European Parliament’s abortion vote lays bare Malta’s political exceptionalism

The European Parliament’s vote to support the creation of an EU fund facilitating access to abortion care was widely described as historic. 

The plan would establish a voluntary, opt-in financial mechanism to help member states provide abortion care to women who can’t access it in their own country and who choose to travel to one with more liberal laws. 

The motion followed a grassroots campaign called My Voice, My Choice: For Safe And Accessible Abortion that was part of a European citizens initiative, which collected signatures from all member states, including Malta. 

The question before MEPs was not whether abortion should be legal in their own countries, which is already the case in all EU member states except Malta and to an extent Poland. 

Rather, it was whether safe access to abortion should be recognised as a right irrespective of where a woman resides within the European Union. 

This distinction matters. Health policy remains a national competence, and the resolution did not seek to harmonise abortion laws or override domestic legislation. Instead, it focused on whether the EU could support access to care across borders, including through financial assistance for women who travel because services are unavailable at home. 

For Malta, where abortion remains almost entirely prohibited, the vote did not compel legislative change. But the outcome sends a strong message of solidarity towards Maltese women who do not have access to safe and legal abortion services at home. 

That framing also shaped how different political groups approached the vote. In technical terms, it allowed MEPs—particularly within the European People’s Party (EPP)—to justify opposing the resolution on grounds of subsidiarity and national competence, rather than having to take a position on the substance of abortion rights. In line with this, Malta’s EPP MEP Peter Agius sponsored an alternative text explicitly emphasising that sexual and reproductive rights should remain under the authority of member states. Yet, a relative majority of EPP MEPs still opted to support the resolution, signaling a willingness to back the principle of safe access across borders. 

PN’s own allies supported resolution 

In fact, the clearest signal that support for universal access to safe abortion is upheld by the EU mainstream, emerged from within the EPP. The group was almost evenly split: 71 MEPs (43%) voted in favour of the resolution, while 68 (41%) voted against. This division directly challenges the assumption, still prevalent in Malta, that opposition to abortion is a defining feature of centre‑right politics.  

A look at national voting patterns within the EPP further weakens that assumption. All Irish MEPs—including those from Fine Gael, the EPP‑affiliated governing party—voted in favour of the resolution. Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform MEPs also supported the resolution as did all Greek and Cypriot centre-right MEPs. These votes underline how centre‑right parties elsewhere have accepted the principle of access to reproductive healthcare without abandoning their ideological identity. 

For Malta’s Nationalist Party, this presents a long‑term strategic dilemma. Persistently excluding pro‑choice positions may preserve internal cohesion in the short term, but it increasingly isolates the party within its own European family and limits its ability to reflect the diversity of views now normalised across the EPP. It also stands as a warning for those within the PN who on the social media refer to those supporting abortion as “murderers”, an accusation which is increasingly applicable to many of their centre-right allies in Europe. Moreover, the celebration of Maltese exceptionalism can create a Eurosceptic backlash in what was Malta’s most pro-European party. 

PN MEP Peter Agius sponsored an alternative text explicitly emphasising that sexual and reproductive rights should remain under the authority of member states. (Photo: Laurie Dieffembacq/EP)

Socialists celebrated, Labour abstained or voted against 

If the EPP vote highlighted pluralism on the centre‑right, the picture within the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group was even more striking. Alex Agius Saliba was one of only two S&D MEPs to vote against the resolution, while Thomas Bajada and Daniel Attard were the only two to abstain. All other socialist MEPs supported the proposal, making the PL MEPs’ vote a clear anomaly within its political family. Moreover, the socialist group not only voted for the resolution but celebrated the outcome, even describing it as a historic victory. 

Labour’s ambiguous stance was reinforced by the abstention Daniel Attard and Thomas Bajada. While abstention does not amount to support, it suggests that Labour’s internal position on abortion may be in flux. In explaining his abstention, Bajada said he has “consistently” abstained on the subject of abortion and framed his vote as a call for national dialogue, arguing that “discussions over abortion in Malta should take place without political agendas or polarisation and with deep respect towards social and ethical realities.” He also said he is “completely against the criminalisation of Maltese women” who have undergone an abortion. 

Abstention, in this context, can be read as a sign of caution in a party where the issue is no longer taboo but where internal debate is still restrained by fear of a backlash from its more conservative supporters. At the same time, the political weight of Agius Saliba’s opposition should not be understated. As deputy leader of the Labour Party and a figure mentioned as a possible future leadership contender, his vote signals that resistance to pro‑choice positions remains entrenched even within the party’s leadership. 

Moreover, the absence of a clear pro-choice voice like that of Cyrus Engerer who supported the Voice for Choice initiative when still an MEP, confirms that the issue is still a taboo in a party which describes itself as progressive. The social media reaction by supporters railing against the European Union for pressuring Malta on this issue, also exposes another fault-line in the PL between its increasingly rogue Eurosceptic and conservative wing and an increasingly frustrated social liberal wing.   

On the same page as the hard right? 

The most unified opposition to the resolution came from the far-right and hard-right groups, where resistance to abortion access remains an ideological marker. But even here, however, there were notable exceptions. Four MEPs from Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella’s National Rally broke ranks to support the resolution while a majority abstained, reflecting the party’s growing need to accommodate public opinion in France, where access to abortion enjoys broad popular support and has recently been constitutionally entrenched.   It is to be noted that even Marine Le Pen voted for this constitutional entrenchment. 

Support for the resolution was unanimous among the Greens and Renew Europe who are aligned with Malta’s two third parties.  Momentum—aligned with Renew Europe—gives its members freedom of choice on this issue, but so far, no pro‑choice voices have emerged within the party. Although hesitant, ADPD—aligned with the Greens—appears to be moving in a pro‑choice direction. 

What changes in Malta 

Ultimately, the EP vote’s significance for Malta is symbolic rather than legal. It does not change national law, nor does it override domestic competence. What it does expose is a persistent democratic gap—the near‑absence of explicit pro‑choice representation within Malta’s major political parties, despite such views being widely accepted across almost all European party families. 

But what remains striking is that while pro-choice voices exist in all parties, and especially so in the Labour Party, presently no elected party official is keen on expressing this position in public. Moreover, the PN is still allergic to any internal debate on this issue, because to do so it has to acknowledge that the pro-choice position is a legitimate one. 

The end result of this is that abortion is not even discussed within Malta’s major political parties, a situation that is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.