How best to govern reproduction is the subject of heated controversies and policies on abortion and reproductive technologies present strong variations. Through fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, the article explores the interplay of institutional settings, Christian Democratic politics, women’s movement, and Christian opposition in France and Switzerland since the 1970s. If little evidence is found for any institutional impact on policies regarding abortion and reproductive technologies, the analysis confirms the growing influence of the medical profession over reproductive issues and shows that the success of the women’s movement has been fluctuating while prolife opposition seems to have gradually lost influence.
BlofieldMerike. 2006. The politics of moral sin. New York: Routledge.
3.
BryldMette. 2001. The infertility clinic and the birth of the lesbian. European Journal of Women’s Studies8:299-312.
4.
BurnsGene. 2005. The moral veto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
EngeliIsabelle. 2009a. The challenges of abortion and assisted reproductive technologies policies in Europe. Comparative European Politics7:56-74.
6.
EngeliIsabelle. 2009b. La problématisation de la procréation médicalement assistée en France et en Suisse. Revue Française de Science Politique59:203-19.
7.
EngeliIsabelle. 2010. Les politiques de la reproduction. Paris: L’Harmattan.
8.
FinkSimon. 2009. Church as social veto players: Religious influence in actor-centred theories of policy-making. Western European Politics32:77-96.
9.
GithensMarianneDorothyStetson, eds. 1996. Abortion politics. New York: Routledge.
10.
Green-PedersenChristoffer. 2007. The conflict of conflicts in comparative perspective: Euthanasia as a political issue in Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Comparative Politics39:273-91.
11.
LathamMelanie. 2002. Regulating reproduction. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
12.
Levi-FaurDavid. 2006. Varieties of regulatory capitalism: Getting the most out of the comparative method. Governance19:367-82.
13.
MazurAmy G.2002. Theorizing feminist policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
MinkenbergMickael. 2002. Religion and public policy. Comparative Political Studies35:221-47.
15.
MohrJames. 1978. Abortion in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
MooneyChristoffer Z.2001. The public clash of private values. New York: Chatham House.
17.
MontpetitE.RothmayrC.VaroneF. (2005) Institutional vulnerability to social constructions: Federalism, target populations and policy designs for assisted reproductive technology in six democracies. Comparative Political Studies38(2).
18.
OutshoornJoyce V.1996. The stability of compromise: The politics of abortion in Western Europe. In Abortion politics, ed. GithensMarianneStetsonDorothy, 145-65. New York: Routledge.
19.
PiersonPaul. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review94:251–67.
20.
RaginCharles C.2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
RaginCharles C.2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
RaginCharles C.DrassKriss A.DaveySean (2006). Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.0. Tucson: University of Arizona, Department of Sociology.
23.
RaginCharles C.SonnettJohn. 2005. Between complexity and parsimony: Limited diversity, counterfactual cases, and comparative analysis. In Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft, ed. KroppSabineMinkenbergMichael, 180-97. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.
24.
RothmayrC.VaroneF.SerdültU.TimmermansA.BleiklieI. (2004) Comparing policy design across countries: What accounts for variation in ART policy? In: BleiklieI.GogginM.RothmayrC. (eds.) Governing assisted reproductive technology: A cross-country comparison. London: Routledge.
25.
SheldonSally. 1997. Beyond control: Medical power and abortion law. London: Pluto Press.
26.
StetsonDorothy. 1996. Abortion policy triads and women’s rights in Russia, the United States, and France. In Abortion politics, ed. GithensMarianneStetsonDorothy, 97-117. New York: Routledge.
27.
StetsonDorothy, ed. 2001. Abortion politics, women’s movements, and the democratic state. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
TimmermansArco. 2001. Arenas as institutional sites for policymaking. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis3:311-37.
29.
TribeLaurence H.1990. Abortion: The clash of absolutes. New York: Norton.
30.
VaroneFrédéricRothmayrChristineMontpetitEric. 2006. Regulating biomedicine in Europe and North America. European Journal of Political Research45:317-43.
31.
YishaiYael. 1993. Public ideas and public policy: Abortion politics in four democracies. Comparative Politics25:207-28.
