Slovakia’s parliament has ignited a fierce debate across Europe after passing a sweeping constitutional amendment that recognizes only two sexes—male and female—while enacting a series of measures that advocates say threaten the rights of marginalized groups. The vote, held on September 26, 2025, marked a pivotal moment in the country’s ongoing struggle over national identity, human rights, and the direction of its democracy.
The amendment, drafted by the government of populist Prime Minister Robert Fico, required a three-fifths majority to pass. It ultimately cleared the 150-seat National Council with 90 votes, thanks in part to the support of twelve conservative opposition lawmakers. According to reporting by AP News, the ruling coalition rallied around the measure, with Justice Minister Boris Susko declaring that the changes were intended to “boost traditional values.”
At the heart of the amendment is a new constitutional definition that recognizes only two sexes—male and female. The document asserts Slovakia’s sovereignty in matters of “national identity,” especially in what it calls “fundamental cultural-ethical questions.” This language, while vague, has raised alarm among human rights observers, who fear it could be used to justify a range of restrictive policies targeting vulnerable communities.
But the amendment goes further. It makes it nearly impossible for anyone other than married heterosexual couples to adopt children, tightening restrictions that were already in place. The constitution had previously defined marriage as “a unique union between a man and a woman,” but the new language cements this stance and extends its influence into adoption policy. Additionally, parental consent is now required for access to sexual education in schools, and the amendment guarantees equal pay for men and women—a provision that, while laudable on its face, is overshadowed by the broader rollback of rights.
“This is devastating news,” said Rado Sloboda, Director of Amnesty International Slovakia, in a statement responding to the vote. “Instead of taking concrete steps to protect the rights of LGBTI people, children, and women, the Slovakian parliament voted to pass these amendments, which put the constitution in direct contradiction with international law.” Sloboda went on to describe the situation for marginalized groups in Slovakia as “already dire,” warning that the new measures “rub salt into the wound.”
International condemnation has been swift. Amnesty International, echoing concerns raised by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O’Flaherty, argued that the amendment follows the lead of countries such as Hungary, whose policies have led to “an erosion of human rights.” O’Flaherty had previously urged Slovak lawmakers to reject the changes, stating they deny “the realities of trans and intersex people and may impact on human rights guarantees such as access to legal gender recognition.” He further warned that “seeking to disapply specific rights because they touch upon ‘national identity’ would be fundamentally incompatible with the Slovak Republic’s international obligations.”
Slovakia’s government has defended the amendment as a necessary step to protect what it describes as traditional values and national sovereignty. Justice Minister Boris Susko, addressing parliament, insisted that the changes were designed to strengthen the social fabric and uphold cultural norms. However, critics argue that the language of “national identity” is being used as a smokescreen to justify discrimination and undermine legal protections for minority groups.
According to Amnesty International, the amendments are “cloaked in the language of ‘national identity’” but in reality “aim at stripping away rights to private and family life, education, and healthcare from children, women, and LGBTI people.” The organization has long warned that these changes are part of a broader campaign by Slovak authorities to roll back rights and weaken the rule of law. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, multiple UN Special Rapporteurs in the fields of education, health, and privacy, and EU institutions have all voiced concern, recommending withdrawal or outright rejection of the proposed changes.
The amendments’ restriction on comprehensive sexuality education has also sparked significant backlash. Rado Sloboda emphasized the importance of such education in preventing sexual violence and promoting sexual and reproductive health, stating, “We need comprehensive sexuality education for children to prevent sexual violence and promote sexual and reproductive health in the country.” Instead, the new rules require parental consent for any access to sexual education materials, a move critics say will make it harder for young people to access vital information and support.
On the issue of adoption, the amendment’s impact is equally profound. By making it almost impossible for anyone other than married couples to adopt, the law effectively excludes single people, unmarried couples, and same-sex couples from providing homes to children in need. This, according to human rights advocates, not only discriminates against LGBTI individuals but also reduces the pool of potential adoptive parents, potentially leaving more children without families.
The Slovak government’s actions have not gone unnoticed by its own citizens. Thousands have taken to the streets in Bratislava and other cities to protest the policies of Prime Minister Fico, whose tenure has been marked by a shift away from Slovakia’s previous pro-Western orientation. Demonstrators have decried not only the government’s stance on human rights but also its perceived alignment with Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and its pro-Russian foreign policy tilt.
For many observers, the events in Slovakia are part of a wider trend across parts of Central and Eastern Europe, where governments have increasingly invoked traditional values and national identity to justify restrictions on minority rights. Amnesty International’s statement summed up this concern: “Today the Slovak government chose to follow the lead of countries, such as Hungary, whose policies have led to an erosion of human rights. The only way to stop this decline is to comply with international and European law and introduce proposals to protect human rights for all, while rejecting those that jeopardize these efforts.”
Despite the outcry, the amendment is now enshrined in Slovakia’s constitution, setting the stage for potential legal challenges at the European and international levels. Human rights advocates argue that the changes breach EU law and international human rights treaties, threatening the primacy of these legal frameworks and undermining Slovakia’s commitments as a member state.
As Slovakia moves forward, the country finds itself at a crossroads, with its government’s push for traditional values clashing head-on with calls for greater inclusion and respect for diversity. The outcome of this struggle will not only shape the lives of Slovaks but could also reverberate across the continent, testing the resilience of human rights protections in an era of growing polarization.
For now, the debate rages on, with both sides claiming to defend the nation’s future. Whether Slovakia’s new constitutional order will stand the test of time—or be swept aside by the tides of change—remains to be seen.