The Rule of Law Requires Gender Equality

A fundamental principle of the rule of law is that all individuals must receive equal protection and treatment under the law. When laws or legal systems discriminate on the basis of gender, they undermine this foundation of fairness and universality.

Equally essential is the absence of corruption. A judiciary compromised by corruption cannot operate impartially, and partiality erodes the rule of law. When decisions are influenced by personal gain or political pressure, the law is not applied consistently. This disproportionately harms groups already facing systemic inequality, including women and gender‑diverse individuals.

These core principles are reflected in the Rule of Law Index, a global assessment produced by the World Justice Project. The Index measures nine factors to produce an overall score and rankings based on the strength of the rule of law across countries. Within the “Fundamental Rights” factor, equal treatment and absence of discrimination appears as a key sub‑factor. The Index also includes “Absence of Corruption” as a standalone factor, one component of which examines whether judicial officials refrain from using public office for private gain. Corruption appears elsewhere as well: for example, the “Criminal Justice” factor requires that the legal system be impartial and free from corruption.

These principles do not operate in isolation. Studies show a correlation between low corruption and greater protection of fundamental rights. For example, recent research shows that corruption among judges and bureaucrats directly erodes labour rights and freedom of association, demonstrating a link between low corruption and better fundamental rights protection.

It may be intuitive that an impartial and low-corruption legal system allows for the development of robust fundamental rights. We may remember examples of how courts have expanded equality protections within Canada (e.g., Vriend v. Alberta, Edwards v. Canada, aka the Persons case). When equity-seeking groups use the law to advance rights, an independent judiciary is less likely to be swayed by majority interests, political attitudes, or corruption. We may easily conclude that absence of corruption leads to better equality rights, but perhaps that only forms part of the nature of the relationship. Could it be that non-corrupted systems produce greater equality outcomes, and that greater equality, in turn, reduces corruption?

According to a UN paper on gender dimensions of corruption, The Time is Now,

“evidence suggests that causal processes running in both directions — improvements in gender equality reducing and countering corruption, and anti‑corruption measures reducing gender inequality — tend to occur simultaneously”.

In other words, increased gender equality and low corruption are mutually reinforcing. The authors identified several mechanisms in which gender equality may impact corruption. One is that women have fewer opportunities to be corrupt, as they tend to be less represented in existing corrupt networks. The authors call this an “opportunity gap”. Another mechanism proposed by the authors is that women are disproportionately harmed by corruption and therefore have stronger incentives to oppose and report it.

These pathways are not exclusive to gender. It is easy to extrapolate them to other equity-seeking groups. When barriers are removed and institutions become more diverse and inclusive, societies become more just.

Turning back to the Rule of Law Index, in 2025, Canada scored 0.79 overall, with 0.82 in both “Absence of Corruption” and “Fundamental Rights” (1.00 represents the highest level). Canada is ranked 13th out of 143 countries overall. We may be proud, but we should not be complacent. Martin Luther King Jr. observed that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. He did not mean that justice is inevitable. Rather, it takes sustained human effort. The line is taken from his sermon “Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution”, which warns against passivity during periods of change.

As lawyers, we have a duty to maintain that precious bend in the arc. Defending judicial independence, advancing access to justice, and supporting equity‑seeking groups all contribute to a stronger rule of law. And, as the evidence shows, supporting equality is not only a moral imperative—it is also a powerful way to prevent corruption and strengthen the justice system as a whole.