| Abstract [eng] |
The thesis analyzes how political context influences the strategic choices of NGOs advocating for LGBTQIA+ rights and legal recognition of same-sex couples in Lithuania. Existing literature on NGO advocacy focuses more on describing advocacy strategies than explaining why organizations choose particular strategies under different political conditions. Limited attention has been paid to how NGOs interpret political opportunities and constraints and how these interpretations shape strategic decision making. Lithuania is analytically significant because LGBTQIA+ rights remain politically sensitive, while legal recognition of same-sex couples continues to generate political and societal conflict. The aim of the thesis is to explain how changing political context affects the strategic choices of NGOs advocating for the legal recognition of same-sex couples in Lithuania. The central research question asks: How does political context influence the strategic choices of NGOs working on LGBTQIA+ rights and seeking legal recognition for same-sex couples in Lithuania? The thesis pursues several objectives: to analyze theoretical approaches explaining NGO strategic choice; to define the development of political context regarding same-sex couples’ legal recognition in Lithuania; to examine how LGBTQIA+ NGOs perceive political opportunities and constraints during different political periods; to identify the main advocacy strategies used by these organizations; and to evaluate how changes in political context shape strategic choice. The theoretical framework combines several approaches to NGO advocacy and develops a synthetic model consisting of four advocacy strategies: inside advocacy, outside advocacy, strategic collaboration, and boomerang pattern strategy. These strategies are linked to political context through interpretive mechanisms based on perceived institutional access, reputational risk, and opportunities to act in the public sphere. While the thesis draws on Krista M. Brumley’s theoretical perspective, it further develops her approach by introducing specific interpretive mechanisms explaining how political context shapes strategic decision making. The research applies a theory-guided comparative case study design covering the period from 2016 to 2026 and four Lithuanian governments: those of Saulius Skvernelis, Ingrida Šimonytė, Gintautas Paluckas, and Inga Ruginienė. The study combines cross-case comparison with within-case causal mechanism analysis. Empirical data were collected through document analysis, public discourse analysis, and semi-structured interviews. The findings demonstrate that changing political context significantly affects the strategic choices of LGBTQIA+ NGOs. When organizations perceived greater institutional access and more favorable opportunities to influence policymakers, they were more likely to choose inside advocacy strategies. In contrast, when political channels were perceived as ineffective or restricted, organizations increasingly relied on outside advocacy and strategic litigation. The study found that perceived institutional access was the main mechanism explaining strategic variation across political periods. Meanwhile, perceived reputational risk and opportunities to act in the public sphere functioned less consistently than expected. Strategic collaboration did not become the dominant strategy in selective political contexts as predicted by the theoretical model but instead functioned as a complementary strategy alongside other forms of advocacy. The analysis also highlighted the growing importance of strategic litigation following the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the legal recognition of same-sex couples. The thesis contributes to a better understanding of how political context shapes NGO advocacy strategies and provides an empirically grounded explanation of LGBTQIA+ rights advocacy in a politically contested environment. |
