Understanding Oppositional Resistance within Parliaments: Gender and Sexuality Policymaking in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies

This paper analyses how oppositional resistance shapes the progression of bills aimed at expanding gender and sexuality-related (GSR) rights in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (CoD). While the literature on gender and politics has already investigated the conditions under which GSR legislation advances (in particular, the works on descriptive and substantive representation), far less is known about how resistance unfolds to prevent these bills from being approved or even discussed within legislative settings. Building on this gap, the paper offers a mixed-methods approach that seeks to unveil the procedural and strategic mechanisms mobilised to block or delay the expansion of GSR rights, based on a new dataset of resistance acts within Brazil’s policy process and on qualitative evidence drawn from elite interviews. The quantitative component presents metrics on the resistance of approximately 200 GSR proposals in Brazil introduced during the 54th and 55th legislative terms (2011–2018). The analysis operationalises resistance by drawing upon legislative delay literature (e.g., Hiroi & Rennó, 2014, 2016, 2018) and on feminist institutionalist insights into opposition and resistance (e.g., Josefsson, 2024, 2025; Verloo, 2018). Indicators include committee trajectories, the duration of committee discussions, the number of deliberations, the issuance of negative reports, and the ideological and coalition positions of committee chairs and rapporteurs, among other metrics. Through descriptive statistics and regression models, as well as a Sankey diagram mapping typical bill trajectories within committees, the analysis identifies where and when resistance occurs, revealing systematic bottlenecks and patterns of agenda denial. These results show that opposition to the expansion of GSR rights and opportunities can be mapped and identified within institutional settings and follow specific patterns. To explain how these patterns are produced, the qualitative component draws on semi-structured interviews with deputies, legislative consultants, staff members, and party leaders working inside the Brazilian CoD. Using a deductive–inductive coding strategy informed by the agenda-denial literature (Cobb & Ross, 1997), four clusters of resistance strategies emerge: 1. Individual and collective actions within Congress (including informal coordination and strategic absences; 2. External framing and mobilisation of external advocacy groups to operate within the CoD; 3. Procedural obstruction within committees and making use of leadership positions (i.e., filibustering); and 4. Institutional mechanisms that create or reinforce veto points (e.g. characteristics of institutional design that favour resistance). Case studies of GSR proposals also illustrate how these strategies occur throughout the bill’s lifecycle, connecting actors’ behaviour with macro-level patterns of legislative resistance. By combining quantitative indicators of legislative resistance with qualitative analyses of oppositional strategy, the paper advances methodological innovation in the study of gendered policymaking and contributes to the understanding of the micro-institutional aspects of how institutions are gendered (Lowndes, 2020). It shows not only when resistance occurs but also how (through which mechanisms) rights-expanding bills are blocked – which, in turn, offers broader insights into how GSR rights can be further expanded by overcoming these institutional and strategic forms of resistance.