New Publications Explore Gender, Reproductive Rights, and Digital Governance

 

At the end of December, two new papers co‑authored by Luana Mathias Souto, Principal Investigator of THELMA, were published. Although these publications are not part of THELMA’s formal activities, they engage directly with themes central to the project: gender, reproductive rights, and technology.

The first paper, “Gender Representation in the Brazilian Judiciary: Reflections Upon a Case Study of the Right to Abortion,” appears in the newly released Springer volume The Gender and the Judiciary. The authors examine the controversial 2022 decision by Brazilian judge Joana Ribeiro Zimmer, who denied an 11‑year‑old girl access to a legal abortion. Beyond contradicting Brazilian law, this case illustrates a broader and often overlooked point: increasing the number of women in decision‑making positions does not automatically advance gender equality, even when institutions formally commit to gender parity.

The book is available here: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-032-06885-9

The second paper, “Genderwashing in Digital Platforms’ Self-Regulation: A Case Study of Decisions by the Meta Oversight Board,” was published in the Global Media Journal – German Edition as part of the special section Norms, Power Relations and Injustices in Digitality: Global Perspectives. This article analyzes how the Meta Oversight Board—an independent body reviewing Meta’s content moderation decisions across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads—addresses gender‑related issues in its binding rulings.

The article is open access and can be read here: https://globalmediajournal.de/index.php/gmj/article/view/335/306

Together, these two articles offer a compelling insight into how gender power imbalances persist across various institutions—whether in courts or digital platforms—and why critical scrutiny remains essential, as patriarchal patterns increasingly shape the conditions of women's rights.

Funded by the European Union under the Agreement No 101149321. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.