This paper seeks to combine different strands of feminist research about the roles of states'' "prior commitments" on welfare state role and the type of federalist structure in the state under scrutiny to assess whether federalism can make a difference in opening up reproductive rights policy formulation and implementation to a feminist perspective, or whether federalism is always necessarily negative.
It is easy to envision a negative role for federalism, given that it emphasizes the rights of territorial minorities at the expense of nationally-concentrated (but socially-marginalized) majorities, such as women. Manow in Obinger et al (2005) observed that federalism has been found to prevent full welfare-state expansion but will not prevent its retrenchment, thus leading to skepticism that federalism can support a robust, nationally-consistent provision of reproductive rights.
This research will construct a two by two table of four states, where two share the status of "symmetric" federations: the US and Mexico; and two the status of asymmetrical federations (Belgium and Canada). Similarly, two federations are of the "liberal individualist" variety of welfare state: the US and Canada, and two are of the corporatist variety, Mexico and Belgium.
All four states tolerate variations in access to abortion and contraception across their territories; the purpose of this research is to assess whether certain political opportunities opened up for a feminist presence in reproductive rights policymaking in any of these state combinations. If significant opportunities are not to be found, it will be concluded that gender equality "bending" as described by Lombardo et al has been subsumed to the greater good of ethnic and linguistic federalist representation.
