Gender equality is a fundamental EU value, and a condition for the accession of new members. Yet political parties in Western Balkan candidate countries rarely prioritise it. Klaudia Koxha explains why: parties respond when Brussels and voters agree, but go quiet when their positions clash, especially on LGBTQ+ rights

Gender equality and the EU accession path

Gender equality is part of the EU acquis, embedded in accession criteria, and constantly monitored by the European Commission through yearly progress reports for each candidate country. So, why do political parties in EU candidate countries talk about it so little in their manifestos?

My recent research with Zoe Lefkofridi and Nadine Zwiener-Collins on the six Western Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia) reveals a simple but uncomfortable truth: parties promote gender equality only when it is politically safe. In other words, when EU demands align with public opinion, parties engage. When they do not, most of them stay silent.

This helps explain why progress on gender equality remains slow and inconsistent among candidate countries for EU membership, and often superficial across the region, despite ongoing EU pressure. An analysis of party manifestos issued ahead of national elections illustrates this pattern.

Despite ongoing EU pressure, parties in the Western Balkan countries promote gender equality only when it is politically safe

Programmatic documents matter because they show what parties choose to put on the political agenda, what they prioritise, what they promise voters, and which issues they consider worth political investment. These documents do not capture everything parties do in government, but they offer a clear window into political will, especially on sensitive issues that parties may prefer to downplay or avoid altogether.

In the context of EU accession, party manifestos also serve as signals to two audiences at once: EU institutions assessing reform commitment, and domestic voters whose preferences parties seek to retain.

When Brussels and voters agree, parties speak up

Gender equality encompasses a broad range of human rights, from those strictly tied to women’s rights to those related to sexual and gender identities. And there are a variety of aspects to gender inequality, including economic inequality, workplace discrimination, intolerance of gender and sexual diversity, gender-based violence, and cultural or social norms that disproportionately affect women and people with diverse gender identities. While gender is associated with many issue domains, not all of them are equally controversial.

Across the Western Balkans, public opinion data shows broad support for what is often termed 'thin' gender equality. This includes women’s rights in employment and educational opportunities, protection against gender-based violence, and political participation. Analysis of the European Commission’s reports in all six countries shows that the Commission strongly promotes these issues. Therefore, on the 'thin' dimension of gender equality, domestic voters and the Commission are in broad agreement. As a result, political parties respond.

Broadly speaking, voters across the Western Balkans support women’s rights in employment and protection against gender-based violence

Specifically, in party manifestos, references to women’s employment, childcare, and domestic violence are far more common than any other gender topic. Governing parties, in particular, emphasise these issues to signal that they are 'responsible' partners on the road to EU membership. Here, EU pressure works because it does not come at a domestic electoral cost.

When Brussels and voters clash, silence follows

The picture changes dramatically for 'thick' gender equality, encompassing historically marginalised groups; that is, women and LGBTQ+ rights in particular. In analysing the Commission’s reports, my co-authors and I found that the Commission does not prioritise 'thick' gender equality over 'thin' gender equality, but consistently urges candidate countries to protect sexual minorities, recognise same-sex partnerships, and combat discrimination. Public opinion, however, remains largely opposed to these measures. This creates a political dilemma.

Parties must choose between responsibility (following EU norms and recommendations) and responsiveness (reflecting voter preferences). Most choose the latter by avoiding the issue altogether. As a result, LGBTQ+ rights are barely mentioned in party manifestos across the region. Silence becomes a strategy. By not politicising the issue, parties minimise electoral risk while keeping EU accession rhetoric intact.

Government parties play it safest

Who speaks about gender equality also depends on who governs. Our analysis shows that governing parties mention gender issues more than opposition parties, but mostly on safe terrain. When in office, parties increase attention to women’s rights that are already socially accepted. By contrast, silencing LGBTQ+ issues allows them to minimise political risk, prevent mobilisation by anti-gender actors, and maintain electoral support, while also avoiding direct confrontation with EU norms and international commitments.

Silencing LGBTQ+ issues allows parties in office to minimise political risk, prevent mobilisation by anti-gender actors, and maintain electoral support

Opposition parties enjoy more discursive freedom and could, in principle, mobilise around societal intolerance toward LGBTQ+ voters, especially parties with more conservative values. However, openly contradicting EU norms and recommendations also constrains their positioning. In this sense, they also opt largely for non-engagement.

However, there are exceptions, which demonstrate that ideology matters. Some parties with green, liberal, or left-libertarian profiles are more willing to address LGBTQ+ rights, even when public opinion is hostile. These parties tend to frame gender equality as a matter of fundamental rights rather than electoral calculation. Still, they are few. And they are rarely in power. This means that the politicisation of 'thick' gender equality remains limited, fragmented, and often confined to opposition politics.

What this means for EU enlargement

The EU’s conditionality model assumes that pressure leads to reform. Our findings suggest the reality is more fragile. When EU norms clash with domestic attitudes, parties adapt rhetorically rather than substantively. They comply selectively, emphasising some gender issues while sidelining others. This helps explain why gender equality reforms often advance on paper but stall in practice, and why progress on LGBTIQ+ rights remains particularly slow.

If the EU wants gender equality to move beyond box-ticking, it cannot rely on elite pressure alone. Without broader societal support, political parties will continue to play it safe. And as long as they do, gender equality will remain an accessory to EU accession, rather than a driving force.