Andrea Prudente case: a case study on social mobilisation, reproductive governance, and the politics of abortion reform in Malta.

In 2022, the case of Andrea Prudente, an American tourist denied an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy in Malta, catalysed unprecedented social mobilisation and compelled a legislative review of the country's abortion ban. This paper traces the political and social dynamics that shaped this process, from the initial advocacy to the final, heavily contested legislative outcome. Drawing on Morgan and Roberts' concept of reproductive governance, we examine media content and parliamentary discourses to trace how state actors mediated the conflict between competing moral and legal frameworks. Our analysis demonstrates that while persistent pressure by pro-choice advocates was instrumental in forcing a legislative review, the government's initial proposed reforms were systematically contested and ultimately neutralised by a powerful, well-organised anti-choice countermovement. We argue that state actors ultimately capitulated to immense conservative pressures from influential religious and civil society actors. The resulting amendment, which permits termination only under exceptionally restrictive circumstances to save a pregnant person's life, is a stark example of how reproductive governance can accommodate pressure for change while leaving the underlying system intact. This process highlights how legal reform can be critically decoupled from meaningful access, failing to secure genuine reproductive rights. Despite its profound limitations, the amendment constitutes the first-ever legal exception to Malta's absolute ban, proving that such entrenched governance frameworks are not immutable. The Prudente case and the mobilisation it inspired have irrevocably fractured the previous politico-legal consensus, thereby creating a precedent for future legal challenges and continued advocacy for comprehensive reproductive justice in Malta.