Intimate Partner Violence, Public Opinion, and Legal Changes in Bulgaria: Dynamic Relationship and Unexpected Consequences

Abstract

Violence against women and intimate partner violence in particular are recognized as significant social issues. This article explores the dynamic interplay between intimate partner violence, public opinion, and legislative changes in Bulgaria. The data we used were collected through in-depth interviews and focus groups with professionals working on issues of domestic violence and violence against women in Bulgaria. Using a specific case of violence as an example, the study argues that public pressure is a catalyst for changes in the legal framework for protection against domestic violence. However, the findings suggest a propensity for certain measures to be influenced by penal populism, often taking on the characteristics of symbolic policymaking—declaring political commitment, but showing vulnerabilities in their practical application. In this context, the perspective of policy implementation and unintended consequences reveals how gaps in institutional capacity, coordination, and enforcement produced outcomes that differed from those declared publicly. The article concludes that an integrated approach going beyond penal populism and symbolic policy demonstrations is necessary. To effectively combat domestic and intimate partner violence in Bulgaria, there is a need for a long-term strategy that considers the intricate relationships between public attitudes, policymaking, and the actual implementation of legislation.

1. Introduction

Public opinion is a vital component of democratic societies, serving as an expression of citizens’ positions and an essential part of the democratic process, intrinsically linked to public awareness and political participation [1]. Additionally, it has the potential to actively shape political discourse, which is why scholars emphasize its substantial influence on policymaking and decisions concerning matters that affect society as a whole [2,3,4]. Indeed, it is argued that public opinion often influences politics more than politics influences public opinion [2]. Furthermore, when an issue is highly significant, the power of public opinion amplifies, allowing it to persist despite the opposing actions of elites and political parties [5].

Such a significant problem with global dimensions is intimate partner violence, which is one of the most common forms of violence against women [6,7]. According to the World Health Organization [8], approximately one in three women worldwide has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner or other perpetrator in her lifetime. For both victims and society at large, such violence has serious repercussions, including long-term financial losses, social isolation, mental health issues, and physical trauma [9]. The issue is not new, and efforts are being undertaken, both internationally and nationally, to mitigate it. Addressing violence against women is defined as one of the subgoals (5.2) of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), premised on the conviction that sustainable development is unattainable when women are threatened in their own homes [10]. However, in the last few years in Bulgarian society, which will be the focus of this article, several horrific incidents of violence against women have garnered public attention. The case that shocked the Bulgarian society was the so-called “Deborah case”1. The chronology: Deborah, then eighteen, was attacked in her home on 6 June 2023 by a man she recognized as her former intimate partner. After a blow to the face that broke her nose, she fell unconscious. She woke up with 21 cuts on her legs, arms, and chest (made with a carpet-cutting knife), and all of her hair shaved off. The incident was only made public a month later, when a relative of the victim posted the story on social media. The court’s decision to free the suspect because the act, according to the court, constituted a trivial bodily injury2, and the slow pace of the investigation became the main reason for the public disclosure of the case. In addition to information about the attack, the publication criticizes the court for classifying the act as “trivial bodily injury” and calls for a public reaction. As a result, a serious wave of public outrage arose, which manifested itself in demonstrations across nearly the whole country and calls for legislative reforms. The protests3 prompted the prosecutor’s office to step up and appoint a new five-member forensic medical examination. The examination was conducted by forensic physicians from a different city, as all of the participants from the incident city recused themselves due to potential conflicts of interest. The second expert report came to a different conclusion about injuries corresponding to medium bodily harm. Later, the indictment alleged that the bodily harm was inflicted with extreme cruelty, which increases the gravity of the crime. The suspect was re-arrested and remained in custody for just over 2 years until August 2025, when he was released on bail4.

The public outrage reflects long-standing problems in Bulgarian society related to institutional failures: gaps in victim protection, a widespread sense of injustice fueled by slow judicial processes, and lenient sentences for perpetrators of this type of crime. This time, however, politicians responded with enviable speed to public demands, and reforms in the regulatory framework regarding violence against women in Bulgaria are a fact. An incentive for this rapid reaction can be found in the political situation—eight parliamentary elections in the period 2021–2025, i.e., a continuous election campaign. This prompted us to pose the following research questions:

RQ 1: What impact does public opinion have on Bulgaria’s legislation changes regarding violence against women?

RQ 2: What are the main effects of the legislative amendments that followed the public pressure?

Answering these questions will help achieve the article’s objective: to explore a contextualized case study within a specific political and legal context.

1.1. Violence Against Women in Bulgaria—Context and Policies

In Bulgaria, violence against women, more especially, domestic violence and intimate partner violence5, is becoming more widely acknowledged as a serious social issue. Data from EU Gender-Based Violence Survey show that 20.5% of women aged 18–74 have experienced one or more cases of intimate partner violence (including psychological, sexual and physical violence and threats); and every third woman aged 18–29 has been raped by a current or former partner (36.3%); two out of three women believe that violence against women by their intimate partners in Bulgaria occurs very or quite often [11]. Ministry of Interior data show a trend towards a significant increase in reports of domestic violence received by the Single European Telephone Number 112: from 36,527 in 2020 to 42,481 in 2023 [12]. Statistics cited in the national media show that for 2024, the signals are over 53,0006. Physical abuse is most commonly reported (51%), with the majority of victims being women and children (90%), and the perpetrators being predominantly men [12]. It should be borne in mind that almost half of the women who have experienced physical or sexual violence have not told anyone about what happened [13]. This implies that the real scope of the issue is much greater than the official statistics.

These high figures are a reality, despite the legal framework developed in the country to address domestic violence and violence against women. It should be noted that only the term “domestic violence” appears in Bulgarian legislation. There is no explicit legal definition of “violence against women”, “intimate partner violence or “gender-based violence” as separate categories. The key legislative instrument is the Protection against Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), passed in 2005 [14]. With the adoption of the law, efforts are being made to shift the problem from being understood as a personal/family issue to being defined as a social problem requiring the response of institutions. PDVA regulates the rights of victims, protection measures, and the institutional mechanisms for prevention and support. These measures are of a civil nature, but their violation may lead to criminal liability.

In the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria [15], domestic violence appears as a qualifying characteristic, that is, it leads to a more severe punishment when a crime is committed “in conditions of domestic violence” (Art. 93, item 31). The amendment to the Criminal Code, according to which domestic violence is an aggravating circumstance, was added in 2019. The change aims to strengthen measures against violence against women [13], which is necessitated by the context in 2018 related to discussions around the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention)7. The debate around the Istanbul Convention in Bulgaria (in 2017–2018) was highly politicized and divided society over ways to combat violence. The convention’s proponents regard it as a crucial instrument for better prevention and protection against domestic violence and violence against women, which current laws are unable to offer. Opponents, however, refer to the country’s regulatory framework, pointing out that Bulgarian legislation already criminalizes violence against women and a new international document is not needed, arguing that the primary shortcomings lie in the enforcement of the law rather than a lack of legal mechanisms. The entire debate focused on the concept of “gender” and concerns that the convention included provisions extending beyond its stated goals, introducing the controversial notion of gender as a social construct distinct from biological sex [16]. For a brief period, a potent “anti-gender” mobilization, resembling developments in Poland and Hungary, emerged within the public discourse [17]. The disputes culminated in a decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria in 2018 (Decision No. 13 of 27 July 2018), according to which the Convention is incompatible with the Constitution, and Bulgaria cannot ratify it in its current form. The Constitutional Court Decision states that the “Istanbul Convention” advocates legal concepts related to the concept of “gender” that are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria8.

The legislative framework concerning domestic violence and violence against women is further reinforced by the Law on Equality between Women and Men (effective since 2016), the Child Protection Act (in force since 2000), and the Protection Against Discrimination Act (in force since 2003). According to prominent legal scholars [16], these statutes show Bulgaria’s commitment to safeguarding fundamental human rights, specifically by protecting all victims of violence (including women and children), eliminating all forms of discrimination, and achieving genuine equality.

Despite the existing regulatory framework on domestic violence and the 2019 amendment to the Criminal Code, a number of publications point to various problematic aspects of Bulgarian legislation and related norms [18,19,20,21], emphasizing the need for comprehensive legal reforms and targeted actions to prevent and control this phenomenon [22,23]. Main criticisms of Bulgarian legislation on protection from domestic violence and its criminal law mechanisms relate to the limited scope of protected persons, the insufficient effectiveness of protective measures, weak institutional coordination, and a lack of systematic data. Furthermore, critics highlight the underdeveloped nature of criminal law protections and the reactive, sporadic, and unsystematic actions of the responsible institutions [20]. These and other shortcomings in the regulation show that the current civil and criminal mechanisms do not allow for “quick and effective protection of victims of violence” [24] (p. 68). Over the years, various experts and NGO representatives working with victims of violence have put forth suggestions for legislative changes to improve the effectiveness of Bulgarian laws against domestic violence. However, the reform of the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) was only carried out in the summer of 2023, with the main catalyst for the changes being the case of brutal violence against a young woman and the resulting public anger described above. The PDVA was amended twice in quick succession: the first amendments were adopted by the National Assembly in July 2023 and promulgated in the State Gazette on 1 August 2023, entering into force in January 2024. On the very same day, a second proposal to amend the PDVA was submitted, which was debated by lawmakers, adopted, and promulgated in the State Gazette within a mere ten days. While the initial amendments were the product of a lengthy debate and reflected a genuine need for legal reform, the rushed adoption of the subsequent ones raises questions about the politicians’ underlying motives.

One of the most significant changes introduced by the second amendment was the expansion of the circle of persons eligible to seek protection under the PDVA. Lawmakers expanded the legal definition of domestic violence by adding the phrase “or in an intimate relationship.”9 Thus, the legal definition in force since 2024 according to Art. 2 of the PDVA states: “Domestic violence shall be any act of physical, sexual, mental, or economic violence, as well as attempts at such violence, and the coercive restriction of personal life, personal liberty, and personal rights, committed against individuals who are related, or who are or have been in a family relationship, in de facto conjugal cohabitation, or in an intimate relationship” [14]. Consequently, protection now covers a broader range of intimate partner violence situations outside of traditional marriage or cohabitation.

Other significant amendments include extending the deadline for applying for protection from one to three months following the act of violence, with the possibility of extension up to six months under certain circumstances. Furthermore, the reform introduces expanded protective measures that the court may impose, such as a total ban on contacting the victim via phone, email, or other communication channels. The legislation also establishes free legal aid, referrals to specialized support services, and dedicated programs for both child victims and perpetrators seeking to overcome aggressive behavior. It is planned to improve institutional coordination by creating a permanent collective advisory body, the National Council for Prevention and Protection against Domestic Violence, as well as the creation of a National Information System for Prevention and Protection against Domestic Violence.

In 2023, a significant amendment was also made to the Criminal Code regarding offenses committed “in conditions of domestic violence.” Previously, the “systematic exercise of physical, sexual, or psychological violence” was a prerequisite for an offense to be classified as a domestic violence crime under Article 93, item 31. In practice, this meant that the unlawful act had to be committed at least three times. Under the new amendments, a single act of violence can be classified as domestic violence, allowing for criminal liability to be pursued due to the elimination of the systematicity requirement.

Several changes have been made to the PDVA, affecting both substantive and procedural law issues [25], aimed at providing better protection for victims of domestic violence. However, a year after the reform’s introduction, assessments remain mixed. As suggested below by the empirical findings of this study and the analyses of legal experts [26,27,28], while the amendments to the Protection against Domestic Violence Act were necessary, legal practice reveals that the manner of their adoption resulted in certain gaps that prevent the effective protection of victims.

It is worth noting that the legislative changes did not occur in an intellectual vacuum; sensible positions emerged, calling for restraint and careful consideration. Lawyers and scholars of criminal and civil law called for a rethinking of the proposals. They warned that the introduction of vague definitions ran the risk of causing overcriminalization and the ineffectiveness of the measures10. However, these expert opinions were not integrated by policymakers, as the drive for rapid legislative response appeared to overshadow the need for legal precision.

1.2. Theoretical Approach

To analyze the relationship among public opinion, legislative changes, and their consequences, we will use several theoretical approaches to illuminate various facets of the research topic. These include penal populism, which is theorized as exploiting public sentiment regarding crime to justify harsher penal policies [29]; public opinion and policymaking, which examine how societal attitudes shape legislative agendas [2,5]; symbolic policymaking, which posits that certain laws are enacted primarily for political rhetoric rather than practical utility [30,31]; and policy implementation and unintended consequences, which focus on how the practical enforcement of statutes can generate unforeseen challenges [32].

The concept of penal populism describes a process in which public opinion and media pressure play a significant role in shaping criminal laws and policies, displacing professional opinions or empirical data. Penal populism, according to John Pratt, emerges when politicians try to express a “tough on crime” stance through stricter punishments or new legislative measures in response to public outcry, particularly following high-profile cases of violence. Such policies are often presented as protecting “ordinary citizens,” but might result in hasty legislative decisions with little consideration for their long-term effectiveness [29]. A significant issue with penal populism is that when it drives the legislative process, essential law-making principles are neglected. Decisions made under media and public pressure rarely stem from the underlying concepts of the purpose of punishment, the core objectives of criminal law, or the principle of criminal law as an ultima ratio. Instead, the introduction of rapid legislative changes potentially compromised this principle, increasing the risk of criminal law being utilized primarily as an immediate response to public outcry. Driven by the pressure to quickly respond to the public’s demand for retribution, lawmakers often overlook the rehabilitation and re-education of the offender, as well as the real protection of victims. Penal populism focuses mainly on the symbolic function of punishment rather than on the real effectiveness of the law.

Research on the relationship between public opinion and policymaking demonstrates that democratic institutions are highly sensitive to public attitudes, especially on intensely politicized topics such as crime and violence. According to Page and Shapiro [2], public opinion can significantly influence policy outcomes, as lawmakers tend to respond to shifts in societal preferences. At the same time, the literature indicates that this influence is often mediated by political elites and institutional factors, meaning that policies do not always directly or seamlessly reflect public sentiment [2,5].

According to the concept of symbolic policymaking, certain laws are enacted primarily to convey a political or moral message to society rather than to achieve tangible outcomes. As Edelman points out, public policies often serve a symbolic function, displaying the state’s commitment to addressing a specific issue and creating a sense of action, even when the practical effects remain minimal. In this regard, legislation plays a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions and framing political discourse [30,31].

Even when a policy possesses a clear objective, the manner of its execution and the complexity of social systems can result in unforeseen outcomes. Actual results depend on the implementation of the policy, institutional capacity, and the interaction between different actors. As Pressman and Wildavsky illustrate, significant discrepancies frequently arise between legislative intent and practical results and can contribute to unintended consequences [32].

2. Materials and Methods

The information used in the article was collected using qualitative methods as part of the “Violence against women: typologies, economic and social consequences” research. 26 interviews were conducted between 7 August 2024, and 27 January 2025, with representatives of a variety of organizations that address violence against women, including the judiciary, politicians, representatives of law enforcement and other state institutions, of the non-governmental sector, journalists, and trade unionists.

Table A1. In-depth interviews participants (interview code, professional position, gender, age, date).

iDI 10–police officer, female, 41, conducted on 02 October 2024 iDI 11–police officer, female, 48, conducted on 10 October 2024 iDI 12–police officer, male, 42, conducted on 10 October 2024 iDI 13–prosecutor, male, 30, conducted on 14 October 2024 iDI 14–advisor to a minister, female, 48, conducted on 10 October 2024 iDI 20–NGO, male, 37, conducted on 13 August 2024 iDI 21–NGO, female, 52, conducted on 15 August 2024 iDI 22–judge, female, 42, conducted on 04 September 2024 iDI 23–NGO, female, 45, conducted on 12 September 2024 iDI 24–police officer, male, 46, conducted on 26 September 2024 iDI 30–NGO, female, 32, conducted on 19 August 2024 iDI 31–NGO, female, 30, conducted on 19 August 2024 iDI 32–state institution, female, 45, conducted on 20 August 2024 iDI 33–NGO, male, 61, conducted on 20 August 2024 iDI 34–state institution, female, 58, conducted on 03 October 2024 iDI 40–politician, female, 51, conducted 20 September 2024 iDI 41–international organization, female, 47, conducted on 25 September 2024 iDI 42–NGO, female, 40, conducted on 25 September 2024 iDI 43–NGO, female, 60, conducted on 27 September 2024 iDI 44–journalist, female, 35, conducted on 30 September 2024 iDI 45–politician, female, 47, conducted on 02 October 2024 iDI 50–lawyer, female, 45, conducted on 07 August 2024 iDI 51–investigator, female, 50, conducted 20 September 2024 iDI 52–judge, female, 45, conducted on 26 September 2024 iDI 53–prosecutor, female, 48, conducted on 16 October 2024 iDI 61–trade unionist, female, 59, conducted on 27 January 2025

in Appendix A provides a description of the study participants.

A total of 63 representatives from the police, prosecutor’s office, court, investigation, social assistance agency, and non-governmental sector participated in six focus groups between 11 September and 18 September 2024.

Table A2. Participants in focus group discussion (participant code, professional position, gender, age).

Focus group 1, two moderators, conducted on 11 September 2024 Participant 1-prosecutor, female, 51 Participant 2-prosecutor, male, 39 Participant 3-police officer, female, 44 Participant 4-police officer, female, 42 Participant 5-police officer, male, 49 Participant 6-police officer, female, 49 Participant 7-prosecutor, female, 41 Participant 8-police officer, female, 52 Participant 9-prosecutor, male, 39 Participant 10-prosecutor, male, 42 Participant 11-police officer, male, 40 Participant 12-social worker, NGO, female, 52 Participant 13-social worker, NGO, female, 40 Participant 14-social worker, NGO, female, 44	Focus group 2, two moderators, conducted on 11 September 2024 Participant 1-police officer, female, 34 Participant 2-prosecutor, male, 35 Participant 3-prosecutor, female, 49 Participant 4-prosecutor, female, 44 Participant 5-investigator, female, 62 Participant 6-investigator, female, 48 Participant 7-police officer, male, 41 Participant 8-police officer, male, 45 Participant 9-police officer, male, 50 Participant 10-police officer, female, 52 Participant 11-social worker, NGO, female, 29 Participant 12-social worker, NGO, female, 48 Participant 13-social worker, NGO, female, 59	Focus group 3, two moderators, conducted on 17 September 2024 Participant 1-prosecutor, female, 43 Participant 3-judge, male, 34 Participant 4-social worker, NGO, female, 24 Participant 5-prosecutor, female, 31 Participant 6-police officer, male, 54 Participant 7-police officer, male 50 Participant 8-prosecutor, male, 30 Participant 10-social worker, Agency for Social Assistance, female, 45 Participant 11-social worker, NGO, female, 25 Participant 12-judge, female, 41
Focus group 4, two moderators, conducted on 17 September 2024 Participant 1-social worker, NGO, female, 25 Participant 2-social worker, NGO, female, 28 г Participant 3-prosecutor, male, 40 Participant 4-prosecutor, male, 31 Participant 5-social worker, Agency for Social Assistance, female, 52 Participant 6-prosecutor, male, 35	Focus group 5, two moderators, conducted on 18 September 2024 Participant 1-social worker, NGO, female, 33 Participant 2-social worker, NGO, female, 47 Participant 5-social worker, Agency for Social Assistance, female, 60 Participant 6-prosecutor, female, 38 Participant 8-prosecutor, female, 44 Participant 9-prosecutor, female, 36 Participant 11-prosecutor, female, 40 Participant 12-police officer, male, 45	Focus group 6, two moderators, conducted on 18 September 2024 Participant 1-NGO, female, 40 Participant 2-judge, female, 38 Participant 4-police officer, female, 45 Participant 5-police officer, female, 56 Participant 6-NGO, female, 43 Participant 8-prosecutor, female, 42 Participant 9-prosecutor, male, 34 Participant 10-prosecutor, male, 30 Participant 11-police officer, female, 48 Participant 12-social worker, NGO, female, 36 Participant 13-social worker, NGO, female, 38 Participant 14-social worker, Agency for Social Assistance, female, 53

in Appendix B presents the focus group participants as an appendix to the article. The interviews and focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire and a guide developed by the team members. The main topics covered were: perception of the idea of gender equality in Bulgaria; attitude towards violence against women; consequences of violence against women; forms of violence against women; factors for the persistence of the problem; reasons for disclosure of violence by victims; effectiveness of policies and measures for prevention and mitigation of the problem.

The qualitative data were analyzed through thematic analysis. In coding, a deductive orientation was initially adopted, with the information coded through the prism of the theoretical concepts and hypotheses of the study. As the work progressed, an inductive approach was also utilized, through which themes beyond the preliminary hypotheses were extracted. A combined deductive and inductive approach ensured that the coding and theme development met the specific purpose of the study, which Braun and Clarke [33] identify as the most important in applying thematic analysis. It was conducted at a semantic level, focusing explicitly on the participant-driven meaning of the data. The goal was to detail and contextualize the preliminary theoretical hypotheses, collect examples and practices from experts’ work, and identify legislative deficits and institutional challenges.

To provide a more comprehensive picture of the issue of violence against women in Bulgaria, we employ statistical data from secondary sources in addition to the empirical data gathered throughout the study.

Ethical Considerations

The Bulgarian Sociological Association’s Ethics Committee, which represents the country’s sociological community, approved the methodology and the questionnaire used to gather empirical data. The approval is a trustworthy and impartial sign that the study meets the professional and ethical requirements for carrying out sociological research.

Each respondent provided written informed consent for their voluntary involvement in the study after being fully briefed on its goals and their right to withdraw at any point without any consequences. Digital recordings were generated only with the respondents’ express consent. To guarantee strict confidentiality and anonymity, the transcriptions of the focus group statements and interviews were anonymized using codes with numbers, and all personal identifiers were removed. The research materials are stored securely by the research project leader, accessible only to the primary research team. To ensure the avoidance of distress, data collection was conducted in a safe environment: in-depth interviews were most often conducted at the experts’ workplace, and focus groups were conducted in a room specially provided for the discussion without outsiders. Participation was entirely voluntary, and no financial compensation or material incentives were provided.

3. Results

3.1. Public Pressure and Penal Populism

“400 stitches and a perpetrator still unpunished–the sinister story of a brutal attack”11 and “Trivial bodily injury after 400 stitches? Will judicial reform stop this?”12. These are only two of the media headlines about the so-called “Deborah case”, described in the Introduction, which shocked Bulgarian society and became a reason for public protests.

The case gained immense popularity and was discussed on social and national media. Additionally, Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged the victim Deborah during her speech on 25 November 2024, the Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Media coverage of the case relied heavily on emotive language, intense personalization, and a strong emphasis on the brutality of the attack, which rapidly mobilized public outrage. Concurrently, almost all major Bulgarian cities were hosting public protests calling for harsher penalties for the offender. This wave of public discontent coincided with the enforcement of the July 2023 amendments to the Protection against Domestic Violence Act (PDVA). However, these legislative changes failed to convince demonstrators that the measures were adequate to curb intimate partner violence. The primary reason for this skepticism was that Deborah’s case remained unaffected by the new amendments; she did not qualify for protection under the PDVA because she was neither married to nor in a de facto cohabitation with the accused. While NGO representatives had long advocated for the inclusion of “intimate relationships” within the scope of the law, it had been omitted from the initial amendments due to conceptual ambiguities. The summer 2023 protests, however, altered the political landscape, and on 1 August, a second bill to reform the PDVA was introduced, expanding the statutory definition of domestic violence.

Participants in our study also paid attention to the influence that the publicity of the Deborah case had on legislative changes:

“When the Deborah case happened last year, if you remember, all the institutions took action; twice urgently changed the Protection against domestic violence act, which for many years had proposals for changes, but still could not be adopted.”

(iDI 34–state institution)

The rapid amendment of the law following public outcry provides insight into how institutional priorities may realign under media pressure. In this context, legislative changes tend to serve as a mechanism for crisis response, prioritizing urgent enactment over expert deliberation. Lawyers note that it was public discontent that served as a trigger for the legislative changes, although at that time there was a lack of sufficient information on the case [27]. The result is “…a lightning-fast legislative decision”. Critics point out that these urgent legislative modifications were enacted “without sufficient data and without the application of any tools to ensure their quality, such as a full impact assessment and a structured public consultation” [27] (p. 89). The influence of public pressure for additional changes to the PDVA is reported by all experts who participated in the study.

“After Deborah’s case became known, the deputies then interrupted their August vacation and, in a single day, amended the Protection against Domestic Violence Act to include intimate relationships. Something that, before this case became known, they had been discussing for months, and this thing did not enter. And I think that this case is very indicative of when the fight against violence against women becomes an important topic for politicians.”

(iDI 31–NGO)

“This is the result of a campaign that erupted in society following an incident of domestic violence. Not just the Deborah example from last year, but every case involves discussions about potential actions, which typically result in harsher sanctions. To put it plainly, this is nonsense. Increasing the punishments does not combat violence. Politicians can do this with ease. Prevention and addressing the real problems are the real issues, which in this situation are impossible to resolve.”

(iDI 42–NGO)

These narratives expose the distinction between symbolic policymaking and substantive institutional reform. In addition, the disconnect between penal populism and effective crime reduction is marked out. While policymakers can swiftly enact harsher penalties to placate public anxiety, such measures risk leaving the underlying systemic causes of intimate partner violence largely unaddressed. Moreover, the fast-tracking of punitive measures requires fewer resources and delivers immediate political visibility in comparison to the more time-consuming and less visible, yet necessary, preventative measures.

The amendments introduced in August 2023 expanded the scope of the PDVA by establishing a new criterion for the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. This legislative modification aimed to extend legal protection to unmarried, non-cohabiting partners who are nonetheless engaged in an intimate relationship. This legislative amendment has sparked significant controversy. Representatives of the judiciary and other state institutions reported numerous challenges in implementing the revised law, primarily due to the ambiguous statutory definition and the inherent difficulty of proving the existence of such an intimate relationship.

“The media are very good storytellers, from the perspective of the cameraman, the scriptwriter… This thing can be solved in a completely normal way with legal means. […] One particular case led to a very serious avalanche of adjustments, but I don’t believe this had a positive impact on reducing or deterring abusers.”

(FG2-Participant 4-prosecutor)

“Following the Deborah case, the legislation underwent numerous urgent modifications that both assisted and complicated the task of those who deal with it, but anyway, there are some steps.”

(FG6-Participant 14-social worker)

These practitioner insights underscore the dynamic of penal populism, where emotional media narratives can influence the direction of legislative reform. The introduction of ambiguous categories like “intimate relationships” under public pressure is perceived by experts as a move that favored political appeasement, potentially complicating the practical implementation of the law. This suggests that when legislative reform serves as a form of political communication, the policy’s long-term effectiveness and deterrent capacity may be restricted.

Many participants in the study acknowledged the need for legislative changes to prevent violence against women and protect victims of this kind of violence, as well as the beneficial role of public support. However, they also pointed out that in this specific case, what was presented in the media was overexposed and then used by politicians to garner political support.

“Of course, the role of society in general and the media is also very important. […] they focus more on the scandalous and shocking than on what is useful and what could help the victims.”

(iDI 22–judge)

Active civic engagement is an essential element of democratic societies and their public sphere, where citizens can discuss public issues and influence political decisions [34]. In this sense, protests can be seen as a form of public communication through which important social issues are raised. Furthermore, Norris [35] underscores the emergence of new social movements, shifts in civic engagement, and alternative protest modes arising at the end of the twentieth century, all of which influence the representative democracy. However, the challenge lies in balancing this democratic activism with the structural demands of the legislative process. The democratic legal framework requires that the emotional momentum be used for elaborating an evidence-based, long-term policy rather than reactionary, symbolic measures. Numerous representatives of judicial institutions emphasized the various challenges the legislative amendments posed to their daily operations, arguing that they ultimately hindered victims’ protection in practice. This criticism does not imply that reforms were unnecessary; rather, it targets the ineffective communication between policymakers and the practitioners who must operationalize the law. Indicative of the counterproductive nature of these hastily adopted measures—and the operational difficulties they created for legal professionals—is the fact that, as of March 2026, nearly three years after the attack on Deborah, no one has yet been convicted of the crime.

3.2. Rapid Legislative Change and Symbolic Policymaking

A protracted political crisis, the absence of a regular government, and a succession of six parliamentary elections within three years define the socio-political landscape within which the PDVA amendments were proposed and enacted. This highly volatile environment explains why competing political structures were eager to capitalize on the rising tide of public indignation. Seeking electoral advantage, numerous politicians publicly endorsed increasingly severe penalties for domestic violence offenses. Political actors competed to condemn the crime, demand stricter punishments, and project a posture of legislative firmness, while simultaneously accusing their opponents of failing to establish an effective protection system for women. This rhetoric extended to the highest institutional levels; for instance, the President of the Republic of Bulgaria commented on the newly adopted amendments by stating: “The judicial authorities have finally responded adequately to this unacceptable, barbaric act. Society must continue to exert its pressure.”13 According to the co-chairman of one of the parliamentary represented political parties, the abuser should be tried most strictly: “This case has shaken our entire society. For me, this is not a person, this is a beast who deserves the harshest punishment”14.

The rhetoric employed by politicians illustrates how such violent cases can be instrumentalized for political signaling. Demanding the “harshest punishment” while a case is still pending potentially challenges the principle of the separation of powers. These institutional responses highlight a notable tension in democratic governance, particularly captured in the call for society to keep up the pressure. By inviting external sentiment to influence judicial pathways, political actors risk validating the populist idea that popular outcry, rather than objective legal frameworks, functions as an arbiter of criminal justice. Furthermore, labeling the perpetrator as a “beast” shifts the discourse from a critique of judicial shortcomings toward a highly emotional, moral narrative. In this framework, strict adherence to legal precision is accepted as an obstacle to justice, rather than a democratic necessity.

A proof of the populism and symbolic policymaking behind these statements and subsequent legal changes is the fact that, due to the lex mitior principle, they will not affect the perpetrator in the Deborah case. Under this principle, if the law changes before a final verdict is delivered, the version most favorable to the defendant must be applied. In addition, participants in the study noted that politicians’ and society’s overall involvement with the problem of violence against women is sporadic, related to individual incidents, and mostly when they can benefit from public anger. Both representatives of non-governmental organizations and of justice and law enforcement institutions hold this opinion.

“Politicians, legislators, and other decision-makers, in my opinion, do not have the fight against violence against women on their agendas. It becomes a priority mainly when I refer to the Deborah case again, when, in some very extreme and serious cases, it becomes public knowledge. Then suddenly, in a populist way, it becomes something that is on the agenda, but only for a short while.”

(iDI 31–NGO)

“These are episodic campaigns, and when an unfortunate incident occurs, the media is triggered, campaigns are launched, and some videos are released. Then life moves on, we temporarily forget about this occurrence, and unfortunately, it reappears. It’s a campaign. I don’t see anything that is long-lasting, persistent, and produces the intended outcome.”

(iDI 12–police officer)

While the amendments adopted in July 2023 underwent public consultation and a partial impact assessment—addressing structural flaws in the existing PDVA framework, the necessity for enhanced institutional cooperation, and the establishment of both a coordination mechanism and a national information system for domestic violence cases—the subsequent August 2023 additions followed a different trajectory. Enacted under the pressure of mass public protests, these later modifications were voted into law in a single day during an extraordinary parliamentary session over the summer recess [36]. Confirming this, one of the interviewed politicians admitted that the protracted political instability and alternating parliamentary elections in recent years had resulted in poorly conceptualized and hastily drafted legislation:

“The continuous cannonade of elections has led to the fact that we have no government and from then on the normal mechanism by which a law should be created has been completely…, how should I say, thrown into the trash… […] We are currently sitting, writing something, constantly changing some laws, not to mention that things sometimes happen within a day, an hour, two hours. It is impossible to produce quality legislation in this way.”

(iDI 40–politician)

This perspective highlights the abandonment of lawmaking mechanisms and procedures, such as ex-ante impact assessments and meaningful public consultations. This means a shift from an evidence-based legislative model to a reactive, sentiment-driven approach. By prioritizing political speed over procedural rigor, the legislative adjustments in this case arguably bypassed essential quality-control mechanisms. In the long run, this procedural impatience risks generating statutory ambiguities that complicate judicial enforcement.

Through the recent amendments, the scope of the PDVA includes the hypothesis of an “intimate relationship”, i.e., the law can be used not only to protect people who live together and share a common household, but also by those who have or have had an intimate relationship without cohabitation. This hypothesis was not included in the initial amendments, but it was accepted without expert and public discussions due to public pressure brought on by the Deborah case. Strong political stances were expressed during the legislative debates (which took place in a single day), with certain parties claiming that the law’s changes excessively broaden the area of protection and are connected to larger cultural and political conflicts. This indicates that the issue is not purely technical, but is situated within a broader political context. NGOs, which primarily want inclusion of this term, also express dissatisfaction with the definition of “intimate relationship”. They claim that there are problems with two aspects: “First, there is the requirement for a minimum duration of 60 days. The second, even more worrying issue is the requirement that the relationship is between a man and a woman only, which clearly excludes cases of violence between intimate partners of the same sex.” [36].

This symbolic approach to lawmaking is illustrated by the fact that the amendments appear to neglect the structural deficiencies that hinder the effective implementation of the PDVA, thereby undermining actual prevention and victim protection. According to the experts, a substantial gap remains between the rhetorical promises of political actors and the operational reality of the legal framework.

“We also have a discrepancy between the definitions in the PDVA and the Criminal Code; some things that are violence under the PDVA are not violence under the Criminal Code, and vice versa. And accordingly, some of the subjects who can be protected under the PDVA cannot seek protection under the Criminal Code and vice versa.”

(iDI 22–judge)

“That there were changes adopted last year, I can’t say whether they are effective or not, because they were simply adopted and not implemented. They may be very effective, but since we don’t have a Regulation for the implementation of the new PDVA, since they [the amendments] are not implemented in practice, we don’t know whether they are effective.”

(iDI 31–NGO)

Ultimately, these procedural and conceptual challenges may limit the effectiveness of broader efforts to combat domestic violence and protect women. Furthermore, the practical application of the amended framework seems to create implementation difficulties for law enforcement and judicial bodies. Illustrating these institutional barriers, one of the participating prosecutors revealed:

“Absolutely nothing has changed. Absolutely nothing has changed. After “Deborah,” they changed a few texts–I don’t see any change, I’m sorry to say it–it became even more difficult to work on these cases, even more impossible to prove.”

(FG6-Participant 8-prosecutor)

A gap between statutory intent and practical enforcement can often emerge when policy is shaped in response to high-profile incidents. Certain amendments—particularly those adopted without extensive expert consultation—risk of introducing practical challenges for police officers and prosecutors. The practical implementation of these changes reflects a tension between the declared objectives and the actual outcomes.

3.3. Implementation Challenges

The amendments to the PDVA, adopted in July 2023, state that: “The act aims to provide rapid and effective protection and to provide assistance and support to persons who have suffered from domestic violence or are at risk, and to exercise a preventive and deterrent effect on the perpetrator of violence.” However, it appears that the implementation of the law has not progressed as rapidly as anticipated, and institutional structures currently lack the optimal personnel and material resources necessary for comprehensive preventive and deterrent action.

“The state has never set itself the goal of limiting domestic violence. In this sense, it is not effective because there is no action aimed at preventing and limiting it. For now, the state aims to deal with the consequences of domestic violence.”

(iDI 45–politician)

“There is more discussion in the media about how many cases of domestic violence there are, in which locality what happened, but I don’t see any educational initiatives, in schools for teenagers, where certain people go and talk about real situations, their consequences, and the possibility of overcoming such an event”

(FG-4-Participant 5-social worker)

These insights underscore that the legislative amendments often focus on expanding legal definitions or increasing penalties after an incident has occurred, but the systemic roots of domestic violence remain poorly addressed. The experts highlight that while media coverage of domestic violence has increased, this exposure has not translated into educational campaigns or more preventive measures funded by the state. These insights underscore a critical structural gap in the current policy approach: the predominance of reactive measures over long-term prevention.

In addition to the preventive goals provided for in the PDVA, difficulties are also found in the implementation of protection measures. Representatives of the NGO sector, for example, share:

“Although many amendments to the Protection against Domestic Violence Act came into force last year, they are not practically applicable because […] the Regulation for the implementation of the PDVA has not been adopted.”

(iDI 31–NGO)

This institutional skepticism is further shared by members of the judiciary. A judge participating in the study highlighted key normative inconsistencies between the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) and the Criminal Code regarding the classification of different types of domestic violence. These systemic discrepancies, according to the practitioners, inherently risk creating functionally ineffective statutory provisions—textual amendments that exist formally on paper but remain largely inapplicable in judicial practice.

“ […] the policymakers decide to do something, do it in a hurry, but the discrepancy remains. […] no definition in the Criminal Code covers intimate relationships. But the Criminal Code was not changed, only the PDVA. If the same situation happens today (the Deborah case, b.a.), we will again not be able to hold the perpetrator criminally liable, because at the moment, intimate relationships have not been added to it as one of the forms.”

(iDI 22–judge)

In this context, prosecutors and judges are left with symbolic frameworks with poorly developed procedural mechanisms necessary for successful enforcement. The addition of “intimate relationship” in the PDVA and the difficulties around its definition are the primary targets of criticism. Judges, police officers, and prosecutors who took part in the study are all concerned that various courts may interpret and apply the law differently.

“I don’t want to talk about how the term “intimate relationship” was defined, there is definitely a white spot there. It happened in a hurry; this law had to be passed […] Yes, there was such an attempt to legalize some kind of intimate relationship, but this definitely creates some chaos. How are these six months defined? Since when does their relationship start to be defined as intimate? There are definitely ambiguities that I would say should be reviewed.”

(iDI 32–state institution)

“The sensational “Deborah” case initiated extremely rapid and ill-considered changes to the law, which the legislator so powerfully wanted to make. And currently, the judicial authorities are experiencing huge problems with how to apply the legislation.”

(FG3-Participant 12-judge)

In addition to the ambiguities in the legal texts, the amendments in the law are not supported by institutional resources to make them a reality: the elaboration of the Regulations for implementing the changes is delayed; the promised database has not been created; no new crisis centers are provided, and the number of sheltered housing is limited; no specific mechanisms for coordination between institutions have been outlined, and the newly established National Council for Prevention and Protection against Domestic Violence under the Council of Ministers has met only once since 2024. The promised specialized programs for the recovery of individuals or children who are victims of domestic violence or witnesses, and Programs for overcoming aggression and dealing with anger for perpetrators of domestic violence, which include social and psychological counseling, have not yet been created. Lawyers describe other challenges posed by the changes to the PDVA, hindering its effective implementation in protecting victims of domestic violence [26].

The political slogans and the legal amendments made contrast sharply with the real institutional situation, which makes the work of NGO representatives and law enforcement officials extremely difficult. This, on the other hand, erodes confidence that victims can actually be helped.

“Well, the feeling of powerlessness follows me almost every case that I have. Why? Because the way the institutions that receive information about this type of criminal activity function is, how can I say, limited in terms of opportunities for assistance to the victim. For this reason, I feel powerless.”

(iDI 10–police officer)

The manner in which politicians respond to the issue of violence against women suggests a tendency toward reactive, crisis-driven policymaking, where immediate political outputs are often prioritized over long-term strategic outcomes. This phenomenon becomes particularly pronounced during periods of public pressure that coincide with electoral campaigns, a dynamic observed in the Bulgarian political context.

3.4. Unintended Consequences

The amendments to the PDVA have been in effect since the beginning of 2024, although their overall impact has not yet been formally evaluated. Instead, we can assess their outcomes based on the actions of those who enforce the law and assist victims of domestic violence, such as the study participants. One of the positive results reported by the respondents is the increased number of domestic violence complaints filed by women.

“Let me just say that after this case, after the massive publicity given after this case, reports of violence to the police increased sharply; many people, many women gathered the courage to talk about their pain.”

(iDI 10–police officer)

As shown at the beginning of the text, reports of domestic violence have increased significantly, as have immediate protection orders. This may be a sign of growing confidence among victims that a legal framework exists to protect them, as well as a reflection of better institutional functioning.

“Of course, public reaction has some significance, because after certain public cases that are widely covered by the media, we see a kind of boom in filing complaints from victims. That is, people see that something can be done, they can be helped.”

(iDI 22–judge)

However, one must also take into account the concerns of certain respondents, who indicated that an increase in reports is not always indicative of institutional effectiveness. Some police officers and prosecutors noted that several of the cases they are required to investigate under the new law stem from isolated family disputes. In these instances, the woman later withdraws her complaint against her husband and accuses the institutions of trying to break up her family. There are also cases where accusations of domestic violence are used as leverage in divorce proceedings.

“This thing is widely used as a form of blackmailing men on a variety of issues. Whether it’s children, alimony, or relationships. In general, any slap is already a crime under the law. And this led to a situation of increasing cases in our country. But a huge amount of cases, which distorted the real parameters of violence as domestic violence. Because now, excuse me, not every form of conflict in the family should be a criminal act.”

(FG 2-Participant 4-prosecutor)

The increased number of domestic violence claims and protection proceedings is often associated with longer processing times and greater administrative pressure on the judicial system. Respondents shared about a shortage of trained personnel within state institutions capable of responding adequately to complaints, which hinders the effective implementation of the amendments. Furthermore, the discrepancy between civil and criminal procedures, highlighted by study participants, creates situations where the court issues a protection order, but no criminal prosecution is initiated. This leaves victims and society with the impression that the offender has escaped true punishment, fostering a sense of injustice. Society anticipates better victim protection and quicker institutional responses through these legislative amendments. However, experts point out that structural issues remain unresolved, and it is becoming increasingly challenging to meet public expectations for effectively preventing and combating intimate partner violence and violence against women.

“… sometimes in politics, such quick crisis solutions, although they may seem good, turn out to be a trap in the long run.”

(iDI 40–politician)

Despite the amendments to the PDVA that introduce the long-awaited expansion of legal protection, according to the experts, there are unintended consequences, such as increased pressure on the judicial system, challenges related to the concept of “intimate relationship”, potential tension between civil protection measures and criminal law responses, ineffective institutional coordination, and a lack of institutional resources for victim protection and support. Some of these problems were already present, but are not addressed by the newly introduced measures. In practice, legislative responses driven by penal populism and symbolic policymaking tend to prioritize immediate rhetorical commitments over structural enforcement. This approach risks obscuring the operational needs of the system to deliver tangible protection for victims of domestic violence and violence against women.

4. Discussion

Public opinion is a phenomenon that can significantly influence societal processes and the course of events. Other studies [16] also show that public opinion, along with its accompanying cultural norms and understandings, plays a significant role in the formulation of public policies, particularly regarding sensitive issues. However, when public opinion is filled with resentment and a sense of unfairness, it turns into pressure that politicians frequently utilize to justify hasty changes to the law. Public pressure thus becomes a favorable basis for penal populism, which feeds on public dissatisfaction and a sense of injustice stemming from dysfunctional laws and institutions: “It feeds on expressions of anger, disenchantment and disillusionment with the criminal justice establishment.” [29] (p. 12). The first research question was addressed by the analysis, which indicated that public opinion and its pressure in Bulgaria foster the growth of penal populism and act as a catalyst for legislative changes about intimate partner violence. Even when the efficacy of legislative reforms is questionable, politicians send political signals, project toughness on crime, and soothe the public by acting quickly to propose harsher punishments. In this sense, punitive policies can also be interpreted as symbolic political actions, designed to signal a zero-tolerance approach to crime [37].

The way the amendments to the PDVA were introduced appears to align with patterns of penal populism and symbolic policymaking, where legislative outputs serve functions beyond their stated regulatory objectives. These adjustments are often influenced by electoral dynamics and the need to signal responsiveness within a competitive political landscape. Consequently, the long-term resolution of the core problem can become secondary to immediate political imperatives. While this form of rapid legislative modification may offer short-term public reassurance, it frequently falls short of addressing the underlying issue and can introduce new obstacles to the law’s overall efficacy.

Penal populism may offer electoral advantage [38], but the problem with it is much more extensive, since its manifestation is “structurally embedded, representing a major shift in the configuration of penal power in modern society, rather than something within the purview of politicians to tinker with as they please” [29] (p. 8). Moreover, as Pratt and Miao argue, it represents an attack on the long-established connection between reason and modern punishment [39]. It responds to public concerns and dissatisfaction, promising quick measures and policies that will bring immediate positive change. However, when it comes to significant legal updates that touch upon structural institutional problems, reasonable and well-considered reforms are required—the result of broad and expert discussion. In this case, as some authors show, we are talking about radical overhauls of the law [27]. Such systemic reform requires not quick fixes, but a long-term state and public strategic vision for a gradual but sustainable solution to the problem.

This does not negate the legitimate concerns by the public regarding institutional failures and the positive results of the changes, such as increasing public awareness of the problem and public support for the victim. Unquestionably, there are some issues with the legal framework and the justice system regarding domestic violence and violence against women, which create a sense of injustice within Bulgarian society. Reforms are clearly needed to increase the effectiveness of the legal framework for preventing this type of violence. The implications of allowing public sentiment to serve as the primary catalyst for legislative change extend beyond the specific events that triggered them. When legal norms are developed independently of rigorous expert evaluation and balanced deliberation, it risks undermining the quality of public policymaking. Over time, such practices may weaken democratic governance by substituting long-term strategic deliberation with short-term, reactive measures.

This study does not claim to be exhaustive regarding the influence of public opinion, particularly on highly sensitive issues such as violence against women; rather, it illustrates a broader contemporary trend in global lawmaking. Specifically, it highlights the expansion of penal populism and symbolic policymaking, which may not only limit the effectiveness of the solutions they propose but can also introduce inconsistencies within the existing legal framework. It is also necessary to acknowledge the limitations inherent in data collected through qualitative methods. This information is not statistically representative and solely reflects the perspectives of the experts who participated in the study. A different sample of specialists might highlight alternative issues related to intimate partner violence. It should also be noted that the implementation effects discussed here represent expert observations and insights, rather than direct evaluations of policy effectiveness. Furthermore, a limitation stems from the researcher’s subjectivity, which inevitably shapes the interpretation and categorization of themes [33].

It is important to continue investigating the factors that facilitate the expansion of penal populism and to explore its subsequent consequences. This underscores the need for future studies to evaluate the long-term efficacy of the newly adopted legislative changes and to determine whether they contribute to a reduction in cases of intimate partner violence. A comparative analysis of how different professional groups, such as judges, prosecutors, lawyers, social workers, and NGO representatives, perceive these legislative changes would contribute to a deeper understanding of the institutional tension points created by penal populism. It is also crucial to examine the influence of social media on how specific issues are framed and how public opinion is shaped. Furthermore, comparing the relationship between public opinion and lawmaking across Bulgaria and other countries would provide valuable insights into the mechanisms through which laws are created and implemented in the contemporary world.

5. Conclusions

Looking back at the trajectory of legal reforms related to intimate partner violence in Bulgaria reveals that in the last few years, public pressure has played an important role in changing the legal framework. Because public outrage often reflects legitimate concerns regarding institutional failures and deficiencies in victim protection, policymakers are expected to react. In this context, the challenge lies in ensuring that democratic responsiveness does not overshadow the need for evidence-based policy design, thereby minimizing the risk of unexpected consequences. When this balance is not maintained, criminal justice policy can easily fall into the patterns of penal populism [29]. Reflecting the perceptions of experts working on the issue, the analysis of the Bulgarian case suggests that under public and political pressure, there is a risk of adopting stricter measures that may test the boundaries of proportionality, effectiveness, and long-term strategic logic. Instead of pursuing a substantive reduction in crime through prevention and systemic control, such approaches often prioritize symbolic penalties that respond to temporary public sentiments, potentially creating tensions within the internal balance and coherence of the penal system. All this, as Pratt and Miao warn, “threatens to bring an end to Reason itself, the foundation stone of modernity” [39] (p. 3).

Violence against women and intimate partner violence are complex social phenomena that cannot be addressed solely through criminal law measures. They require a comprehensive approach that combines legal protection, effective prevention, social services, psychological support, and education aimed at changing public attitudes, which significantly impact the sustainability of the problem. Only through coordinated efforts among institutions, professionals, and society can a reduction in cases and real protection of victims be achieved. Furthermore, future policy reforms must be preceded by regulatory impact assessments and consultations with front-line practitioners to avoid the pitfalls of symbolic policymaking. To bridge the gap between the law and institutional practice, continuous specialized training for law enforcement and social workers is indispensable. In addition, public awareness campaigns must shift from crisis-driven initiatives to long-term educational strategies. Addressing the roots of public tolerance toward violence against women requires integrating gender equality curricula into all levels of the education system.

Particular attention should be paid to vulnerable groups, where the risk of women becoming victims of violence is higher [40,41]. These are women from socio-economically marginalized backgrounds, ethnic minorities (such as Roma women), migrant and refugee women, and those living in isolated regions. Often, these groups are exposed to strict patriarchal norms that place women in a subordinate position, unequal gender roles, and lower socioeconomic status, which are powerful determinants of vulnerability [41,42]. This socio-economic divide is compounded by geographic disparity. While specialized crisis centers and NGO support networks are concentrated in major urban areas, victims in small towns and villages are left poorly protected and underserved. By focusing purely on punitive legislative upgrades, Bulgarian policymakers have overlooked how these intersectional vulnerabilities prevent the state’s protective mechanisms from reaching the country’s most vulnerable women.

While public sensitivity is an important element in addressing the issue, in some cases, it may lead to decisions influenced by emotions and pressure, which risk turning into manifestations of penal populism and symbolic policymaking. Thus, instead of a sustainable reduction in violence, there is a danger of limited effectiveness in the adopted measures. That is why effective policy in this area requires a balanced approach that combines public sensitivity with expert knowledge and a long-term strategic vision—one aimed not only at punishment, but also at proactive prevention and real protection and support for victims, all sustained by systematic evaluations to measure the actual effectiveness and consequences of the enacted interventions.