In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, concluding that the U.S. Constitution does not provide federal protections for a woman’s right to choose. But in 2023, Mexico’s Supreme Court issued a ruling that unanimously recognized a woman’s right to legal and safe abortion care, deciding that the legal system criminalizing abortion “violates the human rights of women and people with the ability to gestate.” At the time, around 20 Mexican states still criminalized abortion, but Mexico’s Supreme Court ruling marked an important development of federal protections for abortion in the country, where violence against women and femicides have been prevalent. 

How could Mexico–a state that is often seen as less democratic than the United States–be moving towards becoming more progressive for abortion rights, while the U.S is moving in the opposite direction? 

Reproductive rights are an essential component of democracy, and are indicators of the democratic quality of a state. A rise in abortion bans globally represents a decline in democracy, by legally restricting the autonomy and healthcare of women, and therefore not adequately responding to the needs of citizens, as is suggested in a progressive definition of democracy. 

In defining democracy, political theorist Robert Dahl emphasizes the “responsiveness of the government” to the voting decisions of constituents. However, Dahl’s description of democracy–though addressing important freedoms of expression and representation–is inherently minimalist. It fails to account for an outcome-oriented definition of democracy, where governments are responsible for protecting the freedoms of citizens through policy and federal institutions. 

Abortion rights must be protected by a democratic government, as neglecting to do so infringes upon individual autonomy. Although the definition of the “common good” of citizens cannot be “uniquely determined,” as political economist Joseph Schumpeter claims in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, democracy cannot be measured based on electoral or governmental procedures alone, and the protection of individual needs and civil liberties remains a crucial indicator.

However, Andrew Little and Anne Meng argue that measuring democratic erosion must be based on “objective” indicators, specifically the quality of a state’s “free and fair” elections. But even though they do not consider it the best indicator for measuring democratic backsliding, Little and Meng admit that a decline in civil liberties and human rights protections can erode political rights. 

Yana Gorohkovskaia, a researcher for Freedom House, explains that backsliding in civil liberties can impact “people’s lived experience” and undermine citizens’ freedoms. In Freedom House’s measure of democracy using both political rights and civil liberties, specifically with its ranking of the United States and Mexico, abortion rights inform the measure of “personal autonomy and individual rights.” In fact, Mexico’s score for social personal freedoms under this category increased by one point, following the Mexican Supreme Court’s 2023 decision. Conversely, the United States’ score dropped by one point in the same category, after its Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Regardless of these opposing trends, Mexico is viewed overall as less democratic than the United States, given its issues regarding political violence, public attacks on the press, violence from cartels and deep corruption among government officials. The United States, Mexico’s neighbor to the north, while experiencing anti-democratic attacks on electoral processes and governmental systems, has a reputation of having a strong democracy. But in the United States, with an erosion of civil liberties such as abortion rights, political processes and structures cannot be the sole determinant of its democratic status, especially when being compared to other states. Democracy is multi-dimensional, and must include the protection of progressive freedoms, including abortion and healthcare access. 

In the United States, 21 states currently have either a complete ban on abortion, or harsher restrictions than were permitted under Roe v. Wade. The issue of abortion remains a key issue in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, as both candidates hold starkly different views on passing national abortion protections. 

The United States is one of four countries that have significantly restricted abortion rights in the last 25 years. The others are El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Poland, according to The Center for American Progress. All of these countries have been experiencing democratic retrogression in recent years, as measured by Freedom House. 

Recent efforts to provide wider abortion access in Mexico–such as a new abortion clinic in Cancun–also serve to help American women, who may have to travel out of the United States to escape restrictions. This is especially beneficial for women living in states with very restrictive abortion laws, such as Louisiana, Texas, or Florida. 

Mexico is also a signatory to more international human rights agreements than the United States, including what is considered to be the international bill of women’s rights, under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Certain articles of CEDAW have been used to support pro-choice arguments, specifically for women “to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights.” Mexico’s solidified commitment in the international community to human rights, though not a concrete translation to progress, further signifies its willingness to make progress in civil liberties, including abortion rights. 

Despite the strength of the movement across the world towards reproductive freedom, there is a very strong push by anti-abortion activists and government officials to restrict abortion rights. A pattern in their rhetoric has been that abortion bans will actually protect women’s rights. The United-States-based organization, National Right to Life, states that these restrictions “protect unborn children and their mothers from the tragedy of abortion.” Anti-abortion advocates would likely argue that expanding abortion rights would go against democracy. However, state governments that ban abortion are failing to protect the lives of women, and are therefore not addressing progressive components of democracy, including the protection of personal autonomy and access to healthcare. 

States must consider the implications of failing to protect reproductive rights. By restricting women’s freedoms and endangering the lives of women who need life-saving abortions, governments are not representing the needs of their citizens, or protecting democracy.