🔦 Our findings highlight that Supreme Court rulings are not endpoints of policymaking. Instead, they can be starting points for post-reform politics that ultimately determine whether—and to what extent—citizens can access newly established reproductive rights.🧵 🔚

2️⃣ Rulings’ ambiguity shapes the room for resistance: the vague verdict validating Mexico City’s abortion decriminalization 🇲🇽 enabled reform opponents to push for explicit right-to-life amendments, whereas the clearer mandate in Roe 🇺🇸 forced anti-choice activists to pursue incremental restrictions.

We show that 2 features of Supreme Court rulings matter for reform opponents’ resistance tactics:

1️⃣ The type of rulings determines the policymaking authority states retain, shaping how actors seek to limit rulings’ impact - either by hindering implementation 🇺🇸 or by preventing diffusion 🇲🇽.

⚖️ While courts have become crucial arenas for policy change, their rulings—especially on highly politicized issues—rarely settle the debate. In federal systems, reform opponents can strategically target multiple arenas to promote legislation that limits judicial impact.

We show that 2 features of Supreme Court rulings matter for reform opponents’ resistance tactics:

1️⃣ The type of rulings determines the policymaking authority states retain, shaping how actors seek to limit rulings’ impact—by hindering their implementation 🇺🇸 or by preventing their diffusion 🇲🇽.

⚖️ While courts have become crucial arenas for policy change, their rulings—especially on highly politicized issues—rarely settle the debate. In federal systems, reform opponents can strategically target multiple arenas to promote legislation that limits judicial impact.

As more right-wing populists enter the EP, anti-gender organizations gain allies—and access.

Their stated goal? To reshape EU institutions from within—from arenas of feminist activism into sites of political contestation—putting gender equality & sexual & reproductive rights in Europe at risk. 🧵🔚

📌 Not all anti-gender orgs in the network are equally powerful. Most are peripheral—but a few act as “hubs,” bridging civil society & institutional arenas. These orgs are key gatekeepers, shaping advocacy agendas and determining which movement ideas are imported into decision-making spaces.

How do they collaborate?

📌 I map a network of 176 joint activities from 2007 to 2022—conferences, workshops, petitions, reports, and more.

📌 Shared characteristics drive connections: orgs representing similar interests and politicians from the same country tend to collaborate more.

Who’s involved?

📌 36 organizations— of which 10 represent conservative Christian churches and 4 represent the US Christian Right 🇺🇸✝️

📌 63 politicians from I&D, ECR, and EPP groups. 5 sit on the FEMM committee—working against gender & sexual equality from within the body meant to advance it.

Our study contributes to efforts to integrate (gendered) identities, emotions, and power dynamics into the ACF. More to come! 🤓

📌 Fundamental beliefs unite diverse actors across policy subsystems but also make deep core coalitions vulnerable to internal tensions and splintering, especially when intersecting identities come into play.

📌 Deep core coalitions operate at the macro level, strategically engaging in those policy subsystems where they experience threats to their beliefs or where their advocacy has the most chance of succeeding.

Key takeaways:

📌 Deep core coalitions form in response to threats to their fundamental beliefs from political opponents, policy subsystems, or broader societal shifts. These threats are experienced as existential, fuelling polarization and coalition-building beyond specific policy issues.