Feminist Policy in the EU: Progress, Contradictions, and Political Fragility

By Melina Betten

The European Union (EU) presents itself as a frontrunner in gender equality and women’s empowerment, yet its foreign policy lacks a binding Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) framework. FFP is a foreign policy approach that emphasizes gender equality, safeguards the rights of marginalized groups, allocates substantial resources to these goals, and dismantles patriarchal and hierarchical power structures within state interactions (Thompson & Clement, 2019). While countries such as Sweden and Spain have attempted to integrate feminist diplomacy, their policies are fraught with contradictions, highlighting the challenge of aligning feminist ideals with realpolitik (Aggestam et al., 2018). Given these challenges, this article explores whether the EU can meaningfully implement a binding FFP, examining the political fragility of feminist policies, the contradictions they reveal, and the broader feasibility of embedding feminist principles within EU foreign policy.

A core argument for FFP is its ability to challenge entrenched power structures in global governance, advocating for diplomacy that moves away from militarization, sovereignty-driven security policies, and economic pragmatism (Scheyer & Kumskova, 2019). A stark example of how high stake diplomatic interactions can reflect a hypermasculine approach to international relations is the infamous conversation between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump pressured Zelensky for political favors in exchange for military aid (Healy & Cottom, 2025), which exemplifies the opposite of FFP. A feminist approach to diplomacy would have prioritized transparent, cooperative engagement based on human rights and gender-sensitive conflict resolution rather than power-driven coercion. This contrast underscores the need for diplomacy that disrupts patriarchal power structures rather than reinforcing them.

The EU has taken steps towards gender-sensitive diplomacy through frameworks such as the Gender Action Plan III (GAP III) and the Women, Peace & Security (WPS) Agenda. GAP III aims to mainstream gender perspectives across all EU external actions by 2025, addressing gender-based violence, promoting social and economic rights, and advancing equal participation (EEAS, 2025). Similarly, the WPS Agenda seeks to integrate gender-sensitive approaches into conflict resolution and peacebuilding (Desmidt, 2021). However, these initiatives remain non-binding, limiting their effectiveness and reinforcing the notion that gender equality remains an aspirational goal rather than a structural priority (Guerrina, 2021; Scheyer & Kumskova, 2019). Without legally mandated commitments, these policies risk being symbolic rather than transformative.

Sweden was the first country to formally adopt an FFP in 2014, positioning itself as a global advocate for gender equality in foreign policy (Aggestam et al., 2018). However, in October 2022, Sweden’s newly elected center-right government abandoned its FFP, arguing that the term “feminist” clashed with Swedish values and traditional diplomatic priorities (Human Rights Watch, 2022). This reversal highlights the political fragility of feminist policies, highlighting that without institutionalized legal mechanisms, progressive commitments can be undone with a change in government. If Sweden, the country that led the global movement for FFP, ultimately renounced its commitment, it raises concerns about the EU’s ability to enforce FFP across 27 diverse member states with varying political agendas and ideological leanings. Given that foreign policy decisions require unanimous approval among member states, a legally binding FFP could face opposition from governments that do not prioritize gender equality.

Despite its commitment to feminist diplomacy, Sweden’s FFP was riddled with contradictions, particularly in its arms trade policies. While advocating for peace and gender equality, Sweden remained one of the world’s largest exporters of military equipment, including to authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records (Aggestam et al., 2018). This tension illustrates the difficulty of reconciling feminist ideals with economic and strategic interests; a challenge that extends to the EU’s broader ambitions for FFP.

Spain provides another case study of the complexities of feminist diplomacy. The Spanish government has sought to integrate FFP principles into its foreign policy but struggles with consistency in execution. While Spain has emphasized gender equality in development aid and multilateral negotiations, the proportion of official development assistance devoted to gender equality decreased from 53% to 37% between 2020 and 2021 (Focus2030, 2024). This inconsistency between rhetoric and action underscores the need for a legally binding framework to ensure coherence in policy implementation across different sectors of governance. For FFP to be effective within the EU, it must move beyond voluntary commitments and be institutionalized through binding legal mechanisms. Without enforceable measures, gender equality will remain a secondary consideration, easily set aside in times of political change or economic and security crises.

Despite previously delineated barriers, certain steps could bring the EU closer to institutionalizing FFP. Strengthening gender-sensitive trade and security policies, ensuring dedicated funding for feminist initiatives, and embedding feminist principles within diplomatic training programs are all potential avenues for making FFP a more concrete reality. The EU’s response to gender issues in global crises, such as its commitment to women’s rights in Afghanistan following the Taliban’s resurgence (The Associated Press, 2024), demonstrates that gender considerations are already a part of diplomatic discussions. The challenge lies in making them a central, non-negotiable component of EU foreign policy.

In theory, a Feminist Foreign Policy would offer a transformative approach to global governance, prioritizing gender equality, human rights, and inclusive diplomacy. Sweden’s experience, however, reveals the vulnerabilities of FFP when it lacks legal enforceability, as political shifts can quickly dismantle progressive commitments. The contradictions within Sweden’s and Spain’s feminist policies further highlight the difficulty of aligning feminist ideals with economic and security interests.

While a fully binding FFP remains unlikely in the short term due to institutional constraints, political resistance, and economic contradictions, the EU can make meaningful progress by strengthening enforcement mechanisms, reforming trade and security policies, and ensuring that gender equality becomes a structural priority rather than a symbolic commitment.

Ultimately, while the world may not yet be ready for a fully institutionalized Feminist Foreign Policy, gradual progress can ensure that feminist principles are not entirely sidelined in international diplomacy.

References:

Aggestam, K., Bergman Rosamond, A., & Kronsell, A. (2019). Theorising feminist foreign policy.

International Relations, 33(1), 23-39.

Desmidt, S. (2021). How the women, peace and security agenda is integrated into the EU’s

gender action plan. ECDPM brief, 25.

EEAS. (2025, January 21). Gender Action Plan III & its key areas of EU engagement.

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/gender-action-plan-iii-its-key-areas-eu-engagement_e

n

EIGE. (2022, October 25). The EU’s evolving legal and policy approaches to Gender Equality.

https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/publications/eus-evolving-legal-and-policy-

approaches-gender-equality

Feminist foreign policy: where do France, Spain and Italy stand? Summary of the latest Gender

in Geopolitics Institute report. (n.d.). Focus 2030.

https://focus2030.org/Feminist-foreign-policy-where-do-France-Spain-and-Italy-stand-Su

mmary-of-the

Guerrina, R., Haastrup, T., & Wright, K. A. (2023). Contesting feminist power Europe: Is feminist

foreign policy possible for the EU?. European Security, 32(3), 485-507.

Healy, M. & Cottom, T. M. (2025, March 3). What Man’s Man Politics Is Doing to America. The

New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/03/opinion/trumps-masculinity-democrats.html?smid=

nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=g&pvid=88AE4115-0A82-4C4E-A

59C-5D86F9BCAF18

Scheyer, V., & Kumskova, M. Feminist Foreign Policy: A Fine Line between. ADDING WOMEN”

AND PURSUING A FEMINIST AGENDA.” Journal of International Affairs, 72.

The Associated Press. (2024, 4 December). EU condemns Taliban suspension of medical

education for women and girls. AP News.

https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-medical-education-women-girls-c55047b9

5870386c86811bcedf7191ea

Thompson, L., & Clement, R. (2019). Defining feminist foreign policy. International Center for

Research on Women, 2.

Ünlü, A. D. (2020). Feminist foreign policy approaches of the european union member states:

an index proposal. Sosyal Çalışma Dergisi, 4(2), 91-100.

Walfridsson, H. (2022, October 31). Sweden’s New Government Abandons Feminist Foreign

Policy, Policy Reversal Is a Step in the Wrong Direction. Human Rights Watch.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/10/31/swedens-new-government-abandons-feminist-fore

ign-policy?utm