In just one month, a bill equating abortion with homicide reached the voting stage in Brazil’s Lower House. How did this happen? Daniel Baldin Machado examines how a decade of institutional changes has reshaped legislative processes to sideline scrutiny, deepen gendered biases, and weaken democratic accountability
In June 2024, some shocking news took Brazilians by surprise. The so-called 'Rape Bill', equating abortions after 22 weeks to homicide – even for sexual violence victims – was suddenly up for a vote. The surprise was justified: many Brazilians wondered how Congress could fast-track this controversial piece of legislation for a plenary vote, bypassing Brazil’s traditionally lengthy legislative process. There would be no public hearings, no petitions, no discussions – just a final vote, and the damage would be done.
The fast-tracking of the 'Rape Bill' is not an isolated event, but reflects a decade-long restructuring of formal and informal rules within Brazil’s Congress
Looking closely, however, the process surrounding the PL 1904/2024 is not an isolated event, but reflects a decade-long restructuring of formal and informal rules within Brazil’s Congress. These changes have allowed a handful of political elites to shape the legislative agenda while sidelining essential debate and scrutiny. Some politicians have systematically weakened representation for marginalised groups — especially women. In so doing, they have turned democratic institutions into tools for enacting regressive policies.
We often assume that political institutions are gender-neutral, but there are many signs of Brazilian institutions' gendered nature. In the plenary chamber of Brazil's Senate, for example, there was no women’s bathroom until 2016. The number of female representatives in the Lower and the Upper House combined is less than 20% and there is a notable lack of proper institutional venues to discuss gender-sensitive bills.
Brazilian congresswomen were the first to acknowledge these flaws and demand changes. Acting together as the Women’s Caucus (Bancada Feminina), they pushed for electoral quotas in 2009; mandatory positions in the steering bodies that decide the Congress agenda in 2013; a Women’s Rights Committee in 2016; and public funding for women candidates in 2018.
Brazilian congresswomen have fought for change and yielded positive results, yet their success has fuelled countermeasures that now undermine these gains
These changes yielded positive results: more women in Congress, more gender-related bills introduced and approved, and more congresswomen shaping the agenda. Yet, their success has fuelled countermeasures that now undermine these gains.
The passage of legislation in Brazil usually takes years – sometimes decades. Bills are introduced, assigned to committees for discussion, debated in public hearings, and revised before reaching a vote. The process was designed to ensure that a variety of different stakeholders and perspectives were considered before a bill moved to voting stage.
Nonetheless, over the past decade, procedural mechanisms that ensure transparency and debate have eroded steadily under the premise of 'legislative efficiency'. This has been the central campaign promise of almost every Congress leader in the past decade. Its effects are evident in three key changes:
Taken together, these procedural changes, often portrayed as 'neutral', significantly altered the way Congress operates. By gradually modifying its internal regulations, Congress redistributed agenda-setting power to a few empowered players around the presidents of the two Houses. Now, a handful of deputies in key positions can determine the voting agenda. They can do so regardless of the legislative procedure, technical considerations, or society’s expectations.
These changes also have important gendered dimensions. These new rules (or reinterpretation of old rules) virtually nullify most of what the Women’s Caucus has achieved to empower female representatives. The changes remove legislators’ power to debate gender-sensitive bills and prevent regressive policies from passing. The alarming speed – one month – at which the 'Rape Bill' reached the floor could never have been achieved without resorting to these institutional changes.
The new dynamic also reflects two wider global trends. The first is the broader movement of democratic backsliding worldwide. This often manifests as the centralisation of power in executive branches or by nominating conservative judges to federal courts. But such backsliding is now beginning to erode parliamentary debate and policy-making processes, too. The outcome in Brazil is similar: reduced transparency, accountability, and representativeness, with a clear pattern of institutional weakening.
With weakened committee functions, concentrated decision-making power, and without institutional means to resist backlash, lawmakers can push policies that restrict gender-related rights
The second trend is the rise of anti-gender movements. Once focused on backing conservative judges or far-right members of the Executive, deputies with a conservative or 'pro-life' stance are now turning their attention to enfeebled parliaments. Weakened committee functions, concentrated decision-making power, and a lack of institutional means to resist backlash all clear a path to push policies that restrict gender-related rights. With no time for legislators to scrutinise it, nor society to mobilise against it, Congress can, within a very short period, approve a regressive policy that restricts women’s reproductive rights.
Progressive congresspeople managed to halt voting on the 'Rape Bill' at the very last minute. The legislative process, however, still faces challenges. The recent election of new Congress leaders promises to reinstate the power of the Women’s Caucus. Yet the fragile institutional bases from previous years remain.
Will the next wave of leadership restore legislative scrutiny, or will the erosion continue? The swift passage of the 'Rape Bill' suggests that unless Congress reinstates institutional checks, the manipulation of legislative processes will remain a powerful tool for regressive policy-making in an ever-gendered political body.
No.20 in a Loop thread on Gendering Democracy. Look out for the 🌈 to read more in this series
