European Parliament Condemns Surrogacy but Calls Lack of Abortion Access a Form of Violence

New strategy for equality

On November 13, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the gender equality strategy for 2025 (2024/2125(INI))¹, in which it called on the European Commission to adopt a new gender equality strategy for 2026-2030. The European Parliament identified the key areas and objectives that the strategy should pursue and supported the continuation of the equality policy set out in the previous Gender Equality Strategy for 2020-2025. The resolution also included a position on so-called surrogate motherhood, i.e., surrogacy. The European Parliament condemned this practice and called on the European Commission to take measures aimed at eliminating it.

The European Commission has been working on a new strategy for quite some time and has announced its adoption for the first quarter of 20262.² To date, the Commission has not published a draft strategy, so we do not know what form it is intended to take. However, information about the likely direction and contours of the strategy can be drawn from the European Commission’s “invitation to submit comments”—a very concise document outlining the strategy’s general framework, as well as the Gender Equality Strategy for 2020–2025 that remains in force until this year3.³ On March 7, 2025, the Commission also adopted an action plan on women’s rights⁴, which is intended to serve as the basis for developing targeted legal and policy measures specifically within the framework of the gender equality strategy for the period after 2025. However, these documents do not address the issue of surrogacy.

The resolution adopted recently by the European Parliament is a strong voice of support for the EC’s equality policy, but also a tool for MEPs to influence the shape of the strategy.

Opinion of the Ordo Iuris Institute

In June, the Ordo Iuris Institute submitted an opinion to the European Commission in connection with the ongoing work on the new Gender Equality Strategy for 2025–2030, in which it pointed out that gender equality understood through the lens of gender ideology does not constitute a fight against discrimination; on the contrary, it often serves as its basis. Therefore, it is inadvisable for the European Commission to continue a policy based on eliminating all differences between women and men. Ordo Iuris recommended a thorough change and overhaul of the EU’s equality policy based on an analysis of its results to date. These results clearly indicate the ineffectiveness of gender policy, which is further confirmed by the growing public discontent associated with it. Ordo Iuris emphasized in its opinion that abandoning gender ideology will make it possible to identify the actual sources of violence, including violence against women, and, consequently, will open up the possibility of taking effective measures to prevent it. Ordo Iuris also pointed out that policy on gender equality should respect preferences and personal choices. This applies to both the professional sphere (participation in the labor market, choice of occupation) and the sphere of civic engagement (political representation). Finally, equality policy cannot be based on systemic discrimination, including discrimination against unborn children – which should per se follow from the very concept of equality. Emphasizing this fact was necessary in light of recurrent notions in the EU that regard unrestricted access to abortion as a “woman’s right” 5.⁵

The European Parliament speaks out

The European Parliament resolution largely reiterates the concept of equality and of defining discrimination on the basis of the mere existence of differences between the sexes, which is fully consistent with the approach proposed by the European Commission.

The European Parliament expressed, among other things, its deep concern that “movements opposing gender equality policies, family diversity, same-sex marriage, sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), and gender mainstreaming try to influence national and European policymaking” (Recital D of the resolution). It might seem that the marked increase in such sentiments worldwide, often interpreted as a “societal awakening,” could provide grounds for rethinking the ideological course chosen by EU policymakers. However, the EU’s response is radically different.

Men’s Rebellion

Instead, the European Parliament denounces all the “increasingly successful and popular” movements that men in particular engage in and that “promoting the false narrative that feminism and gender equality have come at the cost of men’s rights, using extreme language”. MEPs describe that part of society which in recent years has observed the increasing discrimination against men in the name of a caricatured version of “gender equality” pushed by the EU as people who “are normalizing violence against women and girls” and are responsible for a “radicalization” (point D of the resolution).

In paragraph 72 of its resolution, the European Parliament calls on the Commission ” to explore the growing divergence in attitudes between young men and women towards gender equality, to assess its societal consequences, particularly in online spaces, and to develop measures to address and counter the rise of misogynistic, far-right values among boys and young men concerning gender equality and women’s rights. “

The European Parliament would like to counteract the spread of such “harmful” attitudes and views. Therefore, among other things, it calls on the Commission to “encourage and engage men as active allies in the promotion of SRHR (sexual and reproductive health and rights) to address the broader context of the rising backlash among young men against young women and feminism” (point 28 of the resolution), and also points out that “boys should be encouraged to enter the EHW (education, health and welfare)” (point 52 of the resolution), which is intended to reduce gender inequalities. The European Parliament (EP) recognizes that the key sectors today are STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), AI (artificial intelligence), and digital technologies—therefore it intends to take all possible measures and deploy funding that will result in removing men from them and bringing women in. However, anyone who believes that the EP seeks to achieve “gender equality” in these sectors by ensuring a comparable representation of women and men is mistaken. It is worth noting that, for example, recital S of the resolution states that women account for “only” 41 percent of jobs in the science and engineering sector in the EU. This raises the question of what percentage breakdown would be satisfactory for the EU.

It is also worth relating the financial issues raised by the EP to the theme of “young men with harmful views” that recurs quite often in the resolution. Parliament calls on the Commission (point 74 of the resolution) to “ensure sustainable and accessible funding for organizations working to promote women’s rights,” and, in particular, to maintain the CERV program (Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values) as a separate program under direct management and to significantly increase its funding, thereby enabling it to respond to “growing threats and challenges to the space for civil society and EU values”. The European Parliament also calls on the Commission to maintain the special component of this program relating to gender equality and women’s rights, including sexual and reproductive health and rights.

In March 2025, the Ordo Iuris Institute reported serious concerns, including those related to the CERV program.⁶

Abortion as a human right

For many years, the European Parliament has consistently maintained that abortion is a human right. It just as consistently ignores the most fundamental human right to life, unrestricted by age, sex, health status, or any other factor.

It is therefore not surprising that, also in its most recent resolution, in point 29, the European Parliament calls for the inclusion of “the right to safe and legal abortion” in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and, in recital H, it states that abortion—as a component of “sexual and reproductive rights”— is “essential element of comprehensive healthcare provision”. The European Parliament reiterates the concept of “safe and legal abortion care,” according to which an abortion is health care and a legal abortion is a safe abortion—which is not true, because every abortion is the death of a child and poses a serious risk to the mother’s life or health.

In point I of the resolution, it explicitly states that “the denial of safe and legal abortion services” constitutes “gender-based violence” and violates fundamental human rights. Interestingly, the European Parliament points out that “more than 20 million women in the EU still lack access to safe and legal abortion and other SRHR”, which entails dire consequences for them in every sphere of life, both private and social. At the same time, to support its position, the European Parliament cites the European Citizens’ Initiative “My Voice, My Choice”, which, among other things, calls on the EU to guarantee everyone access to safe and legal abortion. As the European Parliament itself points out, this initiative collected… 1.2 million signatures, which amounts to support of just 6 percent for the initiative, and that’s under the not very realistic assumption that only women signed it. Despite this, the European Parliament maintains that the initiative is a success that legitimizes the EU in taking action in line with the intent of its initiators, because of the ” EU citizen’s broad support for enabling everyone in the EU to have access to safe abortion care, no matter who they are or where they come from” (point 30 of the resolution).

Violence in EU Member States

One of the flagship areas in the fight for gender equality is combating gender-based violence, which, as a rule, is referred to in EU documents exclusively as violence against women. However, it is worth noting the data that—just as the EC did earlier—the EP provides. Point J of the resolution states, inter alia, that “in the EU, 31 % of women aged 18-74 experienced physical (including threats) or sexual violence in adulthood and 20 % of women experienced physical (including threats) or sexual violence by a non-partner.” Recital K of the European Parliament resolution also states that “data shows that in 2022, there was a 25 % increase in documented cases of sexual assault against women in the EU and reported cases of rape surged by 40 % compared to 2019”. Moreover, “up to 55 % of women in the European Union have experienced sexual harassment in public transport” (recital K of the resolution).

Therefore, it is worth emphasizing two points. First, the data used by the EP represent an average of the results of surveys conducted across all EU member states. Once again, EU officials completely ignore the fact that the differences in the scale of violence among EU member states are enormous.⁷ It is therefore worth emphasizing that while in Poland 5 percent of respondents report having experienced sexual violence (only Bulgaria has a lower rate than ours—3.4 percent), in Sweden it is as high as 41 percent, in Finland 37.3%, in Denmark 33.3%, and in Luxembourg 30%. Overall, the lowest level of violence was recorded in Bulgaria (11.9%) and in Poland (16.7%), while the highest was in Hungary (49.1%) and in Denmark (47.5%).⁸

However, relying on averaged results for the entire EU will not answer questions about the causes of violence, nor will it suggest what measures can be used to eliminate it. However, as long as we rely on averaged data, it is harder to notice the correlation between the rise in violence and a given country’s openness to migration.

Secondly, nowhere in the resolution does the European Parliament indicate that it sees a correlation between the mass migration to EU member states in recent years and the rise in violence against women, which suggests that, despite such alarming data, one should not expect any major revision of the EU’s current migration policy. The solution proposed by the European Parliament is to introduce a “harmonised definition of the offence of rape based on the absence of consent” (see points 2 and 11 of the resolution). Setting aside the validity of such a wording of the definition, one cannot agree that any change to the definition could affect the extent of the violence itself. It may be a way to hold more offenders criminally liable, but it is not a tool that will reduce the number of the offenses themselves.

Opposition to surrogacy

On the positive side, however, in the same resolution the European Parliament firmly opposes the practice of surrogacy and demands that the European Commission take measures to eliminate this practice.

The European Parliament stresses that it “condemns the practice of surrogacy, which involves the reproductive exploitation and use of women’s bodies for financial or other gain, in particular in the case of especially vulnerable women in third countries,” and calls on the Commission to “take measures to support ending this phenomenon (paragraph 14 of the resolution).”

Surrogacy has long been the subject of serious debate on the international stage. In 2023, one hundred experts from more than 75 countries signed the so-called “Casablanca Declaration,” a document calling for the universal elimination of surrogacy.⁹

The Hague Conference (HCCH – Hague Conference on Private International Law) has for years been debating issues related to the legal regulation of surrogacy.¹⁰ In 2015, the Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the Hague Conference on Private International Law decided to convene an Experts’ Group to assess the progress of work in this area,¹¹ and since 2023, a Working Group has been active, which is working on a private international law instrument that will enable a uniform resolution of the issue of legal parentage.¹² The HCCH emphasizes, however, that it is neither “for” nor “against” surrogacy, and that the purpose of its work is to develop solutions that will safeguard the child’s interests, given that surrogacy, regardless of its legality, is a reality. Although the Working Group formally remains active, information received by the Ordo Iuris Institute indicates that its members have been unable to reach a consensus, which may result in the abandonment of work on the project in early 2026.

In 2025, Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, presented a report¹³, in which she explicitly stated that surrogacy is associated with numerous human rights violations, including human trafficking. Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur recommends taking action at the international level to eliminate all forms of surrogacy. Pending its abolition, States should also take, among other things, measures to prevent further harm and to strengthen the protection of the rights of women and children involved in surrogacy arrangements.

The Ordo Iuris Institute has also repeatedly participated in discussions and consultations on this practice, presenting its analyses and opinions and contributing to the work of, among others, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women.¹⁴ The Ordo Iuris Institute emphasized that surrogacy, as a contract whose subject is a woman’s body and a child, is an impermissible practice in light of fundamental human rights. Surrogacy is human trafficking—both with respect to a woman’s body and to the child—and is also associated with the objectification of women and children, violence, exploitation, and the deprivation of human beings of their inherent dignity. Under Polish law, surrogacy agreements are null and void as being contrary to the principles of the legal order. The law also clearly states that “the mother of the child is the woman who gave birth to it” (Article 61⁹ of the Family and Guardianship Code¹⁵)

Vote on the resolution

It is worth noting that the European Parliament also voted on an alternative draft resolution. Mathilde Androuët, on behalf of the PfE (Patriots for Europe) group, argued that gender ideology, which denies natural differences between the sexes, threatens women’s rights. In her view, the resolution on gender equality should defend “real, not ideological, equality that protects women from violence, instability, pornography, surrogacy, the violent imposition of transgenderism on children, and the dangers associated with migration.” However, this project did not receive sufficient support.¹⁶

310 Members of the European Parliament voted to adopt the resolution in its final form. There were 222 against, while 68 abstained. The resolution was adopted with the votes of left-wing, center-left, and some center-right MEPs.¹⁷

The text of the adopted resolution does not really allow for a particularly optimistic assumption about the shape of the future strategy. Despite maintaining the EU’s current course on equality policy, we can nevertheless expect a positive shift in the approach to surrogacy. In view of the growing worldwide opposition to surrogacy practices, and the fact that the European Parliament has also added its voice, it can be expected that the European Commission will take a similar stance. This is undoubtedly a step toward the genuine protection of the rights of women, children, and families.

Anna Kubacka – analyst at the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.

1 European Parliament resolution of 13 November 2025 on the strategy for gender equality for 2025 (2024/2125(INI)), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-10-2025-0278_EN.html, (accessed: November 22, 2025).

2 EC, Initiatives: Gender Equality Strategy 2026-2030, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14611-Gender-Equality-Strategy-2026-2030_en, (accessed: November 21, 2025).

3 Information on the initiative “Gender Equality Strategy 2026-2030” along with an invitation to submit comments: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14611-2026-2030- gender-equality-strategy_en, (accessed: November 20, 2025).

4 EC, A Roadmap for Women’s Rights, COM(2025) 97 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0097, (accessed: November 21, 2025).

5 Ordo Iuris, Opinion on the European Commission’s initiative “Gender Equality Strategy 2026–2030” (in Polish), https://ordoiuris.pl/analiza/opinia-w-sprawie-inicjatywy-komisji-europejskiej-strategia-na-rzecz-rownouprawnienia-plci-na-lata-2026-2030/, (accessed: November 21, 2025).

6 A. Kubacka, Following the USA’s lead, will Europe also oppose funding ideological propaganda? MCC Report, March 18, 2025 (in Polish), https://ordoiuris.pl/komentarz/czy-sladem-usa-rowniez-europa-sprzeciwi-sie-finansowaniu-ideologicznej-propagandy-raport-mcc/, (accessed: November 25, 2025).

7 Cf. A. Kubacka, The European Commission’s Gender Equality Plan: Back to Work for Women, Childcare for Children, and Discrimination for Men, October 21, 2025, https://ordoiuris.pl/en/comments/the-european-commissions-gender-equality-plan-back-to-work-for-women-childcare-for-children-and-discrimination-for-men/, (accessed: November 25, 2025).

8 EU gender-based violence survey: Key results. Experiences of women in the 27 EU Member States, 2024, https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/publications/eu-gender-based-violence-survey-key-results?language_content_entity=en, (accessed: September 17, 2025).

9 Declaration of Casablanca for the Universal Abolition of Surrogacy, https://declaration-surrogacy-casablanca.org/text-of-declaration/, (accessed: November 22, 2025).

10 HCCH, Surrogacy Project,https://www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/parentage-surrogacy, (accessed: November 22, 2025).

11 See A. Kubacka, A law that may eliminate “mother” and “father”. Analysis of the draft EU regulation “Cross-border family situations – recognition of parenthood” (in Polish), Warsaw 2023, pp. 14 ff., https://ordoiuris.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/pl_prawo_ktore_moze_wyeliminowac_matke_i_ojca.pdf, (accessed: November 26, 2025).

12 HCCH, Working Group on Parentage / Surrogacy: Report of the fourth meeting (April 7–11, 2025), https://assets.hcch.net/docs/8d89dc05-3303-49c9-b929-35d62a368fed.pdf, (accessed: November 25, 2025).

13 UN, Violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n25/187/89/pdf/n2518789.pdf, (accessed: November 23, 2025).

14 See, among others, Instrumental treatment of children and violence against women – Ordo Iuris opinion for the UN on surrogacy, April 2025,https://ordoiuris.pl/en/press-newsdesk/instrumental-treatment-of-children-and-violence-against-women-ordo-iuris-opinion-for-the-un-on-surrogacy/, (accessed: 20.11.2025), Abortion and surrogacy violate women’s rights – Ordo Iuris statement to the UN, 10.2025, https://ordoiuris.pl/en/press-newsdesk/abortion-and-surrogacy-violate-womens-rights-ordo-iuris-statement-to-the-un/, (accessed: November 23, 2025).

15 Polish Act of 25 February 1964. Family and Guardianship Code (consolidated text, Official Journal of 2023, item 2809, as amended).

16 EP, Verbatim report of proceedings – November 12, 2025, speech by Mathilde Androuët, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-10-2025-11-12-ITM-019_EN.html, (accessed: November 15, 2025).

17 Gender Equality Strategy for 2025 – vote, PV 13/11/2025 – 6.24, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2025-11-13-ITM-006-24_EN.html, (accessed: November 19, 2025).