Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are women's rights a good thing
Executive summary
Women’s rights are framed by UN agencies, global NGOs and advocates as both a human-rights imperative and a practical driver of prosperity: the UN links gender equality to sustainable development and notes women hold 27.2% of parliamentary seats as of 1 January 2025 [1], while UN Women reports one in four countries experienced a backlash against women’s rights in 2024 [2]. Opponents or critics—illustrated in debates over Project 2025—argue some policy shifts could reprioritise family roles and limit federal protections, a proposal that advocacy groups say would roll back gains for women and LGBTQ+ people [3] [4].
1. Why supporters say women’s rights are necessary: human rights, health and economy
International institutions treat women’s rights as fundamental rights linked to broader social goods: the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 5 frames gender equality as both “a fundamental human right” and “a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world” [1]. Public-health and economic analyses presented by the World Economic Forum and UN Women argue that investing in women’s health, political participation and legal reform produces measurable returns—examples include gains in school completion, rising parliamentary representation, and legal reforms across almost 100 countries in recent years [5] [6] [1]. UN Women highlights concrete figures such as increases in female parliamentary seats to 27.2% [1] and warns that data and investment gaps undermine the ability to track and sustain progress [5].
2. Documented progress and persistent gaps
Multiple UN reports and allied NGOs point to clear progress—girls surpassing boys in school completion and hundreds of legal reforms domestically—while simultaneously documenting big shortfalls: women still face disproportionate burdens in unpaid care, health inequities (women reportedly live 25% more of their lives in poor health), and underrepresentation in decision-making [5] [6]. UN Women’s reviews of the Beijing Platform for Action note both “gains and backlash,” with about 24% of countries reporting backlash undermining commitments [7] [2]. Amnesty International and Equality Now stress that the advances are fragile and face organised resistance [8] [9].
3. The nature of the backlash and the actors involved
Reporting and advocacy groups describe a coordinated, political backlash in many places. UN Women and OHCHR say the backlash often stems from fear among those who benefit from the status quo and manifests in legal and policy rollbacks as well as attacks on the concept of gender equality itself [7] [10]. Amnesty International characterises anti-rights movements as seeking to reinstate patriarchal norms and targeting sexual and reproductive rights and LGBTQI+ protections [8]. These sources portray the rollback as not simply accidental but driven by organised agendas and policy plans.
4. Policy contests: Project 2025 as a case study
Project 2025, a 900-page conservative policy roadmap, is cited by advocacy groups as an example of a proposal that would reshape federal priorities on gender and reproductive policy; critics say it aims to reframe gender equality toward “women, children and families,” remove gender-equality language, and restrict federal abortion and contraception policy—moves described by NWLC and MSI Reproductive Choices as likely to undermine women’s and LGBTQ+ rights [3] [4]. Newsweek coverage notes proponents argue many Project 2025 policies would benefit all Americans, including women, while critics highlight the potential for targeted rollbacks of protections [11]. The disagreement is explicit: advocates view Project 2025 as a reversal of gains [3] [4], while some contributors defend its broader policy intentions [11].
5. Why the debate matters for citizens and policymakers
The sources collectively show that whether women’s rights are expanded or curtailed has measurable implications for health, economic returns, political stability and justice systems: UN analyses quantify potential economic savings and costs of inaction (for example, clean-cooking investment returns cited by UN Women) and document concrete legal reforms that improved protections for girls and women [5] [1]. Conversely, UN Women and OHCHR warn that shrinking rights or defunding gender data and programs can erode those gains and exacerbate inequality [5] [10].
6. Conclusions and caveats reporters should note
Available reporting overwhelmingly treats women’s rights as both morally justified and pragmatically beneficial, while also documenting credible organised opposition seeking policy change—illustrated most sharply in critiques of Project 2025 [1] [3] [4]. Limitations: the supplied sources are primarily advocacy and UN-oriented materials that emphasise gains and threats; they include critiques of specific conservative policy plans but do not exhaustively present the full range of conservative or dissenting academic arguments beyond statements quoted in Newsweek and Project 2025 descriptions [11] [3]. For readers seeking the full policy spectrum, consult the primary texts of contested policy proposals and a broader mix of peer-reviewed economic and legal analyses in addition to the advocacy and UN reporting summarised here [3] [5].