transplantable templates and direct longitudinal consequences for transnational social activism in the twenty-first century. We argue that during this time Poland acted as an incubation site for pro-life transnationalism, where “right to life” became the rallying cry of new generations of Catholic Far Right thinkers and activists like the politician Marek Jurek and journalists and social activists Ewa Kowalewska and Lech Kowalewski. The transnational entanglements that empowered Jurek, Kowalewska, and Kowalewski assumed intellectual and political forms, while also producing direct contact and active exchange of tactics, ideas, and know-how with the leaders of the U.S. pro-life movement such as John Willke or Father Paul Marx. Our study, situated at the intersection of intellectual history and social movement studies, highlights the importance of examining transnationalism with full attention to its local rootedness, and makes a case for incorporating non-progressive social activism into the post-1989 story of civic and social mobilization.

The overturning of the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade (1973) in the United States during the summer of 2022 with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated the nearly 50-year constitutional right to abortion, leading to the introduction of numerous new restrictions. This article examines how the language used in federally proposed anti-abortion legislation has evolved in the aftermath of the Roe decision. By exploring the gender and power dynamics that shape the contemporary abortion debate, alongside feminist legal theory, this study analyzes the language and effects of five bills that have been introduced since the ruling. After analyzing the proposed bills, there was a noticeable shift in anti-abortion strategies by Republican elected officials. Rather than directly criminalizing pregnant individuals, these bills target abortion providers, state funding, and the dissemination of information. This indirect approach sets to restrict abortion access by making it practically unattainable for many regardless of its legality.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision ending federal constitutional protection for abortion, interstate and federal-state conflicts are revealing the importance of federalism to reproductive justice. This shift has implications for health and social science research agendas because scientific evidence plays a less significant role in disputes over which government actor is empowered to regulate reproduction than it does in conflicts over reproductive rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization removed the federal right to an abortion, thereby entrusting the states to decide the fate of women’s reproductive health care policies. The outcome activated pro-choice and pro-life groups in efforts to secure favorable policies in states. One tool that groups have utilized to gain support for their position involves selective framing of women’s reproductive policies, including careful selection of wording employed in popular referenda. Using a survey experiment, this study investigates how word/phrase choice influences support for women’s reproductive policies. Two general findings stand out. First, word/phrase choices significantly impact aggregate levels of support for policies. Second, predictor variables exhibit non-static relationships with support across statements. For example, some gender gaps were evident in support for general statements and pro-choice-leaning statements but absent for specific statements and pro-life-framed statements. These findings hold implications for elections on reproductive health policies.

This commentary analyzes the recent attacks on adolescents’ access to contraception by religious and parental rights activists and the conservative legal movement. Specifically, we focus on Deanda v. Becerra, a 2024 case in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Texas state law requiring parental consent for minors to access contraception is not preempted by a longstanding policy under Title X of the federal Public Health Service Act that prohibits clinics receiving federal funding from requiring parental consent or notification. We first describe existing laws governing minors’ confidential access to reproductive health care, including the federal constitutional framework for parental rights, state parental notification and consent laws, and Title X, the federal law that provides federal funds to reproductive health care clinics for low-income people. We then examine and critique the Federal District Court ruling in Deanda, which elevated individual religious and parental rights over public health concerns, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in that case, which undermined federal public health authority and jeopardized access to reproductive health care for low-income adolescents. Finally, we assess the public health and reproductive rights implications of restricted access to reproductive health care for minors and consider possible future directions and advocacy opportunities for reproductive, public health and legal advocates to promote continued access to contraception for adolescents despite mounting legal challenges.

In a “mixed bag” 2023-2024 session, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of decisions both favorable and antithetical to public health and safety. Taking on tough constitutional issues implicating gun control, misinformation, and homelessness, the Court also avoided substantive reviews in favor of procedural dismissals in key cases involving reproductive rights and government censorship.

Research in social psychology has long argued that exposure to objectifying portrayals of women can lead to increasingly misogynist attitudes and behavior. We argue that such images can also impact on gendered policy attitudes. We suggest that objectifying images prime sexist attitudes and reduce perceptions of women’s agency, warmth, and competence. We argue that this may translate into decreased support for reproductive rights and other gender-salient policies. Furthermore, these effects may vary by the gender of those exposed to these images. In two survey experiments with brief exposures to objectifying images, we find mixed support for these predictions. Although we find some negative effects as predicted, we also find positive effects of objectification among women in the sample that are suggestive of a backlash effect. We discuss potential explanations for this heterogeneity. Overall, our results suggest interesting avenues to further explore the effects of objectification on political outcomes.

By tracing the history of abortion politics in Hungary since World War I, this article covers a century of conflict with particular attention to gynecologists’ self-serving professional jockeying and lobbying under very different political regimes. It suggests that nationalism has been a pivotal element of the abortion debates that both government actors and gynecologists have shaped over the last hundred years and argues that abortion rights were differently recognized in eastern and western Europe during the Cold War because of the legacy of mass wartime rapes committed by the Soviet troops in Hungary, among other countries, which determined those countries’ postwar legislation on abortion and reproductive rights. The article introduces the rarely researched contribution of the gynecologist lobby to the debates by examining how they could represent their own interests independently of political regime. Today, Hungary's illiberal regime questions the legitimacy of abortion by normalizing US fundamentalist-Christian discourse because anti-abortion policy fits into its nation-building course.