This article examines reproductive rights as one of the most important structural elements of somatic rights. It argues that the protection of the human body in law cannot be understood only through the categories of physical inviolability or medical consent in a narrow sense. Reproductive rights reveal a broader legal reality: the body is also a sphere of existential choice, moral agency, dignity, and identity. For that reason, reproduction should be analysed not merely as a medical or demographic matter, but as a central dimension of somatic self-determination. The article develops a theoretical account of the relationship between somatic rights and reproductive rights by drawing on bioethics, human rights law, and European jurisprudence. It engages the ideas of John A. Robertson, Rebecca J. Cook, Bernard M. Dickens, Catherine Mills, and other scholars who have shaped the modern understanding of reproductive autonomy. Particular attention is given to the concepts of bodily integrity, procreative liberty, informed consent, reproductive justice, and positive state obligations. The article concludes that reproductive rights constitute not a peripheral branch of personal rights, but one of the clearest legal expressions of somatic autonomy. At the same time, the article argues that a purely choice-based understanding of reproductive freedom is insufficient. A mature theory of somatic rights must integrate dignity, vulnerability, equality, and access to conditions that make meaningful reproductive decision-making possible.

Somatic rights, reproductive rights, bodily autonomy

Cook, R. J. (1993). International human rights and women’s reproductive health. Studies in Family Planning, 24(2), 73–86.

Cook, R. J., & Dickens, B. M. (2009). From reproductive choice to reproductive justice. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 106(2), 106–109.

Council of Europe. (1997). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Council of Europe.

European Court of Human Rights. (2007). Evans v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 6339/05, Judgment of 10 April 2007.

European Court of Human Rights. (2011a). S.H. and Others v. Austria, Application no. 57813/00, Judgment of 3 November 2011.

European Court of Human Rights. (2011b). V.C. v. Slovakia, Application no. 18968/07, Judgment of 8 November 2011.

European Court of Human Rights. (2012). Costa and Pavan v. Italy, Application no. 54270/10, Judgment of 28 August 2012.

European Court of Human Rights. (2023). Factsheet – Reproductive rights. European Court of Human Rights.

Mills, C. (2013). Reproductive autonomy as self-making: Procreative liberty and the practice of ethical subjectivity. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 38(6), 639–656.

Robertson, J. A. (1988). Procreative liberty and the state’s burden of proof in regulating noncoital reproduction. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 16(1–2), 18–26.

Ryan, M. A. (1990). The argument for unlimited procreative liberty: A feminist critique. Hastings Center Report, 20(4), 6–12.

Siegel, R. B. (2007). Sex equality arguments for reproductive rights: Their critical basis and evolving constitutional expression. Emory Law Journal, 56, 815–942.

UNESCO. (2005). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. UNESCO.

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. (1999). General Recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (Women and Health).

World Health Organization. (2015). Sexual health, human rights and the law. World Health Organization.

World Health Organization. (2024). Sexual and reproductive health for all: 20 years of the global strategy. World Health Organization.