The article considers the future prospects of the struggle for gender equality in light of the growing appeal and electoral success of parties embracing populist nationalism and anti-immigration as their platform. Considering many such parties are known for viewing the promotion of gender equality as unnecessary or even harmful – except when they highlight immigration as a threat to female emancipation – it is important to explore what, if anything, the electoral success of populist-nationalist parties means for the direction of (...) gender equality policies. The article examines this question in the Finnish context. Though the Finnish state’s commitment to gender equality is well-established, questions can be asked about the future prospects of gender equality policies in light of the electoral rise of the populist anti-immigration party Perussuomalaiset, especially since the party joined government in May 2015. The article scrutinises the recent record of PS in parliament and government, elucidating on the challenges that populist-nationalist parties create for gender equality in ‘women-friendly’ welfare states. The case study particularly focuses on gender equality in the context of balancing work and family and freedom from violence, discrimination and harassment. It raises questions that are of broader relevance to the future of gender equality in Europe, considering the Nordic states have been viewed as models for a gender egalitarian society and frontrunners in the promotion of gender equality within the EU. (shrink)

Feminist legal efforts to make sense of the external migration policies of the European Union (EU) have focused almost exclusively on the EU’s initiatives against trafficking in women. This article examines one of the more neglected areas of EU immigration policy—the return of ‘illegal immigrants’. It analyses the so-called 2008 Returns Directive in the light of the multidimensional inequalities experienced by migrant women, which affect their migration status and expose some of them to the threat of removal. Owing to insecurities (...) over external migration, the Directive constructs even the most vulnerable migrants as a threat to be controlled and is likely to result in detrimental consequences for many migrants, and in particular already vulnerable women who are likely to be further disadvantaged by it. (shrink)