In the last decade, a global surge in anti-gender and anti-feminist discourse has intensified normative cleavages. A variety of state and non-state actors have formed influential networks and alliances aimed at rejecting the domestication and internationalization of pro-gender equality norms and feminist ideas. Instead, they advocate for “traditional values” in an effort to preserve and reinforce the heteronormative status quo. The production of such alternative agendas has material implications for the promotion of individual rights, specifically, women’s rights to be protected from all violence. Despite this generation of alternative normative agendas, understanding of how these alternative norms emerge and when/how they become embedded is limited. Thus, the core aim of this project is to address this gap and understand the juncture(s) at which contestation undermines an existing/incoming normative regime. To that end, this dissertation examines contestation of the Istanbul Convention within two dispute contexts – Hungary and Poland. 

Drawing on Sandholtz’s cyclic theory of international norm change, the dissertation investigates localized contestation of the Istanbul Convention in Hungary and Poland between 2012-2020. The project integrates the concept of norm ‘antipreneurs’ and introduces the notion of ‘turning point’ to capture the deliberate actions of these actors across a series of disputes. Empirical data, including textual materials and semi-structured interviews, analysed using Critical Frame Analysis traces the construction and promotion of competing arguments as the Convention is contested. The findings show how anti-gender mobilization intertwines with illiberal transformations, the promotion of traditional hierarchies and stereotypical gender norms. The study contributes to our understanding of norm contestation by identifying drivers or norm change and examining the challenges to gender equality norms in global politics.