Intersectionality in a Web of Barriers

Intersectionality was formally introduced into a European Commission gender equality programme in 2020, signalling an apparent institutional commitment to the concept. While intersectionality is referenced in directives, most notably the Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence (2024/1385), the inclusion of categories beyond gender is usually limited to listing them or a narrow acknowledgement of how they interact with gendered experiences of discrimination. In practice, intersectionality rarely informs the design of specific policy instruments and has largely faded from the European Commission’s current policy agenda. This discrepancy raises a key question: why does intersectionality remain largely absent from substantive policy outputs despite its prominent inclusion in gender equality programmes and EU directives? The paper addresses this puzzle by proposing a threefold theoretical explanation. First, drawing on Eurolegalism, it argues that the EU’s legal system is structurally ill-equipped to address intersecting forms of discrimination. Jurisprudence requires clearly defined concepts for law-making. As a non-positivist concept rooted in critical theory rather than specific legal categories, intersectionality cannot be easily embedded in the EU’s existing legislative framework. Moreover, as in the U.S. regulatory system, litigation in the EU has expanded opportunities for individuals, firms, and interest groups to enforce rights; this judicialisation favours clearly defined, individual legal claims and thus limits the capacity to address complex, intersecting forms of structural discrimination. Asserting rights as someone experiencing multiple overlapping layers of discrimination involves fragmenting lived experiences into discrete legal categories. This process fundamentally undermines the relational and structural essence of intersectionality. Second, the regulatory state, characterised by standardisation, legal harmonisation, and formal compliance, plays a key role in shaping EU policymaking. However, its governance logic creates significant obstacles for intersectionality. By reducing complex social realities to standardised legal categories and prioritising formal equality over substantive outcomes, the regulatory state obscures intersecting forms of discrimination. Furthermore, its fragmented and narrowly targeted policy instruments lack the flexibility needed to address compounded inequalities, leading to persistent gaps in protection for marginalised groups. This limitation is already evident with gender mainstreaming, which, lacking enforceable directives, has primarily become a soft-law instrument. Third, the EU’s economic roots are intersectionally exclusionary. The EU has long promoted gender equality, beginning with Article 119 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, yet economic rationales, prioritising macroeconomic benefits over social justice, have closely framed its policies. This economic orientation limits the visibility of marginalised groups, constrains resource allocation for addressing overlapping forms of discrimination, and favours policies that can be codified into law while leaving intersectional approaches largely rhetorical. As a result, despite recognition, intersectionality remains under-implemented. Building on these perspectives, the paper develops a theoretical “web of barriers” that describes how legal, regulatory, and economic dynamics collectively hinder the meaningful integration of intersectionality into EU policy-making. Since these barriers operate at different yet interconnected theoretical levels, they reinforce one another, leading to the structural exclusion of intersectionality in EU policy outputs.