In recent years, gender equality has become a major political battleground. At the heart of this conflict is the 2011 Istanbul Convention to combat violence against women. Andrea Krizsán and Conny Roggeband examine which factors drive support or opposition to the Convention, across a variety of European countries.
by Andrea Krizsán & Conny Roggeband, The Loop
March 10, 2025
The Istanbul Convention (IC) is a Council of Europe (CoE) treaty designed to combat violence against women, and gender inequality. While many countries have embraced the convention, others have resisted, often citing concerns over how ‘gender ideology’ threatens traditional values. In our research with Michael C. Zeller, published in Comparative Political Studies, and covering all CoE member states, we delve into the factors that drive support for or opposition to the IC. Our findings provide a critical lens through which to view the broader struggle over gender equality.
The Istanbul Convention: a landmark treaty under attack
The Istanbul Convention, adopted in 2011, is one of the most significant international agreements aimed at preventing and combating violence against women. It sets out a legal framework to address gender-based violence, emphasising its deep-rooted connections to gender inequality.
Initially, the treaty enjoyed significant success, with 34 countries ratifying it by 2019. However, opposition soon followed. Many critics, especially from right-wing and religious groups, argued that the Convention promoted ‘gender ideology’, a term used to describe policies that challenge traditional gender roles. Critics took issue with provisions defining gender as a social construct, and with those advocating for cultural and educational changes to promote gender equality.
While the treaty enjoyed initial success, opposition soon followed, with many arguing the Convention promoted ‘gender ideology’
Backlash against the IC has provoked resistance in several countries, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia, refused to ratify it. Others, like Poland, considered withdrawing from the treaty. Turkey, the first to ratify, pulled out in 2021.
Why some support and others reject the Convention
Building on previous qualitative case study research, our study identifies several key factors that influence whether a country ratifies or rejects. We can group them into four broad categories:
- Strength of opposition to gender equality
In many cases, resistance comes from strong anti-gender movements, often led by conservative religious groups, right-wing political parties, and nationalist organisations. These groups argue that the Convention threatens traditional family structures and national values. The presence of a homogeneous religious majority — especially in countries with dominant Catholic or Orthodox Christian traditions — often strengthens this opposition. - Support for gender equality
On the flipside, strong feminist movements and widespread public support for gender equality make ratification more likely. Countries with greater political empowerment for women, and a history of feminist activism, tend to embrace the IC. - State and government factors
A country’s political landscape also plays a crucial role. Solidly right-wing governments are far less likely to support the IC, while left-leaning or centrist governments, especially those aligned with the EU, are more inclined to ratify. - International pressure and conditionality
Some countries ratify the IC not necessarily out of strong commitment to gender equality but because of international pressure. EU candidate countries, for instance, see ratification as a means of aligning with European norms and increasing their chances of joining the bloc.
While all these factors are important, none is sufficient to determine whether ratification takes place or not.
Right-wing governments are less likely to support the Istanbul Convention; left-leaning or centrist governments are more inclined to ratify
Four paths to ratification: a comparative analysis
Our study examines which combinations of the factors above are likely to lead to ratification. Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis, we identify four distinct pathways for countries to ratify:
- Role model countries – These are nations with robust public support for gender equality and strong female political empowerment. Examples include Sweden and Spain, where feminist movements play a significant role in shaping policy.
- EU dependents – Some countries ratify the IC merely to fulfil EU accession criteria rather than because they support gender equality. Several Southeast European countries, including Ukraine, are prime examples.
- Pro-EU governments overcoming opposition – In some cases, pro-European governments ratify the IC despite strong domestic opposition. This often happens in countries which are experiencing democratic backsliding but still seek to maintain ties with the EU; think Poland or Croatia during their ratification phases. The absence of support for gender equality and unreliable support for gender equality organisations makes this an unstable path.
- ‘Tame’ Catholicism – Some Catholic-majority countries, such as Italy and Portugal, ratified the IC despite religious conservatism. They could do so because anti-gender mobilisation was weaker than in, say, Slovakia or the Czech Republic. But strengthening opposition to gender equality also exposes these countries to backsliding in gender equality. Italy under Giorgia Meloni is a prime example.
The future of the Istanbul Convention and gender equality in Europe
The battle over the IC is part of a larger global struggle over gender and sexual rights. The rise of right-wing populist movements, combined with growing anti-gender activism, poses a significant threat to advances in gender equality.
At the same time, resistance to anti-gender movements is strong. Feminist groups, human rights organisations, and progressive governments continue to advocate for policies that protect women’s rights.
Gender equality is never a given — it must be actively defended against those who seek to dismantle it
Our study highlights the complex interplay between politics, religion, and gender in shaping policy decisions. It offers a critical reminder that gender equality is never a given — it must be actively defended against those who seek to dismantle it. Two of the most important components in such resistance are strong popular support for equality, along with the political empowerment of women and gender equality organisations.
A litmus test
The Istanbul Convention is a litmus test for a country’s commitment to gender equality. For some nations, it is a necessary tool to combat gender-based violence. For others, it is a symbol of unwanted social change.
Understanding the reasons behind these differing attitudes sheds light on the broader struggles over gender and human rights in today’s turbulent political landscape. Our study offers a crucial framework for analysing these tensions, and provides valuable insights into the ongoing fight for gender equality in Europe, and beyond.
This article was originally published at The Loop and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.