Liz Boyle
National Legislation on Female Genital Cutting


Boyle, Elizabeth Heger and Sharon E. Preves. Forthcoming. "Sovereign Autonomy Versus
Human Rights: The Case of Anti-Female-Genital-Cutting Laws." Law & Society Review.


Theory. This is a qualitative study of national legislation on female genital cutting that attempts to understand a seeming paradox: Why do countries, where 98% of the families practice female genital cutting, have laws against the practice? Working from a neo-institutional theoretical perspective, the researchers begin with the assumption that national laws are either the result of local mobilization or international pressure. They pose two contradictory propositions. The first predicts that, in countries where less than a majority of women practice female genital cutting, the laws proscribing the practice were passed as a result of local mobilization. The second, opposing proposition, is that if the laws were coming about as a result of international pressure, then the pressure would be the strongest on those countries where the practice is the highest.

Design. The researchers examined the laws of those countries that had formally banned female genital cutting. They focused on both the timing and the wording of these laws. In addition, immigration statistics were consulted to judge whether there was a correlation between laws in Western countries and an influx of immigrants from practicing cultures.

Measurement. The researchers collected data on twenty-five African nations. The data came from a variety of sources, ranging from demographic and health surveys to reports from the UN (United Nations), WHO (World Health Organization), and other NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations). The study also involved a comparison between African and Western nations. The latter comprise those nations that were members of the OECD (Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development) in 1980.

Data Analysis. The researchers made inferences based on the information they had from all of the countries.

Interpretation. The authors find that local interests supporting female genital cutting tend not to be reflected in state policy. The overwhelming majority of countries in which most women have been circumcised nevertheless formally forbid the practice; international pressure appears to have influenced the adoption of national laws.

Back to abstracts & scripts menu.