Legal Mobilization and Framing Transformation: The Feminist Turn to the Law in Mexico

Abstract

Introduction

In the early 1990s, Mexican feminists became the first in Latin America to develop legal mobilization in the field of abortion, or the translation of the movement’s political demands into a claim that asserts legal rights (Zemans 1983). This approach emerged from the recognition of the difficulties in advancing abortion rights through the political process. The dynamics of dictatorship and democratization across Latin America significantly influenced the evolution of feminist movements and their demands, helping to explain why Mexican feminists adopted legal strategies earlier than their regional counterparts. Unlike the Southern Cone, where military dictatorships delayed the development of second-wave feminism, Mexico’s absence of such regimes created more favorable conditions for the rise of the movement in the 1970s. During that decade, Mexican feminists drafted and submitted a bill that included abortion to the national Congress. In contrast, feminists in other Latin American countries were only able to address the issue after democratic transitions in the mid-1980s, leading to delays in drafting reform proposals. This early experience with legislative mobilization—and the eventual failure of this initial attempt—provides context to understand why Mexican feminists became pioneers in the region in developing a legal strategy to advance abortion rights. Their efforts anticipated the broader regional trend of legal mobilization among feminist movements in the region, which gained prominence since the mid-2000s.

Legal mobilization became a cornerstone of a new, comprehensive strategy to defend abortion rights in Mexico. This strategy included the creation of GIRE (Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida (Information Group on Reproductive Choice)), the first single-issue organization in Latin America dedicated to abortion rights advocacy, and the transformation of the feminist framing of the abortion question. Influenced by the legal turn, this reframing process involved articulating a moderate feminist position that responded to the countermovement’s claims. As one of its leading figures put it, the new approach aimed to achieve “radical goals through reformist means” (Lamas, interview, 2011). While moderate in its rhetoric and demands to ensure resonance with broader societal sectors, the strategy remained radical in its unwavering commitment to women’s agency and autonomous decision-making. This sector of the feminist movement became the most influential during the reform process carried out in Mexico City, with their framing ultimately becoming hegemonic, despite intra-movement disagreements.

During the 2000s, this strategy achieved a groundbreaking outcome in the region: the gradual reform of abortion laws in Mexico City, culminating in the legalization of first-trimester abortion in 2007.¹ This was the first instance of progressive legislative change on abortion in Latin America since democratization processes and remains one of the few examples of reform achieved through legislatures.² The new law was advanced in its recognition of women’s autonomy, allowing women—including young girls—to access abortion during the first twelve weeks without mandatory counseling or waiting periods. It also mandated free access for Mexico City residents and affordable services for women from other states and countries. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the reform (Unconstitutionality Action 146/2007), after a historic process of public deliberation in which feminist framing played a fundamental role (see GIRE 2009). Subsequent feminist litigation campaigns continued to influence legal developments. In 2021, Mexico’s Supreme Court became the first constitutional court in Latin America to declare the criminalization of early-stage abortion unconstitutional (Unconstitutionality Action 148/2017). This was followed in 2023 by a landmark decision decriminalizing abortion at the federal level (Amparo 267/2023).

The turn to legal strategies reshaped multiple dimensions of the feminist movement in Mexico, including its organizational structure, its alliances with external actors, and, most significantly, its cultural struggle and framing of the abortion issue. The Mexican case offers a valuable lens through which to analyze the frame dynamics involved in the transition to a legal strategy by Latin American feminist movements. It predated common developments in legal mobilization on abortion rights by feminisms in the region, which in these processes moderated their discourses and claims, accepting gradualist strategies, reform proposals based on trimester frameworks, and a renaming the most controversial concepts (Ruibal 2015b). The Mexican case also presents important particularities, as feminists did something that is still unique in the region and beyond. In their search to achieve resonance and generate common ground for public debate and reform discussions, not only did they develop a doctrine centered on women’s rights but they also directly engaged with the countermovement’s argument regarding the protection of unborn life.

This article analyzes that moment in the history of Mexican feminism when the movement turned to the law, with a focus on its discursive dimension. It studies how the transition to the legal field contributed to the transformation and moderation of the feminist cultural struggle and framing of the abortion issue. It also examines the organizational conditions that allowed for this framing to take hold, despite resistance by more radical movement sectors. Through the investigation of the Mexican process, it aims to shed light on an understudied aspect of abortion politics in Latin America. While legal mobilization has become a widespread strategy for feminist movements across the region over the past two decades, little attention has been paid to how these legal strategies shape the framing of abortion and the dynamics of mobilization and countermobilization involved in these processes. Furthermore, this case provides a contextualized understanding of the way in which legal mobilization can lead to framing transformation in a region where movements have a history of political mobilization, but only after democratic transitions started to pursue legal strategies (see Couso 2006; Smulovitz 2008) and the legal discourse appeared as a new component of their framings. In this regard, it contributes to understanding how the theorization on law and framing transformation under conditions of movement–countermovement conflict, developed in masterly fashion by Reva Siegel (2001, 2004, 2006), can take place in contexts outside of the United States, a country where the use of law for social change is long-standing, and where theories about the interaction between social movements and the legal field have thrived. The study of the Mexican case also highlights the importance of the movement’s organizational structure and resources in framing processes, an aspect often overlooked in the existing literature.³

The study draws on secondary sources, primarily authored by Mexican scholars, along with document analysis and original interviews conducted in Mexico City in 2011 and 2017 with feminist activists, lawyers, health professionals, and academics. It focuses on the process of legal mobilization initiated in 1991, culminating in the landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Mexico City’s abortion law reform. This period marks a pivotal moment in the feminist movement, characterized by its turn to the law and the accompanying transformation of its framing strategies, which were influential in the reform process. The year 2008 also marked the end of a phase and beginning of a new stage characterized by a wave of counter-reforms in various states across the country, which amended their constitutions to include provisions granting a right to life from conception (see GIRE 2019, 69–70).⁴ The article’s first section introduces key concepts and theoretical perspectives to analyze the relationship between legal strategies and framing dynamics. The second section delves into the process of legal mobilization and framing transformation led by feminist activists in Mexico.

Legal mobilization, frame variation, and abortion rights struggles

In social movement theory, the concept of framing refers to the interpretive or ideological dimension of collective action. It encompasses the social and strategic construction of ideas intended to mobilize a movement’s constituencies and allies, persuade broader social groups and institutional actors, and challenge the claims of its opponents (Snow et al. 1986; Gamson and Meyer 1996). In their search for cultural resonance or frame alignment, movements appeal to shared values and concepts, seeking to link their propositions with those of their audiences, in order to garner support by diverse groups and influence their interpretations (Snow and Benford 1988). One specific form of frame alignment is frame transformation (Snow et al. 1986) or frame variation (Snow et al. 2007), which involves the creation of new understandings and interpretive frameworks.

Social movement studies highlight the critical role of the interpretive or discursive dimension in two distinct movement processes. The first process focuses on movement building and mobilization, where the aim is to engage the movement’s constituencies, foster intra-movement solidarity, and galvanize supporters. The second process seeks to persuade the general public and state actors, with the goal of reshaping public discourse and influencing political and legal change. Both processes involve cultural struggles within and outside the movement (Benford 1993; Gamson and Meyer 1996, 283; Zald 1996: 270). The framings that emerge from each process can sometimes be in tension with one another. For example, in mobilizations for gender equality, a discourse rooted in identity politics may effectively inspire and energize intra-movement groups but risk alienating broader sectors of society. In the specific context of abortion rights, arguments emphasizing women’s unrestricted bodily autonomy exemplify framing strategies aimed at galvanizing movement supporters. In contrast, discourses framed around public health, social justice, or the consequences of rape are more likely to resonate with a wider audience and garner broader societal support.

In their efforts to influence change in society and the political system, social movements often seek cultural resonance by moderating their most radical claims. Research in the field of women’s rights suggests that frame moderation frequently involves incorporating traditionalist arguments (Ferree 2003; McCammon 2012). For example, Ferree's (2003) study of abortion law reform in West Germany shows how feminists sought resonance by aligning their framing with institutional and conservative discourses, particularly the dominant discourse of the state. This approach involved stigmatizing abortion as a criminal and immoral act, portraying women who chose abortion as victims of their circumstances. Feminists avoided framing abortion as an authentic choice, instead emphasizing the constraints women faced (Ferree 2003: 304). Similarly, Pierson and Bloomer (2017) explore how a human rights-based discourse supporting abortion legalization in Northern Ireland focused predominantly on extreme and tragic cases. This sparked a moral public debate about “deserving” and “undeserving” women, which ultimately constrained the space for arguments focused on women’s autonomy (see Fletcher 2005, 2018, 2024 for in-depth critical analysis of the discursive developments in the Irish case). These types of framing undermine the recognition of the pregnant person’s capacity to decide and may lead to supporting policy solutions that range from decriminalization only in specific circumstances (e.g. rape or risk to life) or legalization coupled with mandatory counseling and other measures that delay the pregnant person’s decision.

However, achieving cultural resonance does not necessarily require aligning with conservative or institutional discourses. Moderation can occur without conceding to traditionalist or patriarchal arguments. Social movements can instead draw on cultural narratives that resonate with wider social sectors while preserving progressive values. For instance, in the context of abortion rights, movements can link their demands to discourses emphasizing state secularism—an enduring aspiration of liberal elites in Latin America since the region’s nineteenth-century independence movements. The abortion controversy can become a rallying point for broader coalitions advocating for a clear separation of church and state. This can facilitate alliances between feminists and other civil society actors, enabling movements to build broad-based support. By leveraging culturally resonant narratives such as secularism, women’s rights movements can create conditions for legal and political change without compromising their core principles.

Legal mobilization can play a significant role in framing moderation. The connection between rights strategies and framing has not been sufficiently explored in framing research, despite its importance for understanding how law’s symbolic influence shapes the interpretive processes of social movements (Pedriana 2006: 1720). While social movement theory has recognized the central role of law in framing (Snow 2004, 380), the specific mechanisms by which legal mobilization influences framing have not been a primary focus. However, recent studies on legal mobilization (Lemaitre and Sandvik 2015; McCammon and Beeson-Lynch 2021; Marshall 2003; Pedriana 2006), along with established constitutional scholarship (in particular Siegel 2001, 2004, 2006, and also NeJaime 2012; Ziegler 2012), have addressed this problem, particularly in the context of gender justice and women’s rights.

Recent studies on legal mobilization and framing transformation have examined how the political and legal context of legal mobilization shapes framing (Lemaitre and Sandvik 2015; McCammon and Beeson-Lynch 2021). Reva Siegel (2001, 2004, 2006) has developed a broader theoretical argument about how legal mobilization per se influences framing transformation, particularly in terms of moderation. She argues that movements seeking legal change must frame their idiosyncratic demands within a discourse that appeals to public values and shared constitutional principles—what she terms the “public value condition” (Siegel 2004, 11–12). This process often leads movements to moderate their claims and rhetoric, especially when facing countermovements (Siegel 2006, 1354–65).

Siegel’s theory contrasts with social movement research on frame variation in the context of movement–countermovement conflict, which typically characterizes this interaction as highly polarized, making it difficult for movements to address their opponents’ concerns or find a middle ground. According to this literature, such dynamics frequently result in the vilification and debunking of the opponent’s claims (McCaffrey and Keys 2000), a “dialogue of opposites” in which both sides use the same terms but with opposing meanings (Esacove 2004), frame co-optation, or the appropriation of the adversary’s framing for an opposite purpose (Lio et al. 2008), reputation discrediting (Knight and Greenberg 2011), or mutual disregard, where both sides "talk past each other" (Hoffman 2011). In contrast, Siegel (2001, 2004, 2006) suggests that the dynamics of mobilization and countermobilization may push movements aiming to change the law to moderate their discourse and demands, and to incorporate the concerns of the countermovement in order to persuade the general public and legal officials about the value of their claims.

Framing moderation, however, may not resonate with the aspirations of more radical sectors within a movement (Meyer and Staggenborg, 1996, 1653) and can lead to intra-movement disputes. In the case of abortion, for instance, certain sectors may oppose strategies and framings that emphasize gradualism, a trimester framework, or the balancing of constitutional rights and values. According to classic theories of frame alignment, the more resonant a framing is, the greater the likelihood of its success (Snow et al., 1986, 477). However, the potential for a discourse or strategy to become hegemonic depends not only on its inherent capacity for resonance but also on organizational factors and power dynamics within a movement. The resolution of intra-movement conflicts, including disagreements over framing strategies, may depend on the movement's structure and the centrality or marginality of the organizations promoting different framings.⁵

Single-issue and resourceful organizations can play a crucial role in coordinating strategies because disputes over framing, tactics, and goals are more likely to be resolved when a clearly leading organization is present. The ability of legal strategies and framings to emerge as dominant tactics within a movement depends, in part, on the location of organizations focused on legal mobilization within the movement. Organizations situated at the movement's center—in terms of resources and leadership—are more likely to be influential in positioning their framings than those located on its periphery. However, organizational concentration, such as through a strong, single-issue organization, has potential drawbacks. While it enhances strategic coordination, it may also limit the movement’s reach across the national territory. This limitation can significantly impact a movement's capacity to oversee the implementation of legal reforms and resist conservative reactions at the local level. Such challenges are particularly pronounced in federal systems, where conservative groups often wield considerable influence in local politics—a dynamic especially evident in the context of abortion rights.

The feminist transition to the legal field and its impact on the abortion rights framing in Mexico

In Mexico, second-wave feminism was one of the movements that emerged in the aftermath of political repression during the 1968 events in the country (Espinosa 2009; Amuchástegui et al. 2010). Like other contemporary feminist movements in the region, one of its core aims was the legalization of abortion. The difference, however, was that in Mexico, the abortion issue was politicized as early as the 1970s. The hegemonic party regime of the PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party)) governed the country for seven decades until 2000, developing strong repressive elements. However, in contrast to the military dictatorships that swept through South America in the 1970s and 1980s, retarding the emergence of feminist movements, feminism and its demands appeared in the public sphere in Mexico in the early 1970s.⁶ From 1976 to 1981, the campaign for abortion legalization became the central issue in the struggle of all feminist groups in the country (Lamas 2003, 86). The two main feminist alliances at the time—the National Front for Women’s Liberation and Rights and the Coalition of Feminist Women—collaborated on drafting a reproductive health bill that included the legalization of abortion (Lamas 2003, 86).

Mexican feminists incorporated the concept of voluntary motherhood advanced by their Italian counterparts. This concept included access to abortion and contraception, sexual education, and the rejection of forced sterilization, and became the center of feminist campaigns in the country from the early 1970s (Lamas 1997). Like other feminist movements in the region, they adopted a discourse on abortion based on public health and social justice arguments, which contrasts with the privacy framework developed in the United States. This framework entails a strong demand for public provision and access to services.

The main difference between their initial and more recent framing lies in the radicalism of the first stage. The rhetoric of collective action was dominated by a discourse grounded in women’s right to control their own bodies.⁷ Some of their most basic positions were characterized by an all-or-nothing logic whereby, for example, abortion advocates did not contemplate the possibility of gradual reforms (Lamas, interview, 2011). At that time, the search for resonance with the beliefs of the wider public was not a central concern for the movement. As recalled by a leading protagonist, they believed that their claim for reproductive freedom was so legitimate and self-evident that simply voicing their arguments and demands would lead to being heard by society and the government (Lamas 1997, 58).

In 1980, they submitted the bill including abortion to the National Congress through representatives from the Communist Party, which had just been incorporated into electoral politics as part of the country’s gradual political opening (see Ortiz-Ortega and Barquet, 2010). However, without support from the major political parties, the bill was not even discussed by Congress. The failure of this initiative marked the end of a cycle for the feminist movement (Espinosa 2009, 66).

This comparatively early development by Mexican feminists, and their consequent early awareness that the national political process would not deliver reforms in this field, contributes to understanding why feminists in Mexico turned to the law earlier than in other countries in the region. Social movements usually pursue their claims using strategies and institutional venues that are most familiar to them, depending on the openness or closure of opportunities (Meyer and Staggenborg, 1996, 1647–48). As pointed out by Lamas (interview, 2011), Latin American feminists first appealed to legislatures to claim abortion law reform, as their usual tactics were political mobilization and legislative lobbying. However, decades after the democratic transitions, activists in the region termed abortion “the frontier of the right to decide” (Lamas 2001a, 8) and “a debt of democracy” (Rosenberg and Schvartzman 2014). The realization that political institutions were not open to advancing abortion rights led to a shift in the strategies and actions of important sectors of Latin American feminist movements toward the legal field and the court system. Mexican feminists were the first to take this step.

Strategic change: from identity politics to the search for resonance with democratic values

At the beginning of the 1990s, the struggle for abortion rights in Mexico regained momentum after a period of relative demobilization (Lamas 2003). During this time, a small but highly influential sector of the feminist movement changed its strategic approach to the abortion issue. The new strategy involved creating a new organizational structure, developing legal mobilization, and elaborating an innovative framing. In 1991, a group of feminist activists founded GIRE, the first organization in Latin America specifically dedicated to the legal and political defense of abortion. The leader of this initiative was the well-known feminist activist and academic Marta Lamas (Sánchez Fuentes et al. 2008, 350). This sector of the movement was concentrated in Mexico City, which has been governed by leftist parties since it became an autonomous entity in 1997 (the Party of the Democratic Revolution (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, PRD), 1997–2018, and Morena since 2018). The leadership of this initiative was backed by professional expertise and social capital, which were mobilized in service of the cause (Lamas, interview, 2011). They were also closely aligned with the PRD since its creation in 1989. According to experts in this process, the alliance between feminism and this party has been crucial for legal reforms favorable to women’s rights, including abortion (Amuchástegui, interview, 2011).

GIRE became part of broad coalitions that had the legalization of abortion as a core concern, including the Network for Women’s Health DF, founded in 1993; the Campaign for Access to Justice for Women, created in 1998; and the National Alliance for the Right to Decide (Alianza Nacional por el Derecho a Decidir (ANDAR)), established in 2000 to promote abortion liberalization. The latter gathered five professionalized organizations with different areas of expertise, with GIRE in charge of the legal strategy. It would become the most important institutional structure in civil society for the process of legalization and implementation of abortion rights in Mexico City.⁸

GIRE’s initial diagnosis was that the occasional public discussion of abortion in the country was framed as a dispute between extreme positions held by feminists on one side, and the Church’s spokesmen, on the other (Lamas 2001a, 58). One of GIRE’s main objectives was to change the terms of the public debate through a non-confrontational strategy that could take the abortion issue outside of the feminist movement and transform it into a broader public issue. This entailed a shift away from an approach rooted in identity politics (Lamas, interview 2011). The search for resonance with wider public concerns was based on three main pillars: democratic citizenship, a related argument about the laicity of the state, and a bioethical argument regarding the development of fetal life.

Firstly, in the context of Mexico’s protracted democratic transition, a central goal of this sector of the feminist movement was to reframe the abortion issue as a matter of democratic citizenship. In this regard, they sought to establish the central question as who should decide, and on what grounds decisions should be made in a pluralistic and democratic society (Lamas 1997, 94).

Secondly, they argued that in a democracy, individuals should be free to choose how to live their lives based on their religion, but the public sphere of the state should remain secular (Lamas, interview, 2011). This discourse resonated with an important strand of Mexico’s political culture that advocates for the secularity of the state. Despite the high Catholic affiliation among the population (Mexico has the second-largest Catholic population in the world, after Brazil), the separation between state and church has been part of Mexico’s political and cultural development since the mid-nineteenth century (Blancarte 2001). Secularism is cherished by Mexican intellectuals and by broad sectors of Mexican society, and the abortion controversy presented an opportunity for liberal actors to assert it. An active participant in this process put it this way: “In Mexico, we can disagree on many issues, but there is a common concern: the separation between the State and the Church, and the abortion debate was also a moment to defend that separation” (Cruz Parcero, interview, 2011).

At the same time, the discursive strategy consciously sought to engage Catholics. The organization Catholics for Choice (Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir (CDD)), established in Mexico in 1994, played a crucial role in constructing a new framing of the right to abortion in the country. Lamas (interview, 2011) explained that although many feminists may be atheists, they actively promoted the creation of CDD, as they believed the struggle for abortion rights should actively appeal to Catholics. In particular, CDD took a leading role in framing the right to abortion as linked to freedom of conscience (GIRE 2008: 48). The role of CDD in the abortion campaign reflected an effort by feminists to appeal to symbols embedded in the culture. For example, CDD launched a campaign with an image of the Annunciation that read: “Mary was consulted about becoming God’s mother. Choosing is everybody’s right” (Lamas, 2001b, 187).

The third pillar of the new framing involved addressing their opponent’s main argument about the embryo’s right to life. This development was directly linked to the feminist turn toward the legal field.

Legal mobilization and framing moderation: from the right to bodily autonomy to the engagement in the right to life debate

A central component of the new strategy was the development of legal mobilization, which directly influenced the framing of abortion rights. This approach led to feminist engagement with bioethics and the discussion of prenatal life. GIRE was the first feminist organization in Latin America to incorporate lawyers and legal arguments into the struggle for abortion legalization. The decision to anchor the abortion campaign in a legal argument occurred within the context of the growing judicialization of Mexican politics (for an account of the rise of judicial politics in Mexico, see Domingo 2004). However, at that time, Mexico lacked a tradition of public interest law and well-established organizations for strategic litigation (Morales, interview, 2011), and the use of test cases was not yet common practice (Echarri, interview, 2011). In fact, the feminist movement was one of the first social movements in the country to frame its demands for social change in legal terms (Morales, interview, 2001). This required the feminist movement in Mexico to create its own legal strategy and develop organizational resources for legal mobilization (Morales, interview, 2011).

GIRE’s first legal advisor was Pedro Morales, a litigation attorney and cause lawyer who worked on behalf of the movement. He was tasked with translating the movement’s political demands into a legal framework. However, as Morales recalls, by the time GIRE contacted him, feminist activists had already begun this work (Morales, interview, 2011). Over time, GIRE strengthened its legal department and increased the presence of women within it. One of its key organizational goals has been to train young feminist lawyers in the field of reproductive rights (Beltrán and Díaz de León, interview, 2011). GIRE hired its first female attorney in 2002, and since 2011, the organization has been primarily led by lawyers. According to Morales (interview, 2011), the process of abortion legalization in Mexico City played a key role in strengthening GIRE’s legal department and likely contributed to the development of legal resources by other feminist organizations as well.

The process of legal mobilization confronted feminists with the inherent restrictions of constitutional argumentation, which contributed to the moderation of their framing of abortion rights. Morales explained that, during one of their initial meetings in 1992, it became clear to those with a legal background that the claim of a woman’s absolute right to her body could not be easily translated into a legal argument (Morales, interview, 2011). The new approach reflected the shift from a radical discourse centered on women’s autonomy over their bodies to one that integrated the articulation of fundamental and human rights, the use of international law, and the development of a feminist legal doctrine (Morales 2010, 138–40). As Marta Lamas noted, “we found it necessary to transform the profoundly subversive concept of women’s re-possession of their own bodies into arguments that are more closely bound to democratic concerns” (Lamas 1997, 61).

Most fundamentally, GIRE’s activists and legal advisors understood that framing abortion within constitutional terms would require addressing the countermovement’s core argument: that embryos are persons with legal rights (GIRE 2008, 46). The largest anti-abortion organization in Mexico at that time, the National Pro-Life Committee (Provida), was made up of over 140 organizations connected to the Catholic Church, which portrayed themselves as defenders of life (González Ruiz 2006, 71). Other influential groups, also tied to fundamentalist Catholic sectors, included the Legionaries of Christ and Opus Dei (González Ruiz 2006). The Catholic Bar Association served as an unofficial representative institution for the Church (Echarri, interview, 2011). Anti-abortion campaigns were funded by prominent Mexican businessmen,⁹ and international financial support was provided particularly by Human Life International, as was common across the region (González Ruiz 2006). Despite shifts in the religious framing of abortion (Lamas 1997, 62), the conservative stance in Mexico, as in much of Latin America, remained largely unchanged, arguing that the embryo is a person and demanding an unrestricted right to life from conception (González Ruiz 2006; Madrazo 2013; Ortiz-Millán 2009). Since the 1990s, in line with Vatican doctrine, conservatives in Mexico and the region have lobbied for legal and constitutional reforms to grant absolute protection for the right to life “from the moment of conception until natural death” (Lamas 2003).

The feminist legal framing developed partly in response to this central claim of the conservative movement. Initially, feminists sought to avoid engaging in the debate over the personhood of the embryo. However, due to the persistent insistence of their opponents on this issue, they found that addressing it became unavoidable (GIRE 2008, 46). Feminists entered this discussion with the aim of demonstrating that women’s right to make decisions in the early stages of pregnancy does not conflict with the right to life. This sector of the feminist movement in Mexico not only countered the conservative claim about the right to life with arguments based on women’s rights and dignity, public health, and social justice, but also engaged in the discourse about the protection of unborn life.¹⁰ In this way, they intervened in the discussion of both sides of the abortion controversy. They argued that nasciturus was indeed a constitutionally protected value, but one that needed to be balanced with women’s rights. Feminists contended that the state’s obligation to protect unborn life varied depending on the stage of pregnancy, with women’s rights taking precedence in the early stages (Morales 2008). Through bioethical arguments about the gradual development of unborn life, feminists sought to “assert that in their struggle for the legalization of first-trimester abortion, their opponent was not the right to life” (Morales, interview, 2011).

The College of Bioethics, established in 2003, played a pivotal role in this process (GIRE 2008, 47). An autonomous organization formed by a multidisciplinary group of well-regarded professionals and scientists, its primary goal was to provide scientific arguments for the public discussion of bioethical issues. GIRE contributed significantly to the formal establishment of the College, particularly in securing its legal status, recognizing the importance of such an institution in shaping a new framework for the abortion debate (Lamas, interview, 2011). Today, the College is a prestigious institution that has played a crucial role in the reform process in Mexico City. It offered scientific and ethical arguments that supported the feminist position on the gradual development of prenatal life. The publication of these arguments in the media and their presentation at various forums are regarded as key factors in fostering favorable public opinion during the reform process (Lamas, interview, 2011).¹¹

The feminist framing aimed to find a middle ground by asserting that the abortion debate was not a zero-sum game. The abortion controversy has often been portrayed as a clash of absolutes or as a cultural or conscience war (for critiques of these positions, see Tribe 1992; Solinger 1998; Risen and Thomas 1998; Borgmann 2008). Feminists in Mexico sought to avoid such polarization. Rather than vilifying, misinterpreting, co-opting, discrediting, or ignoring their opponents’ discourse—approaches seen in the cases analyzed by McCaffrey and Keys (2000), Esacove (2004), Lio et al. (2008), Knight and Greenberg (2011), and Hoffman (2011)—they expressed explicit concern for the countermovement’s claims about the value of unborn life while questioning the absolutism of those claims. By grounding their arguments in philosophical, bioethical, and legal reasoning, they reclaimed the protection of life as a feminist concern.

This was a significant step, as in other contexts, feminists and the progressive field in general, have often been hesitant to address the moral questions raised by conservatives about the beginning of life and the personhood of the embryo (Borgmann 2008, 558–64). Borgmann argues that by not engaging with the claim that the embryo is a person and failing to require a rational defense of that argument, progressives have missed an opportunity to expose the flaws in conservative reasoning (Borgmann 2008, 608). The conservative assertion that the fertilized egg is a person poses one of the greatest challenges to defending women’s right to choose. As Ortiz-Millán argues, even the most developed doctrines of women’s rights fail to undermine the view that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is a crime and that women’s autonomy cannot justify the killing of a person (Ortiz-Millán 2009, 19). In other contexts, this argument has functioned as a “conversation-stopper,” blocking meaningful public discourse on abortion (Borgmann 2008, 553). The Mexican case stands as an exception and a successful example in this regard.

The feminist framing was translated into policy proposals advanced by feminist organizations—particularly ANDAR and, more specifically, GIRE—that were incorporated into the new norms approved by Mexico City’s Assembly starting in 2000,¹² as well as in the declarative sections of these laws.¹³ A distinctive feature of the legal strategy developed by GIRE and its allies was its gradualist approach. For several years, they refrained from directly demanding legalization, instead working on a bill aimed at expanding the legal grounds for abortion by including new exceptions or indications (Lamas, interview, 2011). They also claimed that they wanted abortions to end, and that for that reason, they supported a comprehensive reform project, which included preventive measures, framing abortion as a last resort, and advocated for the regulation of conscientious objection. In addition, they proposed the penalization of forced abortions to protect women who wish to become mothers. These aspects were eventually incorporated into the law. As a result, during the abortion debate, and particularly during the public hearings held by the Supreme Court in 2018, the feminist position was perceived as more centrist by public opinion, which contributed to its success in the reform process (Beltrán and Díaz de León, interview, 2011; Morales, interview, 2011; Ortiz-Millán, interview, 2011).

In this case, framing moderation did not mean downplaying the movement’s central demands or conceding to woman-protective or victimization arguments based on the trauma of abortion. Such concessions would have, for example, included supporting counseling measures or mandatory waiting periods, or appealing to the sacralization of motherhood or other patriarchal arguments. Instead, the movement maintained a focus on women’s agency, demanding comprehensive reform that would allow women of all ages to freely decide whether to become mothers, within a defined time limit. Furthermore, throughout the reform process in Mexico City, feminists pushed to eliminate legal provisions that framed women as criminals. Unlike the cases of frame moderation analyzed by Ferree (2003) and McCammon (2012), which involved concessions to traditionalist arguments, the moderation in the Mexican case was not tied to such positions. Rather, it was grounded in values related to democracy and laicism.

However, this position was resisted for many years by a sector of the feminist movement in Mexico, which considered it a reformist discourse (GIRE 2008, 46). It was also criticized by feminists from other countries for allegedly contributing to the stigmatization of abortion (Sánchez Fuentes et al. 2008, 351). Despite intra-movement resistance to the framing advanced by GIRE and its allies, their discourse gained traction both within the movement and among a network of allies who helped develop and expand this framing. As Mejía (interview, 2017) explained, the movement closed ranks during the public discussion about the legalization of abortion in Mexico City in 2007 and throughout the Supreme Court’s decision-making process in 2008.

The concentration of the movement’s organizational structure, particularly the strong infrastructure for abortion rights advocacy in Mexico City, including a prominent single-issue NGO (Ortiz-Ortega and Barquet 2010; Ruibal 2015a, 2015b; Zaremberg and Rezende 2022), facilitated the hegemonic spread of this discourse, which was presented in the public sphere as a solid feminist position during the debate on reforms. Given that GIRE was also the leading rights advocacy organization within the feminist field, its legal strategy eventually became the central tactic of the abortion campaign. However, this organizational structure also had limitations. When counter-reforms emerged in other federal entities, the movement lacked organizational resources throughout the country, and GIRE and its allies did not possess the institutional capacity to counteract backlash at the subnational level (Ruibal, 2015a, 2015b).

Conclusion

In the process of framing transformation, a sector of the feminist movement in Mexico moved away from non-negotiable positions on abortion, consciously avoiding polarization. Unlike feminist movements in other contexts, they engaged with the countermovement’s claim about the value of unborn life, critically discussing its scope and absolutist character. Legal mobilization and the restrictions posed by the constitutional controversy played a significant role in reshaping the cultural frame of the abortion rights campaign. Feminists developed a moderate discourse without pandering to traditionalist sectors or compromising women’s autonomy within a time limit. For Mexican feminists, the right-to-life debate was not a conversation-stopper but an opportunity for feminist framing and argumentation.

This new framing resonated with aspirations linked to democratization and citizenship-building, as well as with Mexico’s notable liberal and secular traditions. As a result, feminism achieved a landmark victory within the Latin American context: it influenced the legalization of first-trimester abortion and its official recognition as a woman’s right in Mexico City. The moderation of the movement’s framing was translated into concrete policy measures that reflected a concern for the countermovement’s claims, including preventive measures to reduce the number of abortions, regulation of conscientious objection, and the criminalization of forced abortions. At the same time, the deradicalization of their framing did not undermine women’s and girls’ capacity to decide, nor did it portray them as victims of traumatic circumstances. Instead, the more moderate framework managed to advance radical change while avoiding arguments that would constrain women’s agency. This balance demonstrated that moderation, when strategically employed, can coexist with transformative goals and values.

Legal changes in Uruguay and Argentina—where abortion was legalized in 2012 and 2020, respectively—also addressed concerns about prenatal life. However, these provisions were not driven by the feminist movement but by political actors. In Uruguay, parliamentary negotiations led to restrictions such as mandatory counseling, waiting periods, and institutional conscientious objection, which diminished recognition of women’s autonomy (Wood et al. 2016). In Argentina, the legalization of abortion was accompanied by the Comprehensive Health Law for Pregnancy and Early Childhood (Law 27.611, the “1000 Days Law”), reflecting concerns about the protection of unborn life. However, this law was not part of the feminist framing or proposals; it was proposed by the Executive Power as part of its broader social policy.

Finally, the Mexican case underscores the significance of examining the organizational dimension of framing transformation. The feminist reframing process was bolstered by the establishment of an organizational infrastructure, including the creation of a single-issue organization and the formation of new alliances that helped shape a redefined discourse on abortion rights. During the period under study, the abortion rights movement was heavily concentrated in Mexico City, with a single-issue organization spearheading the legal strategy. This concentration facilitated the resolution of coordination challenges and enabled the new strategy and framing to gain prominence, despite intra-movement disagreements. The study shows that the moderate framing advanced by the legalistic sector of the movement managed to overcome internal resistance, largely due to the centralized structure of the movement and the dominant role of that sector within it. However, the high level of concentration in Mexico City also presented challenges, as it limited the movement’s capacity to influence processes in other subnational jurisdictions during the period under review. This highlights the trade-offs between centralized coordination and territorial reach in achieving movement goals. It also underscores the need for further studies and theorization on the relationship between framing and movement infrastructure, which remains underexplored in the literature.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my gratitude to Ruth Rubio Marin for her permanent support of my research; to Ruth Fletcher who generously revised the manuscript and provided invaluable advice; and to Reva Siegel, whose inspiration profoundly influenced this text, and whose patience during my visit to Yale Law School was deeply appreciated. I am also thankful to Judy Fudge for her insightful comment, cited in the article. Additionally, I gratefully acknowledge the European University Institute for its support during my doctoral research, of which this article is a result, as well as the Socio-Legal Journals Writing Workshop held in Recife in 2018 for its enriching feedback.

Conflict of interest. None declared.

Data availability

The data underlying this article are available in the article.

References

Interviews