1. Introduction
1.1. Context: Abortion, Feminism, and the Belgian Constitution of 1831
Belgium adopted one of the most liberal constitutions of its time in 1831, which subsequently served as a model for many other nations. The Belgian Constitution of 1831 forms the foundation of the democratic legal order in Belgium. It guarantees, among others, the freedom of expression (Art. 19), the freedom of association (Art. 27), and the right to peaceful assembly (Art. 26). These constitutional rights are not only fundamental guarantees but have historically functioned as crucial instruments for social change. One of the most compelling examples is the feminist movement in Belgium, which made full use of these rights.
During the second half of the twentieth century, Belgian feminism evolved into a powerful societal force, focusing, among other issues, on the legalisation of abortion. This struggle was not solely about reproductive rights but also centred on bodily autonomy, gender equality, and the recognition of women as full legal actors. Confrontation with the Catholic Church (then a dominant moral and political authority) was inevitable. A symbolic climax of this conflict occurred in 1990 during the so-called “mini-royal question” (mini-koningskwestie).
2. Abortion in Belgium: Historical and Legal Framework
2.1. Abortion Before 1990
Abortion remained criminalised in Belgium for a considerable time. This prohibition dates back to the French period (1795–1815), when the French Penal Code was enforced in Belgian territory. Under that code, performing an abortion was punishable by up to twenty years in prison. In 1810, the Napoleonic Penal Code elaborated further, criminalising both the person performing the abortion and the woman undergoing it.
When Belgium adopted its own Penal Code in 1867 under the Rogier government, this approach was retained. Abortion continued to be classified as a serious offence. Women could be sentenced to two to five years in prison, while those performing abortions risked ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Nonetheless, a judicial exception soon emerged: if the procedure was necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life, it was recognised as a justification.
Well into the twentieth century, abortion remained illegal, with minimal political or social momentum for reform. It was classified as a crime “against family order and public morality.” The dominant political currents (Catholics, liberals, and socialists) long refrained from endorsing legalisation. Catholic values, deeply embedded in Belgian society, formed the ideological backbone of the opposition to abortion.
2.2. Turning Point: The 1970s and 1980s
The Abortion Act was not the result of a parliamentary initiative but rather emerged due to external pressure, particularly from the feminist movement. During the 1960s and 1970s, the second wave of feminism gained momentum. Central to this movement was the theme of self-determination, as women demanded control over their bodies, lives, and reproductive choices. A key feminist group in this period was the Dolle Mina’s, originally founded in the Netherlands. Known for their provocative protests, their most iconic slogan was “Baas in eigen buik” (“Boss of your own belly”), underlining the belief that women should have autonomy over their own bodies and applying pressure on Parliament to decriminalise abortion.
In 1971, Willy Calewaert introduced the first legislative proposal to decriminalise abortion, but it was rejected. That same year, the Belgian bishops issued a collective statement opposing legalisation. Meanwhile, in 1974, the first Belgian abortion centre was established, following the Dutch model.
A pivotal moment in the history of abortion in Belgium occurred in 1973 with the arrest of Dr Willy Peers, who had performed hundreds of abortions. Public outrage and the support of fellow physicians (including at ULB/VUB) catapulted abortion onto the political agenda. Minister Vanderpoorten proposed reforms but met strong resistance from the Catholic Church and King Baudouin.
A state commission was established in 1975, and various legislative proposals followed in the 1980s. Growing societal pressure ultimately resulted in the 1990 act that legalised abortion under specific conditions. The Belgian feminist movement and women’s rights organisations played a vital role in shaping public opinion and paving the way for legal reform.
2.3. The 1990 Act and the Mini-Royal Question
Under the Martens VIII government, the abortion debate took a new turn. On 6 November 1989, the Senate approved a bill introduced by liberal politicians Lallemand and Michielsen, which proposed a partial decriminalisation of abortion. The Christian Democrats strongly opposed the proposal on principle but refrained from voting against it to avoid destabilising Prime Minister Wilfried Martens’ coalition. Thanks to a “switching majority” of socialists, liberals, and greens, the bill was approved by the Chamber of Representatives on 29 March 1990. This marked a first step towards the legal regulation of abortion in Belgium.
In 1990, a remarkable political crisis unfolded when King Baudouin refused to sign the law decriminalising abortion. According to the Constitution, the King must sign all laws for them to enter into force. His refusal therefore placed the country in a constitutional dilemma. To avoid a full-blown constitutional crisis, a creative solution was devised: the King was declared temporarily “unable to reign.” This allowed the federal government to enact the law on its own. This extraordinary procedure, largely conducted behind closed doors, became known as the Mini-Royal Question (Mini-koningskwestie).
3. The Mini-Royal Question
King Baudouin had previously expressed moral objections to abortion. His devout Catholic beliefs conflicted with the proposed legislation. His personal circumstances also played a role: a childless marriage and a well-known desire to have children. In late March 1990, he informed Prime Minister Martens that he could not, in good conscience, sign the law although constitutionally required to do so. In a letter, the King questioned whether, as an individual, he did not have a right to freedom of conscience. He nonetheless acknowledged the severity of the situation: a refusal by a non-elected head of state to enact legislation duly passed by Parliament would undermine the principle of parliamentary democracy and could lead to a constitutional crisis.
A legal solution was urgently needed. Initially, the King proposed amending the Constitution to relieve him of the duty to sign laws. However, this would have required a comprehensive constitutional revision, which was politically unfeasible. Ultimately, a solution was found based on historical precedent and constitutional ingenuity: Article 93 of the Constitution would be invoked. This article stipulates that when the King is “unable to reign,” the government may assume his constitutional powers.
Although Article 93 was originally intended for situations involving physical or mental incapacity, it was here applied on moral grounds. On 3 April 1990, the government formally declared that the King was temporarily unable to reign. For 36 hours, the federal government assumed his powers and signed the Abortion Bill into Law. Thereafter, Parliament lifted the suspension, and the King resumed his constitutional duties.
This event, now known as the Mini-Royal Question, sparked intense debate. While King Baudouin received widespread public sympathy for his principled stance, the chosen procedure was criticised by some as unconstitutional. Guy Verhofstadt, for example, argued that incapacity to reign must arise from conditions beyond the King’s will and cannot be based on personal beliefs. Critics also warned that the precedent could be dangerous if political institutions failed to cooperate, such a mechanism could eventually trigger a genuine systemic crisis.
Nevertheless, the solution was ultimately accepted, and similar incidents have not occurred since. Subsequent monarchs, such as King Albert II and King Philippe, have signed laws with which they may have personally disagreed, including those on euthanasia, same-sex marriage. Today, there is broad consensus that the royal signature is a formal constitutional obligation, and that the King holds no veto power within the Belgian parliamentary system.
4. Where are we now?
Since the 1990 law, abortion has been legal in Belgium under strict conditions, with a maximum gestational limit of twelve weeks. In recent years, debates have emerged around extending this period to, for example, eighteen weeks, citing medical and social considerations. However, political parties such as the Christian Democratic and Flemish party (CD&V) continue to advocate for the status quo and oppose any expansion of access to abortion. This resistance manifests in the blocking or delaying of legislative proposals aimed at loosening restrictions. As a result, legal reform processes remain slow, occasionally hampering access to abortion care. The current situation illustrates the enduring influence of religious and conservative currents within Belgian politics on reproductive rights and legislation.
5. Connectedness: The United Kingdom
Article 93 of the Belgian Constitution, which allows for the temporary suspension of royal powers due to incapacity, was inspired by constitutional practices in the United Kingdom. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, King George III suffered from severe mental illness, rendering him temporarily incapable of governing. This situation led the British Parliament to develop procedures to ensure governmental continuity without deposing the monarch. In 1810, King George III’s mental health deteriorated to such an extent that he was deemed unfit to reign. To avoid a constitutional crisis, Parliament passed the Care of King During his Illness, etc. Act 1811.
On 5 February 1811, his son (the future George IV) was appointed Prince Regent, thereby temporarily assuming executive authority without formally deposing the King.
The Belgian constitution-makers of 1831 incorporated similar principles into Article 93, thereby establishing a mechanism by which the monarch could be declared temporarily “unable to reign,” allowing executive power to be exercised by others. This provision reflects the close historical and legal ties between British and Belgian constitutional traditions. It also illustrates how the British experience with temporary royal incapacity served as a source of inspiration for Belgium in creating a balanced instrument designed to ensure governmental stability without fundamentally undermining the monarchy.
Below is a short video about the history of abortion debates in the Belgian parliament. For the best audio experience we advise you to listen with headphones.
By Blue Vercauteren Trompet
Bibliography:
-
Grondwet
-
Wet van 3 april 1990 betreffende de
zwangerschapsafbreking
-
KB van 4 april 1990; besluit van
in de Raad Verenigde Ministers houdende bijeenroeping van de Kamer van
Volksvertegenwoordigers en de Senaat in Verenigde Kamers, BS 5 april
1990.
-
Wetsvoorstel tot wijziging van de
regelgeving met betrekking tot de vrijwillige zwangerschapsafbreking, KAMER,
2023-2024, 14 december 2023.
-
The Regency Act (1811)
-
VELAERS J., Land Zonder
Koning: Boudewijn, de abortuswet en de mini-koningskwestie, Lannoo, 2023.
-
X, ‘De Mini-koningskwestie: een dag
zonder koning’, De Grondwet voor iedereen, https://www.belgischegrondwet.be/dossier/de-mini-koningskwestie
-
Retro Vlaamse TV, ‘HISTORIES – De Vuist
Van Venus’, YouTube, 11 oktober 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWBtPGkW7Tk
-
Pianogran, ‘Boudewijn, naar het hart van
de Koning: “In de onmogelijkheid te regeren…”, YouTube, 8 juli 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHv1cycuVTc
Comments
Post a Comment