Why global migration systems are still not built with women in mind. Examining the legal, social, and political barriers faced by female migrants and refugees.
By Sarah Pass
As the debate surrounding immigration increasingly drives forward political narratives, the incumbent Labour government’s decision to restrict the path to citizenship for individuals who have arrived in the UK irregularly—even if recognized as refugees—amidst a global wave of tough-on-migration policies, calls for a critical examination of how these decisions can disproportionately affect female migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.
The lack of consideration for gender-based immigration policy does not reflect the reality that women are more likely to face discrimination based on sex and are more likely to lack economic, social, and educational equality. Women are also the most frequent victims of gender-based violence, including domestic violence, rape, forced marriage, forced sterilisation and genital mutilation.
Enduring misogynistic norms surrounding femininity and virginity place women and girls at greater risk when they reject traditional gender roles. In 2018, a World Health Organisation report found that an estimated 763 million women have been subjected to physical or sexual violence at least once in their lives, and in 2023, UN Women cited that around 51,000 women and girls were killed by their intimate partner or another family member in that year. However, there is a lack of protection in international law for women who experience or are under threat of experiencing these acts of violence.
Legal Protection for Women Refugees
The absence of gender-specific language in international law regarding the rights of refugees complicates the recognition of gendered violence as a form of persecution. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees states the definition of a refugee as an individual with a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” The cornerstone of the Convention is the promise of non-discrimination and non-refoulement, as stated in Article 33 of the Convention, “No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” However, the Convention does not define what constitutes a ‘well-founded fear’ or ‘persecution,’ leaving room for broad and varied interpretation.
This has largely left interpretation to the individual state to consider applications, which means there is no universal consensus on what protections would be afforded to a woman escaping gendered violence. There have been multiple amendments made to the Convention specifically meant to broaden the protections available to refugees. The 1967 protocol relating to the Convention removed the geographical and time limits of the Convention, which initially only referred to events in Europe that had taken place before 1 January 1951. The UNCHR’s 2002 Guidelines on International Protection relating to gender-related persecution have attempted to establish a framework for refugees claiming persecution based on gender or sex, but these guidelines are not legally binding and still rely on an interpretation of a ‘well-founded fear’ by the individual state.
In the UK, Section 32 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 altered the process to the ‘split approach’, which confers a two-step assessment for refugees seeking sanctuary, allowing a decision maker to determine whether a person has a characteristic that would cause them to fear persecution, and then determine whether there is an actual fear of persecution. For migrant women, this two-step process remains confusing and unreliable, though it may be found that gender is an applicable characteristic that could result in persecution, it could also be declared that there is no actual fear of persecution, leaving them vulnerable and at a higher risk of violence.
Women Migrants Beyond Refugees
Even when female migrants are not considered refugees, they may be leaving a country for gender specific reasons. Many countries still hold anti-women policies and maintain a misogynistic society and culture. Restrictive policies on women’s issues can often push women towards considering migration as a solution to provide more social and economic freedom. Recently, waves of anti-feminist political action globally could precede an uptick in unsafe conditions for women. A surge of support for conservative politicians who do not advocate for gender equality and support traditional views of gender roles could influence a regression in the societal treatment of women and girls.
In 2022, the electoral victory of President Yoon of South Korea, who blamed low birthrates on feminism and campaigned on abolishing the Ministry of Family and Gender Equality, was largely attributed to the mobilisation of young men to support conservative policies. In 2022, after his electoral victory, Amnesty International released a statement saying Yoon’s perspective on women is “based on an underlying belief that women are not full people with human dignity and rights.”
This reflects global trends in much of the world that have seen governments craft policies that restrict a woman’s autonomy and control. In Italy, the government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has faced criticism for its policies on reproductive rights, and in Poland, the right-wing PiS Party has enacted a near-total abortion ban.
The re-election of Donald Trump as President of the United States for a second non-consecutive term, who in his first term enacted laws that prevented victims of domestic abuse from seeking asylum in the United States, is worrying for American women who fear his return to the Presidency, along with Republican majorities in Congress and a conservative Supreme Court, will result in a nationwide abortion ban.
There is also concern over the rollback of DEI policies by the Trump administration, which have largely benefitted women in the workplace. A curbing of fair hiring and treatment policies for women in the workplace could lessen the financial independence of women and increase the necessity to rely on male partners or family members for financial purposes, which would lessen the ability of a woman to leave in cases of domestic violence. A global backslide in women’s rights could also affect a woman’s ability to seek sanctuary or refuge in another country as a result of gender-based discrimination or violence, as the protections of international law are enforced largely through the cooperation of individual governments, and the adoption of anti-women policies in a global array of countries could reshape migration law to render gender-based claims devoid of justification.
Migration patterns can differentiate between women and men and can often be viewed as representative of long-standing cultural ideas on gender roles that permeate global societies. Women often make less money and face higher levels of workplace discrimination that prevent advancement opportunities than their male counterparts, which can affect the ability of women to bear the financial cost of applying for and renewing visas, or to be supported in applying for work visas that favour “highly-skilled” foreign individuals with professional advancement. These challenges disproportionately affect women from racial and ethnic minority groups, who still trail behind their white female counterparts in achieving financial and workplace equity, which could subsequently limit migration options to women who are at the most risk in countries where gender-based discrimination and violence are prevalent.
Additionally, women migrants are more likely to be dependent on male partners or family members. For female migrants coming to the UK, this could mean coming with a partner who is settled in the UK or has British citizenship, a partner who has the right to work in the UK, to form a new marriage, or as dependents of refugees, students, or workers who tend to be male. The dependency of female migrants on male associates for the right to be in the UK also often leaves them more vulnerable to coercion, control, and violence.
For instance, the adoption of family visas disproportionately affects women who rely on a male partner or relative for immigration status and often affects their financial support, as many migrant women are reliant on working husbands or other family members for income and financial security.
Migrant women are more likely to face social barriers in escaping abusive relationships due to cultural norms that permeate ideas of control surrounding the regulation of women’s bodies, and where the option of divorce is considered a source of shame. These migrant women can also face exclusion from migrant communities for defying widely practiced gender norms, further hindering their access to social support in the UK. An analysis of economic issues faced by migrant women from the Women’s Budget Group notes that only 20% of total work visas are issued to women, whereas women migrants make up 36% of student visas. The number of migrant women in the UK on family and dependent visas takes a large leap, with women being 68% of all granted visas. This shows the disparity faced by migrant women who are dependent on another individual for immigration status in the UK, who subsequently lack the protections given to other female migrants. These women are held to domestic accountability by the men whom they are dependent on, instead of corporations or higher-learning institutions, which have a level of oversight and regulation. Inequality for women in the migration system that lacks oversight still leaves women migrants vulnerable to violence, abuse, and discrimination based on gender.
In the UK, the immigration system’s treatment of female refugees still leaves much to be desired. As of 2020, 50% of asylum claims made by women were granted, but a persisting trend shows that a significant proportion of denied claims by women are then overturned on appeal – in 2020, 43% of women’s appeals were allowed. This begs the question: why is the UK so ineffectual in considering gender-based migration claims? In short, many women find it difficult to provide evidentiary proof in gender-based cases, particularly in scenarios such as rape, where there can be little physical evidence, and subsequently the continued culture of victim blaming that discredits the lived experiences of women who have suffered gendered violence.
Attitudes that dismiss lived experiences have also been demonstrable within the Home Office, where a report by Freedom from Torture exposed a culture of disbelief within the sector that dismissed the circumstances given by survivors and led with a culture of suspicion that actively searched for a reason to refuse claims. This has subjected women who are seeking refuge after enduring traumatic experiences to a hostile environment that seeks to discredit them. Accessing quality legal representation is another major barrier, particularly for women whose claims rely on an understanding of gendered violence and discrimination.
In a 2019 report by Women for Refugee Women that examined the cases of Chinese women who had been trafficked to the UK and were subsequently detained and held at Yarl’s Wood, an immigrant detention center, it was reported that the Home Office stated that a woman’s account of sexual exploitation could not be reliably believed, as she had not disclosed it to officials immediately. This is evidence of the type of invasive questioning that seeks to discredit women who are victims of gender-based crime. A subsequent 2020 report by Women for Refugee Women explored destitution and the asylum system for women, revealing how women migrants often lack the means to sufficiently support themselves in the UK after having their asylum claims refused. If a woman migrant’s appeal against a refusal is unsuccessful, it is declared that her appeal rights have been exhausted, and the defendant will not be able to claim Section 95 support, which provides low-level financial support and accommodation for asylum seekers. Left without support, many women face destitution, exposure to violence, and a system that fails to recognise or protect their vulnerability.
Fear of being reported to immigration enforcement can often stop women migrants facing such situations from seeking avenues of safety with organisations, charities, and the police. This culture of fear confronts and exploits the experiences of migrant women instead of providing a clear path to escaping gender-based discrimination and violence, wherein already traumatised women are subjected to criticism that devalues their experiences of persecution and are at risk of detention and deportation due to ineffective government policies.
The stories and statistics outlined above are not anomalies – they are symptoms of a migration system that fails to view women as whole people, with specific needs, vulnerabilities, and rights. The absence of gender-sensitive policy and the persistence of a culture of disbelief turn trauma into bureaucracy and survival into a legal battle. For too many women, fleeing gender-based violence only leads them into new systems of control, silence, and precarity.
To build truly humane and just immigration systems, governments must embed a gender lens into every layer of policy and practice. Anything less is complicity in the continued cycle of violence against women. The time to act is now – because women’s lives should never be an afterthought in global migration politics.
This article is part of the series “Women On The Move. Fleeig, Fighting, Forgotten” To read more inspiring stories of everyday women making a real difference in the world, be sure to check out the latest edition of Wempower magazine, or listen to our podcast.
