Resources

Why has no country achieved gender equality?

No country scores 100 across all 27 indicators and five dimensions. Even the highest-scoring country, Norway, reached 93.3 in 2025, leaving measurable gaps against the Index targets. The result reflects the breadth of gender equality: countries may perform strongly in health, education or services while remaining below parity in political leadership, civic voice, safety, access to justice or economic power.

The Index also uses ambitious, absolute targets rather than defining equality as the performance of the current best-performing country. This matters because even the best-performing countries still may still fall short of a rights-based or policy target. Every country still has work to do, and high average performance should not obscure specific groups, rights or institutions where progress remains incomplete or vulnerable.

Does the Index show that gender equality is improving or declining globally?

Overall, the Index shows improvement, but it is slow and uneven. Across the 130 countries covered, the average score rose from 66.7 in 2020 to 69.0 in 2025, an increase of 2.3 points. Two-thirds of countries improved: 27 made fast progress and 59 made some progress. The majority of women and girls covered by the Index, 57 per cent, live in countries whose scores improved.

At the same time, around one-third of countries stagnated or declined, and 1.6 billion women and girls live in those countries. No country has achieved gender equality, and the 2025 global score remains in the ‘Fair’ category. The overall direction is therefore positive, but the average hides sharp differences by country, region, income group, dimension and indicator. Some areas, particularly digital access and parts of health and economic opportunity, advanced. Others linked to justice, civic freedoms, political voice and institutional trust showed stagnation or reversal. Women’s access to justice and women’s freedom of expression recorded the two largest global indicator declines, showing that improvements in the average coexist with serious setbacks in rights, voice and institutional accountability.

If global gender equality is improving, why does the report warn about fragility and backlash?

The global average can rise even while important rights and institutions deteriorate in many countries. The 2026 findings show diverging patterns: while access to technology, services and some economic opportunities have improved, key measures of voice, justice and public power have weakened. Women’s access to justice and women’s freedom of expression were the two indicators in the Index with the largest declines over the period, and more than a quarter of countries backslid on both issues.

Backlash is also visible in specific national trajectories. The United States recorded the largest overall decline, including a sharp fall in Health and SRHR following new restrictions on reproductive rights. Ten of the eleven declining high-income countries saw reversals in Civic Space and Leadership. These patterns matter because rights, representation and accountable institutions help protect gains made elsewhere. Progress can therefore be real and fragile at the same time. The Index warns against treating improvements as automatic or permanent, especially when civic space narrows, representation falls, public trust weakens or previously secured rights are reversed.

Which dimensions of gender equality are improving fastest?

Economic Opportunity and Power was the fastest-improving dimension between 2020 and 2025, rising from 75.5 to 78.8. Expansion in women’s use of internet was the strongest driver, improving by about 10 points globally. Indicators related to women’s financial inclusion and parenting and care laws also improved, although progress varied considerably across countries.

The Enabling Environment for Gender Equality was the second-fastest-improving dimension, increasing by 2.9 points, largely because of gains in disaggregated statistics coverage and some improvements in public transport and fiscal conditions. The Health and SRHR dimension also recorded modest progress, including improvements in maternal mortality and abortion laws in several countries.

These gains should not be overstated. Economic Opportunity and Power still contains a 37.4-point average gap between high- and low-income countries, while improvements in connectivity or account ownership do not necessarily mean women control resources or decisions. Likewise, stronger data systems or infrastructure do not automatically translate into equal access to public services.

Which dimensions are most concerning?

Civic Space and Leadership is the most concerning dimension in terms of overall level. Its 2025 global score was 60.5, making it the only dimension firmly in the ‘Poor’ category. Women remain underrepresented in parliaments, cabinets and climate decision-making, while women’s freedom of expression declined in many countries. The dimension captures whether women can shape progress, not simply benefit from it.

Safety and Security is also a major concern. It recorded the least progress of any dimension, increasing by only 1.4 points to 69.9. Women’s access to justice registered the largest global decline of any indicator, and only 59 per cent of women reported feeling safe walking alone at night. Climate vulnerability was one of the weakest indicators and largely stagnated.

Together, these results suggest that the weakest areas in the Index are closely connected to women’s rights, safety, voice and ability to influence institutions. They also reinforce the report’s warning that progress in services and opportunities may remain fragile without justice, civic freedoms and political power.

Why are some lower-income countries improving faster than many high-income countries?

Many lower-income countries started from lower scores and therefore had greater scope to make large gains by expanding education, healthcare, legal protections, digital access and social protection. Between 2020 and 2025, 36 of 46 low- and lower-middle-income countries improved. Rapid progress can occur when governments and movements act on clear policy gaps, even where the distance still to travel is substantial.

By contrast, high-scoring countries can experience a ceiling effect: as they approach the targets, further gains become harder and smaller. But some high-income countries did not merely slow down; they declined, particularly in the Civic Space and Leadership dimension. Nearly two-thirds of countries that declined on this dimension were high-income.

These patterns should not be read as lower-income countries having solved gender inequality or as high-income countries performing poorly overall. Many lower-income countries still face the largest absolute gaps. The finding is that starting level and direction of travel are different questions, and neither income nor a strong historical reputation guarantees continued progress.

Why are some countries traditionally seen as gender equality leaders losing ground?

Many lower-income countries started from lower scores and therefore had greater scope to make large gains by expanding education, healthcare, legal protections, digital access and social protection. Between 2020 and 2025, 36 of 46 low- and lower-middle-income countries improved. Rapid progress can occur when governments and movements act on clear policy gaps, even where the distance still to travel is substantial.

By contrast, high-scoring countries can experience a ceiling effect: as they approach the targets, further gains become harder and smaller. But some high-income countries did not merely slow down; they declined, particularly in the Civic Space and Leadership dimension. Nearly two-thirds of countries that declined on this dimension were high-income.

These patterns should not be read as lower-income countries having solved gender inequality or as high-income countries performing poorly overall. Many lower-income countries still face the largest absolute gaps. The finding is that starting level and direction of travel are different questions, and neither income nor a strong historical reputation guarantees continued progress.

Why are some countries traditionally seen as gender equality leaders losing ground?

High overall scores can coexist with deterioration in specific areas. Some countries traditionally seen as leaders remain close to reaching many Index targets, but have experienced setbacks in women’s representation, freedom of expression, access to justice, satisfaction with services or other enabling conditions between 2020 and 2025. Europe and North America remained the highest-scoring region, yet recorded the slowest progress and the highest proportion of declining countries.

Part of the pattern reflects the difficulty of improving further near the top. Small changes can move a high-scoring country without signaling a wholesale collapse. However, several declines were large and concentrated in Civic Space and Leadership, where women’s voice, representation and public freedoms can change quickly. The report therefore distinguishes stagnation near a ceiling from substantive backsliding. Its central warning is that past achievements do not make rights permanent. Strong scores still require continued political commitment, institutional protection, investment and scrutiny.

Why did some countries experience significant declines in their scores?

There is no single explanation across all declining countries. An overall decline can result from reversals in laws, reduced representation, weakening civic freedoms, worsening access to justice, lower satisfaction with services, greater debt vulnerability or changes in several indicators at once. Because the Index uses a geometric mean, a sharp fall in one dimension can pull down the overall score more strongly than under a simple average. Our country profiles dashboard can allow you to explore each country’s performance at the indicator and dimension level to see which areas they made the most or least progress on.

The United States provides the clearest example: its score fell by more than six points, with setbacks in Health and SRHR, Civic Space and Leadership, and the Enabling Environment. More restrictive abortion laws after the repeal of Roe v. Wade were a major driver. In other countries, declining ministerial representation, climate decision-making, freedom of expression or access to justice played a larger role.

The Index identifies where change has occurred, but it does not alone show why. Country-specific explanations require additional political, economic and social evidence, including national data and more contextual analysis, ideally with inputs from civil and feminist movements on the ground.

Can countries perform well overall while performing poorly on specific dimensions?

Yes. An overall score is a summary of five dimension scores and can conceal important weaknesses. A country may have strong health outcomes, high levels of girls’ schooling and broad digital access while performing poorly on women’s political representation, freedom of expression, access to justice or safety. The reverse is also possible: a country may have comparatively open civic space but weak health systems or economic opportunities.

The methodology limits, but does not eliminate, compensation between areas. Indicators are averaged within each dimension, and the five dimensions are combined using a geometric mean. This means a low dimension score pulls the overall result down more than it would under an arithmetic mean, rewarding more balanced country profiles. Even so, users should always examine the dimension and indicator results rather than relying only on the headline ranking. The Index is most useful as a profile showing where a country is strong, where it is weak and which specific targets remain unmet.

Explore our country profiles >

Does a high score mean a country has achieved gender equality?

No. A high score means a country is closer to the Index’s selected targets across the five dimensions. It does not mean every woman, girl or gender-diverse person experiences equality, or that all rights are secure. No country achieved a score of 100 in 2025, and even the highest-scoring countries had gaps in particular indicators or dimensions.

National averages also mask inequalities within countries. Experiences can differ substantially by income, race, ethnicity, disability, age, location, migration status, sexuality and other characteristics that globally comparable data do not consistently capture. A country may also maintain a high overall score while backsliding on a specific right or institution. For this reason, high scores should be read alongside the pace of change, the underlying indicator profile and local evidence. The Index recognises progress, but it is not a certificate that gender equality has been completed or made permanent.

Explore how countries perform at indicator level >

How should governments use the Index?

Governments can use the Index as a diagnostic and accountability tool. The overall score provides a high-level benchmark, but the most useful information lies in the dimension and indicator results. Governments should identify where their country is furthest from the target, where progress has stalled or reversed, and whether strong averages conceal an uneven profile. The 2020–2025 comparison can help distinguish structural gaps from recent setbacks.

The findings should then be connected to concrete policy levers. Depending on the indicator, action might include reforming laws, protecting civic freedoms, increasing women’s representation, strengthening justice systems, investing in health, education and social protection, improving public services, reducing debt vulnerability or expanding gender data. Governments should also consult affected communities and local advocates, who can explain what national averages miss.

The Index is a blunt benchmarking tool that provides the big picture and should be complemented with administrative data, household surveys, budget analysis, human-rights reporting and intersectional evidence, with transparent targets and public follow-up.

How can advocates, civil society organizations, researchers, and the media use the Index?

Advocates and civil society organisations can use the Index to support campaign messages, compare commitments with outcomes, identify policy gaps, track change and hold governments accountable. Indicator-level results can help turn a broad demand into a specific ask, such as stronger care protections, reproductive rights, public investment, access to justice or women’s representation. Previous Equal Measures indices have been used in policy meetings, reports, training, and advocacy for legal and budget commitments.

Researchers can use the downloadable scores and metadata to explore cross-country patterns, while recognising the limitations of composite measures and avoiding causal claims based on rankings alone. Journalists can use the Index to identify trends and country stories, but should report score differences, time trends and dimensions rather than relying only on rank.

For all users, the Index is a starting point. Strong use combines global comparison with national datasets, qualitative evidence and the expertise of feminist, LGBTQIA+, disability, youth, Indigenous and other affected movements.