Liechtenstein prince’s ‘surreal’ abortion veto dismays campaigners

The hereditary prince of Liechtenstein has used his veto for the first time in his reign to quash a bill aimed at bringing abortion laws in line with much of Europe.

The legislation was approved by Liechtenstein’s parliament last month after the presentation of a citizens’ initiative signed by roughly a quarter of the nation’s voters.

The news left campaigners in the principality, home to some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe, reeling. “We’re not really surprised, but still disappointed,” said Tatjana As’Ad, who led the initiative to overhaul the law and who works for the small leftwing party, Free List. “It’s surreal what’s happening right now in 2026 in a state in the middle of Europe.”

The veto would do little to actually prevent abortions from taking place, she said. “Liechtenstein will continue to have a situation where abortions are banned, but we know they’re happening. The veto just means they will continue to take place abroad.”

Abortions in the principality are allowed only in limited circumstances such as when a woman’s life is at risk or a pregnancy is the result of rape. Since 2015, women have been legally permitted to travel abroad to terminate a pregnancy to skirt around the restrictions.

After campaigners launched the citizen’s initiative in February, more than 4,970 people – far more than the 1,000 signatures needed to send it to parliament – backed the call to decriminalise abortion up to 12 weeks. The initiative also called for the procedure to be covered by health insurance and for a repeal of a nationwide ban on sharing information about abortion access.

The hope was to do away with the many barriers that women face by being forced to travel abroad, often to neighbouring Austria or Switzerland, which include the cost, the need to arrange childcare and the lack of a vehicle.

As the initiative gained steam, Liechtenstein’s hereditary prince, Alois, said he would use his veto to counter any overhaul of the laws. The promise loomed over the initiative, even as parliamentarians voted narrowly to back it and an August poll suggested that 62% of voters were in favour of reforming the law.

This week the royal house confirmed Alois’s decision to “withhold his sanction from the bill” in a statement. It said: “Following careful consideration, he remains convinced that the proposed reform is not compatible with ensuring adequate protection of unborn life as a fundamental legal value.”

The royal house did not respond to a further request for comment from the Guardian.

Campaigners, who said they had met Alois hours before he announced his decision, described it as a blow to Liechtenstein’s identity as a monarchy underpinned by democratic principles.

“A single individual is overriding a decision initiated by almost a quarter of eligible voters and passed by the parliament,” the committee behind the citizens’ initiative said in a statement.

“Hereditary Prince Alois has only threatened to veto legislation twice in his reign, and both times it concerned the legalisation of abortion,” the statement added, referring to a 2011 pronouncement by the regent.

“This is the first time he has actually exercised this veto. The conclusion is clear: when it comes to abortion, there is only one decision-maker.”

It was a nod to the tremendous power the monarchy holds over the Alpine nation, with the ruling prince able to appoint judges and fire the government or individual ministers, said Gabriella Alvarez-Hummel, a journalist and one of the campaigners behind the citizens’ initiative. “He has a veto over everything, really,” she said.

In 2012, voters cast their ballots overwhelmingly to uphold his veto powers, in a referendum that was described at the time as a proxy debate over whether or not Liechtenstein should have a monarchy.

Alvarez-Hummel described this week’s decision as “very troubling”, given that Liechtenstein was the last in Europe to grant women the right to vote in national elections in 1984.

“Liechtenstein has a history of being the last when it comes to women’s rights,” she said. “I had hoped that we wouldn’t be the last in abortion rights as well, but it doesn’t look good at the moment.”

The campaign had managed to chalk up a few successes, she said, pointing to how it had chipped away at the decades-long taboo in talking about the topic in the nation.

In his statement this week, Alois also said he was open to lifting the nationwide ban on information about abortion, suggesting that women might one day be able to consult their healthcare provider on where to access the procedure abroad and receive support afterwards.

Even so, Alvarez-Hummel worried that the estimated 40 women a year who are forced to carry out the procedure abroad would now face greater stigma and more deeply entrenched taboos.

“You live in a country where it is forbidden, where the prince who lives in a castle made sure it stayed forbidden,” she said. “The one time he used his veto was against this – I can only imagine how difficult it must be for them to know this.”