Safe Access Zones in Scotland – Narrative Tensions

This blog is the third in our series, “Gender (in)justice: Views from Scotland”, featuring pieces authored by legal academics at Glasgow Caledonian University. GCU Law has a strong socio-legal research culture, and this blog series draws on our research across diverse legal contexts. This blog series will explore recent legal developments and emerging legal challenges at the intersection of gender and justice in the law of Scotland. By publishing pieces exploring gender justice issues from a Scots Law perspective, we hope to inspire discussion and invite critical perspectives not only among researchers working in the Scottish context, but from our colleagues in the rest of the UK and beyond.   

By Dr Conor Hill

Keywords: Abortion; Safe Access Zones; Human Rights; Privacy; Protest

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, Scotland.

In February of this year, US Vice President JD Vance was accused of “spreading misinformation” after he claimed that the Scottish Government had issued letters to people living within the “buffer zones” established around abortion providers, warning them not to pray within their homes. This incident shone a global spotlight on the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act 2024 – the legislation which had established these zones.

The Act, which entered into force in September 2024, creates “safe access zones” within 200 metres of any premises providing lawful abortion services. The 2024 Act also creates new criminal offences, including making it a crime to do anything, whilst within the safe access zone, which has the effect of influencing the decision of another person to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services; which impedes their ability to access, provide or facilitate said services; or which causes harassment, alarm or distress to another person in connection with their decision to do any of the above.

In the same month that Vice President Vance made his comments, the first arrest was made under this legislation, bringing it further attention. The person arrested and charged was a 74-year-old woman who had been standing within the 200-metre safe access zone around the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, bearing a sign that read “coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want”.

The media coverage surrounding these events exposes tensions in the balance of rights pursued by the 2024 Act – tensions that will be explored by this blog. It will argue that the Act strikes the right balance in its measures to protect the right to privacy of people accessing abortion services. However, the private nature of this activity means that people accessing abortion services may be left out or opt out of public debate on this issue. As a consequence, media coverage may instead amplify anti-abortion voices, allowing them to shape the narratives associated with the provision of abortion services and the women who access them.

The 2024 Act in Context

The 2024 Act was a response to the increased presence of anti-abortion protestors outside healthcare settings around Scotland. The policy memorandum which accompanied the Bill on its introduction to the Scottish Parliament in October 2023 describes these protests as variously involving “silent vigils, displays of images of foetuses, signs with language such as ‘murderer’, and displays of religious iconography”, with “clear evidence” of the distress these activities caused to people accessing and providing abortion services. Responses to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the Bill explained that the distress caused by these activities may be so acute that people may opt to “defer their treatment or purchase illegal abortion pills online from unregulated providers”, with potential negative consequences for their health. As such, the legislation was intended to directly address the impact of this anti-abortion activity.

Furthermore, the 2024 Act brings the law in Scotland in line with the law in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and with many common law jurisdictions around the world. However, while such laws have become relatively commonplace, they have been met with some backlash.

Balancing Competing Rights

One of the key criticisms directed at the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Scotland Bill and at the resulting 2024 Act is that they represent a disproportionate interference with the human rights of anti-abortion demonstrators attending these healthcare settings; namely, their rights to freedom of thought, conscious and religion, to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly protected by Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Indeed, on introduction of the Bill, the Scottish Government recognised that the creation of safe access zones would impact these rights. However, it was also recognised that these rights must be balanced with the rights of people attending hospitals and clinics to access services and care – rights which can be significantly impacted by anti-abortion activity at these settings.

Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to respect for private and family life, has been interpreted by the UK Supreme Court as conferring upon states “a positive obligation… to create a procedural framework enabling a pregnant woman to exercise effectively her right of access to a lawful abortion.” The Court further held that there exists a positive obligation on states “to enable a pregnant woman physically to access the premises where abortion services are lawfully provided, without being hindered or harmed” by the activities of anti-abortion demonstrators.

The rights under Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 are qualified rights, meaning that by their nature they can be subject to lawful interference where such interference is proportionate and in pursuit of a legitimate aim, such as the protection of the rights and reputation of others. As such, what this legislation aims to do is to strike a balance between the rights of anti-abortion protestors on one hand, and the rights of persons accessing lawful abortion services on the other. This balance was considered by the Supreme Court in respect of the equivalent Northern Irish legislation when it was referred to the Court by the Attorney General, with the Lord Advocate intervening in the proceedings. The Court held that the legislation pursued a legitimate aim to enable women to freely access abortion services, and that this aim could not be “reconciled with the desire of the protestors to target those women at the very time and place when they are seeking to access those services”. As such, the 2024 Act is proportionate in its limitation of the rights of anti-abortion protestors and has been argued to be the “most delicately balanced” of the safe access zones legislation in force in the UK.

Tensions Exposed by the Media Coverage

The tensions inherent in this delicate balance between the right to privacy and the rights related to protest – especially in relation to such a contentious and emotionally-charged issue as the provision of abortion services – become evident on examination of some of the media coverage around the Act.

On 15 May 2025, BBC’s Scotcast broadcast an interview with the first person to have been arrested under the 2024 Act. The interview took place three months after her arrest and charge, and during the period when the proceedings against this person would be considered “active” for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. An article published on the BBC News website on the same day highlights portions of the interview. The express aim of this interview was to allow the arrested person to “state her case” while having that case challenged by the interviewer, and allowing the public “to form [their] own conclusion”. This approach was condemned by campaign group Back Off Scotland. In an Instagram post, they shared that they had been invited by the BBC to provide an “alternative viewpoint” on the arrest, but declined due to concerns about the choice to engage in a pre-trial interview of a person charged with a crime.

Aside from the potential issues presented by interviewing a person subject to active criminal proceedings, this interview is also emblematic of the tension that emerges between protecting the privacy of persons accessing abortion services, while also ensuring a fair and balanced public debate on important issues. During the 29-minute broadcast, 25 minutes were dedicated to the interview. No-one else appeared on the programme to give an alternative view on the issues discussed, meaning that the voice of the arrested person went unchallenged.

The nature of abortion as a deeply private and intimate matter means that it may be difficult to gather voices who are willing or able to personally attest to the fear, alarm, and intimidation caused by protests at healthcare settings. During her interview, the arrested person stated that her intention had been to offer help and support to women attempting to access abortion. In the absence of alternative views, a narrative is constructed whereby these women are cast as an inherently vulnerable group, undermining their capacity to make informed choices about their own health. Thus, the private nature of abortion, and the effective protection of the right to privacy, leaves a vacuum in which anti-abortion voices are amplified.

Concluding Thoughts

The 2024 Act was passed to balance the rights of anti-abortion protestors with those of people accessing healthcare: while protestors have the right to freedom of expression and to protest, the right to privacy of persons accessing abortion services must also be respected. Inherent in such a balance is a tension between privacy and the protection of balanced public debate.

The interview discussed in this piece was framed as an exercise of the freedom of expression of the person interviewed, but by failing to represent the views of people affected by the actions of anti-abortion protestors, the interview contributed to a narrative of vulnerability and lack of capacity on the part of those seeking abortion care: a narrative which undermines the agency of women exercising their rights in this context. Indeed, the private nature of abortion, and the protection of that privacy by the 2024 Act, makes it difficult to fully represent “both sides” of the debate in question. The very fact that people affected by the actions of the charged person may wish to protect their privacy means that the voices of protestors are prioritised at their expense – something which is rarely, if ever, addressed in the coverage. Further research is required to understand how the effective protection of privacy in law may impact narratives around abortion in broader public debate.