Prince Alois exercises controversial veto for first time to abruptly halt abortion law reform

Liechtenstein’s hereditary Prince Alois has blocked proposed changes to the country’s abortion laws, bringing a parliamentary effort to liberalise access to terminations to an abrupt halt.

The decision marks the first time during his reign as regent that Alois has formally exercised his veto against legislation, despite the reform having received parliamentary approval following a public campaign for change.

The proposal sought to permit abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, alongside measures intended to make access to the procedure easier for women in the small Alpine principality.

Its rejection has prompted renewed questions about the extent of the powers retained by Europe’s ruling royal families, particularly when the exercise of those powers conflicts with legislation supported by elected representatives.

Why Prince Alois rejected the legislation

The Princely House confirmed that Alois had decided against approving the bill, maintaining that the proposed changes would not provide sufficient protection for unborn life.

In explaining his decision, the hereditary prince placed the protection of the unborn among the fundamental principles that he believes the country’s legal system must uphold.

The move followed months of campaigning by supporters of reform, who had sought to bring Liechtenstein’s legislation closer to arrangements found in other European countries.

Under the existing rules, abortion is permitted only in restricted circumstances, including where a pregnancy poses a danger to a woman’s life or follows rape.

Women have been legally able to travel abroad for terminations since 2015, but campaigners argue that this leaves those seeking the procedure facing additional financial and practical difficulties.

Travelling to neighbouring countries can involve arranging transport, taking time away from work and finding childcare, placing further burdens on women who may already be experiencing difficult circumstances.

The reform campaign sought to address these barriers by proposing a 12-week period during which abortion would be permitted, alongside provisions concerning health insurance and restrictions on information about the procedure.

Public campaign fails to secure change

The initiative behind the proposed legislation attracted thousands of signatures, substantially exceeding the threshold required to bring the issue before parliament.

Supporters had hoped that the level of public backing, combined with parliamentary approval, would lead to a change in the law.

An opinion poll published during the campaign also suggested that a majority of voters supported reform.

However, Alois had previously indicated that he would oppose liberalisation, meaning the prospect of a veto remained a central concern throughout the legislative process.

Following his decision, campaigners expressed disappointment and argued that the outcome demonstrated the limits of parliamentary decision-making when the hereditary prince retains the authority to prevent legislation from taking effect.

They have also raised concerns about the message the decision sends to women who need to access abortion services.

Campaigners estimate that around 40 women from Liechtenstein travel abroad for abortions each year, although the restrictions mean the procedure remains a sensitive subject within the country.

Alois has indicated that he would be willing to consider removing the nationwide prohibition on providing information about abortion. Such a change could allow healthcare professionals to give women clearer guidance about obtaining services abroad and accessing subsequent support.

However, that potential opening does not alter the immediate outcome: the proposed liberalisation of abortion law has been blocked.

A powerful monarchy at the centre of the debate

The decision has also drawn attention to Liechtenstein’s unusual constitutional arrangements.

Unlike many European monarchies, where the sovereign’s involvement in legislation is largely ceremonial, the Princely House retains substantial political authority.

The hereditary prince can exercise significant influence over the country’s government and judicial system, while his power to refuse approval to legislation gives him a decisive role in determining whether parliamentary bills become law.

Liechtenstein’s electorate previously voted in 2012 to preserve the prince’s veto powers, following a referendum that placed the balance of authority between the monarchy and the population under scrutiny.

The latest intervention has therefore revived a longstanding question about how the principality’s democratic institutions operate alongside the extensive constitutional powers of its ruling family.

The campaign behind the abortion initiative argued that a proposal supported by a substantial proportion of the population and approved by parliament had nevertheless been defeated by the decision of a single individual.

The Princely House, meanwhile, has maintained that the proposed reform did not meet the standard of protection for unborn life that Alois considers necessary.

A similar controversy in Monaco

Liechtenstein’s decision echoes events in Monaco in 2025, when Prince Albert II declined to approve legislation that would have expanded access to abortion in the principality.

The Monegasque proposal had received strong support in the National Council, but the Prince’s refusal to sanction the bill prevented the reform from taking effect.

In explaining his position, Albert referred to Monaco’s existing legal framework, its constitutional principles and the role of Catholicism in the principality.

The decision demonstrated that the sovereign’s approval remains essential to the legislative process in Monaco, rather than serving merely as a formal constitutional step.

Both cases highlight the continuing political significance of royal authority in Europe’s smaller monarchies, where constitutional arrangements differ considerably from those found in countries such as the United Kingdom.

In Britain, Royal Assent is now a formal stage in the legislative process, and a refusal by the sovereign to approve a bill passed by Parliament would represent a fundamental departure from established constitutional practice.

In Liechtenstein and Monaco, however, the powers exercised by the ruling princes provide a direct mechanism through which proposed legislation can be stopped.

The controversies also share a common subject: attempts to liberalise abortion laws that have encountered opposition from the respective ruling princes.