Wera Hobhouse is the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath

Abortion has always involved deeply-held personal, ethical and religious beliefs. But for decades there has been a broad political consensus in the UK that decisions about pregnancy belong to women, their families and their healthcare providers, not politicians looking for a new culture war battleground. That non-partisan consensus is now under pressure.

Recent reporting has revealed a growing effort by Reform UK figures, anti-abortion campaigners and far-right activists to make abortion a new frontier in Britain’s culture wars. The language is becoming increasingly familiar: inflammatory rhetoric, misinformation, moral panic and attempts to portray established reproductive rights as somehow radical or extreme.

We should not dismiss this as political noise. Many people look at what has happened in the United States and assume it could never happen here. They point to our different political traditions and our strong public support for abortion rights.

But rights are rarely lost overnight. More often, they are gradually politicised before they are challenged.

The rollback of abortion rights in America did not begin with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It began years earlier, with a deliberate effort to make reproductive rights a political dividing line. Issues that had previously been treated as matters of healthcare or personal opinion became tools in a broader political ideological campaign. That should serve as a warning.

Only recently, Parliament voted overwhelmingly to decriminalise abortion for women in England and Wales – the biggest step forward for reproductive rights in six decades. I was proud to support that change. The reform was not about expanding access to abortion or changing time limits, it simply recognised that women should not face criminal investigation, prosecution or imprisonment because of circumstances surrounding their own pregnancies.

Since 2020, around 100 women have been investigated by police following pregnancy loss or suspected abortion offences. Some investigations involved women who had suffered miscarriages. Six women faced court proceedings and one woman was imprisoned under legislation rooted in the Victorian-era Offences Against the Person Act 1861. No woman experiencing pregnancy loss should have to fear becoming the subject of a traumatic criminal investigation.

Yet even before decriminalisation has had time to take effect, there are already calls from some Reform UK figures and their allies to reverse it.

What worries me is not simply disagreement over policy – healthy democracies will always contain disagreement – it is the deliberate attempt to import the tactics and language of America’s abortion wars into British politics.

Open Democracy reported that the UK arm of The Alliance Defending Freedom, an organisation closely associated with anti-abortion campaigning in the United States, has received more than £2 million in funding from its American parent organisation while campaigning against abortion clinic safe access zones.

Its analysis also found a significant increase in abortion-related content among Reform-linked and far-right social media accounts over the past two years. These posts generated hundreds of thousands of interactions and frequently relied on inflammatory language designed to provoke outrage rather than inform debate.

The objective is not simply to oppose abortion, it is to make reproductive freedom politically toxic again. Once that happens, rights that once seemed secure become negotiable. The lesson we need to learn from America is that complacency can be dangerous. 

That does not mean every disagreement about abortion is an attack on women’s rights, nor does it mean Britain is on the verge of following America’s path where 17 states enforce near-total bans. But it does mean we should be alert when politicians seek to reopen settled questions, import foreign culture wars, and turn women’s bodies into political battlegrounds.

One of the most striking features of this debate is how far it appears to be driven from the top down, rather than from public demand.

Polling consistently shows overwhelming support for access to abortion in the UK, including among Reform voters. In fact, around 86% of Reform voters support a woman’s right to choose. The public understands that these are deeply personal decisions. They understand that criminalising women does not solve difficult situations. They understand that healthcare works best when it is guided by evidence, compassion and clinical expertise, rather than political ideology.

That raises an obvious question: if this is the settled view of the electorate, why is it being reopened as a political battleground at all?

The answer lies in the growing influence of a small but organised network of politicians, media figures and campaigning groups who have made abortion a central cultural and ideological cause.

Open Democracy reported that Paul Marshall, the co-owner of GB News, which has paid Nigel Farage nearly £370,000 since he became an MP, is on the board of the anti-abortion ARC forum alongside JD Vance’s “intellectual mentor” James Orr and Reform MP Danny Kruger. Farage has himself spoken at events in the United States where restrictions on abortion were being promoted, and has previously described the UK’s 24-week time limit as  “ludicrous”.

None of this reflects a clear public mandate to change the law. Instead, it reflects a process of political agenda-setting in which minority positions are amplified through social media platforms and transatlantic alliances until they begin to appear more mainstream than they are.

Rights are not usually removed in a single dramatic moment. They are eroded gradually through the normalisation of once-fringe arguments, the reshaping of political debate, and the steady expansion of what is considered reasonable to question.

That process is already clearly underway. We should have the awareness to say so, and the vigilance to ensure it goes no further.

The post Wera Hobhouse MP: Reform UK is importing America’s abortion culture war into Britain appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

A familiar right-wing trope has resurfaced.  

“Forget the manosphere. It’s angry Leftie women we need to worry about,” declared a recent Telegraph headline, warning that young women “radicalised” by figures like Greta Thunberg are rejecting marriage, capitalism, and social norms altogether.

And to make matters even worse, it came not from an aggrieved male, railing against feminism, but from a woman – Rowan Pelling, a journalist long preoccupied with what she sees as the excesses of modern feminism. This isn’t new territory for Pelling. As far back as 2004, she was wailing about the “angry clamour” of politically engaged women and mocking feminist demands as trivial irritations.

What she presents as a cultural gripe about “angry Leftie women” is part of a broader political project. Across the UK, US, and Europe, narratives about declining birth rates, feminism, and “cultural decay” are tied with anti-immigration rhetoric, pro-natalist policy agendas, and opposition to LGBTQ+ rights. They form an ideological ecosystem in which women’s autonomy, migration, and social liberalism are framed as interconnected threats to national identity and stability.

An utterly bizarre comparison

At the centre of Pelling’s argument, is a claim that for every young man radicalised by figures such as Andrew Tate or Charlie Kirk, there is a young woman being similarly radicalised by Greta Thunberg.

This comparison simply doesn’t hold up. Tate is a self-described misogynist influencer who promotes an ultra-masculine, capitalistic lifestyle, and rigid gender hierarchies. He has also faced serious criminal charges, including rape and human trafficking.

Greta Thunberg is an environmental activist whose message centres on climate science, collective responsibility, and political accountability. Her advocacy is rooted in widely accepted scientific consensus rather than a worldview built on gendered power.

What gets ignored

Pelling’s framing also sidesteps context. Concerns about the “manosphere” aren’t abstract, they are tied to measurable harms, including rising levels of violence against women and girls in the UK, described by the government as a “national emergency.”

Redirecting scrutiny towards environmentally engaged young women risks trivialising a growing problem.

Even Pelling’s appeal to motherhood and concern for her sons, and her dig at programmes like Louis Theroux’s Inside the Manosphere, which she says focus on problematic men while ignoring the ‘femosphere,’ feel misplaced, even perverse.

Programmes like Theroux’s arguably help equip young men with the awareness to recognise and reject toxic behaviour. As a mother of sons myself, I’m glad my boys have watched Theroux’s episode on the manosphere, for exactly those reasons.

The rise of the ‘womansphere’ and its business model

But perhaps even more revealing is how this narrative fits into a broader trend, the rise of a conservative ‘womansphere.’

Across the US and beyond, female-led platforms, including podcasts, lifestyle brands, and influencer channels, are building large audiences by promoting traditional gender roles that embrace domesticity and submission, under the guise of empowerment.

But this isn’t just ideology, it’s also commerce.

These platforms monetise discontent, through sponsorships, subscriptions, branded content, and speaking events. The ‘trad wife’ aesthetic, apron-clad domestic bliss, large families, and cheerful submission, is packaged as a lifestyle product, making outrage at feminism a revenue stream.

There’s an obvious irony. The same voices decrying feminism are profiting from freedoms, economic, social, digital, that feminism helped secure.

Old playbooks, new platforms

None of this is entirely new. The playbook echoes earlier anti-feminist campaigns led by figures like US conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, who deeply opposed feminism, gay rights, and abortion. In the 1970s, Schlafly mobilised opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that feminism would make women unhappy and dismantle the family.

What has changed is the scale and sophistication of the delivery. Social media has transformed these ideas into content ecosystems, where backlash isn’t just cultural, but commercial.

When the narrative lands in UK politics

This ‘panic’ is no longer confined to the US and is becoming increasingly visible in the UK.

At events like the National Conservatism Conference, concerns about falling birth rates and “cultural decline” are regularly linked to critiques of feminism and calls for a return to traditional family structures.

Figures like former Tory MP and now GB News’ host Miriam Cates have framed low birth rates as an “existential crisis,” attributing them to cultural forces undermining traditional values. Cates has also tied falling birthrates to immigration.

“Mass immigration has had significant negative effects on our culture and economy, and represents a huge failure of democracy, given that the British population has voted consistently for lower levels of immigration,” she told GB News.

“But one of the main drivers for importing migrants has been chronic low birth rates, which have led to a shortage of young workers in our labour force.”

Similarly, figures such as Jacob Rees-Mogg have emphasised the need for higher birth rates, tied to cultural preservation or national identity. Nobody could accuse Rees-Mogg of not practising what he preaches with his six children with their ‘heritage’ type names.

Reform UK

Nowhere is this narrative clearer than in Reform UK. Not only does the party present itself as a defender of freedom while echoing MAGA-style cultural politics, but it hypocritically portrays itself as the ‘defenders of women’ against immigrants and other perceived outsiders.  

But as the Good Law Project observes: “Reform UK is spreading racist lies, claiming migrants are a threat to women. There’s no credible evidence to support these claims – it’s just a cheap political ploy to sow division and stoke fear.”

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage has called for a “180-degree shift” to reverse the declining birth rate. Addressing a global gathering of right-wing activists in London last year, he also praised “our Judeo-Christian culture.”

Historically, “Judeo-Christian” as a term, emerged in the 1930s and ‘40s to unite Jewish and Christian communities against fascism and the appropriation of “Christian values.” But in more recent decades, it has been repurposed.

Today, it is often deployed for a particular vision of European identity. Critics argue it masks older prejudices, positioning certain groups as outside a supposedly shared heritage and is often used by the far-right to promote white identity. 

As the European Society notes, the term is used in ways that are “hypocritical” and “dismissive of Jews… and frequently used to exclude and demonise Muslims as part of a broader shift from overt anti-semitism to overt islamophobia.”

From ‘family values’ to policy influence

Such ideological framing becomes more concrete when you look at figures within Reform’s orbit, such as James Orr, the party’s head of policy. In March, Orr spoke at CPAC Hungary, a political festival closely associated with Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. There he shared the stage with the white nationalist Estonian politician Martin Helme, leader of the far-right Conservative People’s Party.

Helme has expressed radical, anti-migrant views. In 2013, he said his immigration policy was “If you’re black, go back,” adding: “I want Estonia to be a white country.” He has also faced accusations of misogyny and sexist behaviour, with critics accusing his nationalist, far-right party of using offensive language targeting female politicians. As well as opposing LGBTQ+ rights, framing them as “propaganda,” Helme promotes policies aimed at boosting birth rates, which are often aligned with encouraging traditional gender roles.

Similarly James Orr is known for his anti-migrant views, having described asylum seekers as “invaders.” At the 2026 CPAC Hungary conference, he stated that Reform UK’s policy should not only stop mass migration but also focus on how to “reverse it.” Orr advocates for “pro-natalist public policy” to address what he views as a critical decline in birth rates. He is also known for his strict anti-abortion position, having previously described UK abortion laws as “extreme.” He argues against termination of pregnancy in all circumstances, including cases of rape, incest and serious risk to health.

Just this week, a Reform candidate in Wales, stunned a husting by claiming women should stay at home to care for children rather than work. So much for Nigel Farage’s promise of “beefed-up” vetting, as candidates with openly regressive views are still slipping through.

Positions like these suggest rights are not settled freedoms, but open to challenge and reversal.

Following the money and the networks

The UK is part of a wider, well-funded international network pushing similar ideas. Campaign groups, legal organisations, and advocacy bodies, often with roots in the United States, are investing significant resources into reshaping the conversation around reproductive rights.

One example is ADF International, whose UK arm has received some £3.4m in funding since 2019 and spent nearly £3.2m, according to Charity Commission filings. Its stated mission is to promote “Christian principles and ethics,” but in practice this has meant backing legal arguments and campaigns that challenge abortion access and reinforce traditional gender roles.

As Kerry Abel of Abortion Rights has warned : “The fact that anti-abortion MPs and ex-MPs are flocking to Reform is deeply worrying. This is not about being ‘pro-family’ – it is about stripping women of their rights and rolling back decades of progress”.

What the ‘angry Leftie women’ panic is really about

The backlash against “angry Leftie women” isn’t really about attitudes, or even generational divides. It reflects a deeper political anxiety about shifting demographics, changing gender roles, and the erosion of traditional hierarchies.

The question isn’t why young women are “angry.” It’s why their autonomy is being positioned as a political problem, one that is increasingly tied to immigration, birth rates, and national identity, and used to justify a broader rollback of rights.

Because ultimately, this isn’t a crisis caused by women stepping out of line. It’s a reaction to the fact that they no longer feel obliged to stay in it.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

The post ‘Angry Leftie women’: the real politics behind the ‘femosphere’ moral panic appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.