Global Legal Landscape of LGBTQIA+ Rights: A Comparative Study

Authors

  • Ms. Sneha Choudhaary Research Scholar, Apex University, Jaipur, Rajasthan
  • Dr. Sarvesh Kumar Research Supervisor, Apex University, Jaipur, Rajasthan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29070/mbgdwf22

Keywords:

LGBTQIA+ rights, international law, human rights, marriage equality, anti-discrimination, criminalization, gender identity, comparative law, Yogyakarta Principles, global legal frameworks

Abstract

This paper provides a comparative analysis of the global legal landscape of LGBTQIA+ rights in 2025, highlighting both significant progress and persistent challenges. While over 35 countries have legalized same-sex marriage and enacted anti-discrimination protections, approximately 65 nations still criminalize same-sex relations, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to death. Through case studies from India, Taiwan, South Africa, and the United States, the paper demonstrates how courts and legislatures have advanced equality by dismantling discriminatory laws and affirming constitutional rights. At the international level, frameworks such as the ICCPR, the Yogyakarta Principles, and regional human rights systems have reinforced protections, albeit with limited enforcement mechanisms. However, setbacks—including Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act, Hungary’s restrictive constitutional amendments, and resurgent far-right populism in Europe—illustrate the fragility of progress. The study concludes that while international norms provide aspirational frameworks, transformative change continues to depend on domestic political will, judicial activism, and civil society resilience. Ultimately, the trajectory of LGBTQIA+ rights remains a paradox of unprecedented advancements alongside intensified backlash.

References

Civil Union Act, 17 of 2006 (South Africa).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). (1966). United Nations General Assembly, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). (1966). United Nations General Assembly, 993 U.N.T.S. 3. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org

ILGA World. (2024). Laws on Us: Global LGBTQI+ Legal Landscape. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. Retrieved from https://ilga.org

Judicial Yuan, Taiwan. (2017). Interpretation No. 748. Retrieved from https://cons.judicial.gov.tw

Legislative Yuan, Taiwan. (2019). Act for Implementation of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748.

South African Constitution. (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution

Constitutional Court of South Africa. (2005). Minister of Home Affairs v. Fourie, CCT 60/04. Retrieved from https://www.concourt.org.za

Supreme Court of India. (2018). Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 76 of 2016. Retrieved from https://main.sci.gov.in

Supreme Court of the United States. (2015). Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov

The Guardian. (2023–2025). Coverage on global anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and human rights developments. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com

United Nations. (2006). Yogyakarta Principles: Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Retrieved from https://yogyakartaprinciples.org

United Nations. (2020). Yogyakarta Principles plus 10 (YP+10). Retrieved from https://yogyakartaprinciples.org

Downloads

Published

2025-07-01

How to Cite

[1]
“Global Legal Landscape of LGBTQIA+ Rights: A Comparative Study”, JASRAE, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 145–154, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.29070/mbgdwf22.

How to Cite

[1]
“Global Legal Landscape of LGBTQIA+ Rights: A Comparative Study”, JASRAE, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 145–154, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.29070/mbgdwf22.