Principled Pragmatism: Why the European Union Has Not Banned Conversion Practices

Conversion ‘therapy’ is a harmful and discredited practice rooted in the belief that being homosexual and/or transgender is a fixable defect, leading to severe health consequences, including suicidality. Despite unanimous condemnation by leading mental health associations since the 1990s, the practice continues. In 2026, the European Commission announced its intention to address conversion practices. Rather than proposing a binding EU-wide ban, however, it opted for a non-binding recommendation. This paper investigates the strategic calculus behind this choice, asking why the Commission pursued soft law over hard legislation despite widespread normative support. To answer this question, the study synthesizes three disparate literatures on the Commission’s behavior: principled policy entrepreneurship, political pragmatism in times of polycrisis, and principled pragmatism. The paper borrows the latter concept from EU foreign policy. Through an extensive document analysis of EU policy initiatives, the paper argues that the Commission’s choice represents a form of principled pragmatism, deliberately sacrificing enforceability in favor of feasibility. The empirical analysis demonstrates that while the Commission remains normatively committed to protecting LGBTIQ rights against rising anti-gender politics, it was acutely constrained by institutional realities. Facing a legacy of legislative gridlock in the Council of Ministers — where previous progressive policy proposals on sexual orientation and gender identity failed to pass — the Commission recognized that a binding ban was politically unfeasible. By choosing a non-binding instrument, the Commission successfully established a normative benchmark and kept the issue on the EU agenda, navigating institutional constraints while avoiding a conservative backlash or outright gridlock.