Slovakia hard-wires anti-LGBTQ+ rules into constitution, prompting likely EU legal challenge

On 26 September, Slovakia adopted a constitutional amendment recognising only two sexes and tightening adoption rules. Amnesty International claims that this targets LGBTQ+ people and could conflict with EU obligations.

The amendment adds a broad ’national identity’ clause, giving the Slovak constitution priority in matters of family, gender, and education. While the government refers to it as a safeguard of sovereignty, critics warn that the wording is overly broad and could be misused - potentially leading to clashes with EU free movement, residence and non-discrimination laws.

Key changes introduced by the Slovak constitutional amendment

• Defines sex as only male or female.
• Narrows adoption to married couples, consistent with the constitution’s definition of marriage.
• Requires school curricula to align with constitutional “cultural-ethical” values. These are not specifically defined in the amendment.
• Adds a ’national identity’ clause that gives constitutional priority in matters of family, gender and education, although EU law still prevails where the Union has competence.

Reactions in Slovakia

The amendment was passed by the National Council with 90 votes in the 150-seat parliament, with the support of twelve opposition MPs from conservative parties. While the government stated that the amendment defends traditional values and the role of parents in education, the Justice Minister, Boris Susko, argued that it clarifies existing law rather than introducing major changes.

Rights groups have condemned the vote. Amnesty International described the amendments as “draconian” and warned that they would undermine legal gender recognition, restrict comprehensive sexuality education, and limit family rights for same-sex couples. Also, other Slovak NGOs have called for public action. A coalition of 56 organisations led by the International Commission of Jurists has urged the European Commission to open infringement proceedings.

Why will Brussels care?

Family law is primarily a matter for member states. However, when a national measure affects people who live, work or study across borders, EU law can be engaged - triggering rules on free movement and equal treatment.

In the case of Slovakia, defining sex as only male or female, restricting adoption, and introducing a ’national identity’ clause could affect the practical treatment of cross-border families and workers. An example would be the recognition of spouses or parents for residence purposes. This is where EU rules may come into play.

On 5 June 2025, Tamara Ćapeta, the Advocate General of the EU Court of Justice,advised judges to rule that Hungary’s so-called “child-protection” law, which restricts LGBTQ+ content, is incompatible with EU law and fundamental rights. While this opinion is non-binding, it is often influential. If the Court follows this advice, it would likely strengthen the Commission’s position when challenging similar restrictions elsewhere.

Part of a wider EU split

ILGA-Europe’s Rainbow Map 2025 ranks European countries from 0% to 100% based on their legal and policy practices for LGBTI people. It reveals widening gaps in areas including gender recognition, family recognition, anti-discrimination laws, hate crime and hate speech legislation, bans on conversion practices, transgender healthcare, protections for intersex individuals, and asylum procedures. The pattern is increasingly two-speed. Several members are expanding LGBTQ+ protections, while others are tightening them. Slovakia’s amendment places it on the latter track.

What’s next

Following the amendment, the Slovak authorities will need to implement changes to education policy, as well as adoption and family law. Rights groups have raised legal concerns, and the amendment could prompt the European Commission to initiate infringement proceedings if EU-level rights are affected in practice. A forthcoming ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on Hungary’s “child-protection” law could influence how ‘national identity’ claims are assessed in future.