Parallel Paths, Divergent Outcomes

A Comparative Analysis of Women's Bodily Autonomy in the Constitutional Frameworks of France and the United States

Abstract

This paper examines the constitutional foundations of women’s bodily autonomy in France and the United States, analyzing how two democracies with shared Enlightenment roots have produced sharply divergent outcomes in reproductive rights and gender equality. Drawing on socio-legal theory, international human rights law, and historical constitutional analysis, the study argues that differences in constitutional design, social contract traditions, and approaches to secularism have shaped each nation’s treatment of women’s reproductive freedom. Through a comparative analysis of legal texts, landmark judicial decisions, and policy developments, this research highlights how France’s evolving constitutional framework has increasingly safeguarded bodily autonomy, while the United States has regressed toward restrictive, morally driven governance. The findings underscore the broader implications of constitutional adaptability and ethical governance for the protection of human rights in democratic societies.