A group of international legal scholars, including professors from Harvard Law School, the University of Oxford, and other leading European and U.S. universities, have signed an open letter urging Luxembourg’s leaders and citizens to carefully consider the constitutional and legal implications of a proposal to introduce abortion into the country’s Constitution. The letter responds to the upcoming parliamentary vote to amend Article 15 of the Constitution to guarantee the freedom to have recourse to voluntary termination of pregnancy.
While the scholars emphasise that they do not advocate a specific political position, their letter outlines potential legal and institutional consequences of enshrining abortion as a constitutional “freedom” or “right.”
Citing an advisory opinion from the French Conseil d’État, the scholars warn that “any constitutional amendment to introduce a ‘freedom’ to abort is likely to be interpreted by judges as a constitutional right.” Whether or not the term ‘freedom’ rather than ‘right’ is used, “it would still be a constitutional command,” the letter states. “This means that it can no longer be changed by the ordinary processes of democratic government.”
It therefore removes power from elected officials and regulatory bodies while empowering judges whose interpretations may vary according to differing judicial perspectives. The scholars warn that it will therefore be “more difficult, henceforth, to change the law in either direction, according to the will of the people and their elected representatives.”
The letter notes that constitutionalising abortion could: shift decision-making power from the legislature to the judiciary, reducing democratic flexibility; make it more difficult to regulate or limit abortion procedures; impact areas such as conscientious objection and medical oversight; pose potential risks to freedom of speech, association and religion for individuals or organisations expressing pro-life views.
“We hope this brief letter highlights some legal considerations which may not have been fully examined so far,” the signatories write. “We do not presume to tell the citizens or legislators of Luxembourg how to vote on this matter, which is a sovereign issue for Luxembourg.”
Signatories include: Mary Ann Glendon, Emerita Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Paul Yowell, Associate Professor of Law, University of Oxford, O. Carter Snead, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame, John Garvey, former Dean, Boston College Law School, Tonio Borg, Professor of Public Law, University of Malta; former European Commissioner for Health and Deputy Prime Minister of Malta, María Isabel Álvarez Vélez, Full Professor of Constitutional Law, ICADE Madrid, Luis Gaspar, Lecturer Professor, Universidad Internacional de Cataluña (UIC), Fernando Simón Yarza, Full Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Navarra, Juan Tello Mendoza, Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Barcelona, Ed Whelan, former President, Ethics and Public Policy Center (institutional affiliations are provided for identification purposes only and do not imply institutional endorsement).
Abortion is already legal on demand in Luxembourg up to 12 weeks and legal up until birth in cases of fetal abnormality such as Down syndrome. In recent months, there has been pressure to reduce unborn rights further, and in July 2025 the country’s parliament removed a mandatory three-day waiting period before abortions are carried out.
However, the country is also in the process of taking the law further by enshrining the “freedom to have recourse to abortion” into the country’s constitution, Luxembourg’s highest and most fundamental law. The process, which requires two parliamentary votes and must pass with a two-thirds majority, is expected to have the first vote in March of this year.
Luxembourg remains one of Europe’s 11 constitutional monarchies, with Grand Duke Guillaume V the country’s reigning monarch. However, the sovereign microstate’s monarchy is one of the weakest in political power, partly due to the Grand Duke’s father, Grand Duke Henri, who abdicated last year, and his principled stand against the introduction of euthanasia. In 2008, the Grand Duke refused to give his assent to a law introducing the practice, resulting in parliament reducing his power to that of promulgating laws only, meaning that his signature on legislation is now purely formal and cannot block it.
Whether the move to include abortion in the nation’s constitution will be successful remains unclear, with politicians speaking both in favour and against. However, the reaction from legal scholars internationally certainly raises questions about the decision and suggests it may prove an ultimately unsuccessful endeavour.
ProLife Luxembourg
Contact: info@prolife.lu
Website: https://prolife.lu/
