placestats

Regime type vs. Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion

Holds up after adjusting for income

Across 137 countries, Regime type and Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion rise and fall together at r = -0.21 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). It holds up almost unchanged when only countries with similar income (GDP per person) are compared (r = -0.35, q = 0.043, allowing for the many pairs tested).

Comparing countries across the middle half of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion, 31.1% to 58.5% of unintended pregnancies, regime type is worse by 0.32 points at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 0.435 points.

Link before adjusting (r)-0.215p = 0.012 · 137 countries
After adjusting for national income-0.351p = 2.8e-5 · likely range [-0.49, -0.19]
p, allowing for regions0.047standard error 0.140 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.043across 14,952 pairs

How to read these.r runs from −1 (one goes up as the other goes down) to +1 (they rise together), and 0 means no link. Adjusting for national income means comparing countries with the same GDP per person, so differences in wealth can’t explain the link. Income is used in percentage terms, since an extra $1,000 means more to a poor country than to a rich one. p is how likely a link this strong would be if there were really none. Below 0.05 means it is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 1.1e-32 means a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then 11, so very close to zero. The likely range is where the true figure probably lies, and a range that crosses zero means the link could easily be chance. Countries in the same region tend to resemble each other, so the third figure allows for that, which gives a fairer p. The standard error is the typical size of the error in r. Finally, testing this many pairs means some will look strong by luck alone. A q below 0.05 means this link is unlikely to be one of those.

Regime type · regime category (0-3)link with income +0.49 · moderate
Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion · % of unintended pregnancieslink with income +0.12 · independent

“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.

Every country as a dot

Regime type · regime category (0-3) →Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion · % of unintended pregnancies →0319.7%86.1%Angola: 1 regime category (0-3), 28.1% of unintended pregnanciesAlbania: 1 regime category (0-3), 59.2% of unintended pregnanciesArgentina: 2 regime category (0-3), 48.4% of unintended pregnanciesArmenia: 2 regime category (0-3), 81.8% of unintended pregnanciesAustralia: 3 regime category (0-3), 43.1% of unintended pregnanciesAzerbaijan: 1 regime category (0-3), 77.6% of unintended pregnanciesBurundi: 1 regime category (0-3), 26.2% of unintended pregnanciesBelgium: 3 regime category (0-3), 37.1% of unintended pregnanciesBenin: 1 regime category (0-3), 36.9% of unintended pregnanciesBurkina Faso: 0 regime category (0-3), 40.6% of unintended pregnanciesBangladesh: 0 regime category (0-3), 60.1% of unintended pregnanciesBulgaria: 2 regime category (0-3), 35.7% of unintended pregnanciesBosnia and Herzegovina: 1 regime category (0-3), 57.3% of unintended pregnanciesBelarus: 0 regime category (0-3), 56% of unintended pregnanciesBolivia: 2 regime category (0-3), 36.3% of unintended pregnanciesBrazil: 2 regime category (0-3), 48.4% of unintended pregnanciesBarbados: 3 regime category (0-3), 58% of unintended pregnanciesBhutan: 2 regime category (0-3), 67.9% of unintended pregnanciesBotswana: 2 regime category (0-3), 32.2% of unintended pregnanciesCentral African Republic: 1 regime category (0-3), 30% of unintended pregnanciesCanada: 2 regime category (0-3), 36.8% of unintended pregnanciesSwitzerland: 3 regime category (0-3), 25.5% of unintended pregnanciesChile: 3 regime category (0-3), 52.5% of unintended pregnanciesChina: 0 regime category (0-3), 77.9% of unintended pregnanciesCote d'Ivoire: 1 regime category (0-3), 36.7% of unintended pregnanciesCameroon: 1 regime category (0-3), 40.7% of unintended pregnanciesCongo, Dem. Rep.: 1 regime category (0-3), 27.9% of unintended pregnanciesCongo, Rep.: 1 regime category (0-3), 42.6% of unintended pregnanciesColombia: 2 regime category (0-3), 43.2% of unintended pregnanciesComoros: 1 regime category (0-3), 32.4% of unintended pregnanciesCabo Verde: 2 regime category (0-3), 48.6% of unintended pregnanciesCosta Rica: 3 regime category (0-3), 41% of unintended pregnanciesCzechia: 3 regime category (0-3), 19.7% of unintended pregnanciesGermany: 3 regime category (0-3), 27.1% of unintended pregnanciesDjibouti: 1 regime category (0-3), 41.4% of unintended pregnanciesDenmark: 3 regime category (0-3), 38.9% of unintended pregnanciesDominican Republic: 2 regime category (0-3), 44% of unintended pregnanciesEcuador: 2 regime category (0-3), 35.1% of unintended pregnanciesSpain: 3 regime category (0-3), 43.1% of unintended pregnanciesEstonia: 3 regime category (0-3), 41.7% of unintended pregnanciesEthiopia: 1 regime category (0-3), 31% of unintended pregnanciesFinland: 3 regime category (0-3), 24.8% of unintended pregnanciesFrance: 3 regime category (0-3), 49.5% of unintended pregnanciesGabon: 1 regime category (0-3), 36.8% of unintended pregnanciesUnited Kingdom: 2 regime category (0-3), 36.2% of unintended pregnanciesGeorgia: 1 regime category (0-3), 86.1% of unintended pregnanciesGhana: 2 regime category (0-3), 35.9% of unintended pregnanciesGuinea: 0 regime category (0-3), 38.1% of unintended pregnanciesGambia, The: 2 regime category (0-3), 31.1% of unintended pregnanciesGuinea-Bissau: 0 regime category (0-3), 58.5% of unintended pregnanciesGreece: 2 regime category (0-3), 45.8% of unintended pregnanciesGuatemala: 2 regime category (0-3), 30.1% of unintended pregnanciesGuyana: 2 regime category (0-3), 47.5% of unintended pregnanciesHong Kong SAR, China: 0 regime category (0-3), 46.1% of unintended pregnanciesHonduras: 2 regime category (0-3), 30.6% of unintended pregnanciesCroatia: 2 regime category (0-3), 49.9% of unintended pregnanciesHaiti: 0 regime category (0-3), 35.5% of unintended pregnanciesHungary: 1 regime category (0-3), 49.4% of unintended pregnanciesIndonesia: 1 regime category (0-3), 63% of unintended pregnanciesIndia: 1 regime category (0-3), 77.1% of unintended pregnanciesIceland: 3 regime category (0-3), 39.1% of unintended pregnanciesItaly: 3 regime category (0-3), 67.1% of unintended pregnanciesJamaica: 2 regime category (0-3), 43.9% of unintended pregnanciesJapan: 3 regime category (0-3), 30.1% of unintended pregnanciesKazakhstan: 1 regime category (0-3), 82.1% of unintended pregnanciesKenya: 2 regime category (0-3), 38% of unintended pregnanciesKyrgyz Republic: 1 regime category (0-3), 79.2% of unintended pregnanciesCambodia: 1 regime category (0-3), 65.3% of unintended pregnanciesKorea, Rep.: 3 regime category (0-3), 61.9% of unintended pregnanciesLao PDR: 0 regime category (0-3), 68.3% of unintended pregnanciesLiberia: 2 regime category (0-3), 40.4% of unintended pregnanciesSri Lanka: 2 regime category (0-3), 72.3% of unintended pregnanciesLesotho: 2 regime category (0-3), 23.9% of unintended pregnanciesLithuania: 3 regime category (0-3), 27.7% of unintended pregnanciesLatvia: 3 regime category (0-3), 30.2% of unintended pregnanciesMoldova: 2 regime category (0-3), 70.6% of unintended pregnanciesMadagascar: 0 regime category (0-3), 62.8% of unintended pregnanciesMaldives: 2 regime category (0-3), 70.5% of unintended pregnanciesMexico: 1 regime category (0-3), 50.9% of unintended pregnanciesNorth Macedonia: 2 regime category (0-3), 63.4% of unintended pregnanciesMali: 0 regime category (0-3), 33.5% of unintended pregnanciesMyanmar: 0 regime category (0-3), 74.2% of unintended pregnanciesMontenegro: 2 regime category (0-3), 54.2% of unintended pregnanciesMongolia: 2 regime category (0-3), 65.7% of unintended pregnanciesMozambique: 1 regime category (0-3), 46.7% of unintended pregnanciesMauritania: 1 regime category (0-3), 25.4% of unintended pregnanciesMalawi: 2 regime category (0-3), 27.4% of unintended pregnanciesNamibia: 2 regime category (0-3), 27.9% of unintended pregnanciesNiger: 0 regime category (0-3), 31.3% of unintended pregnanciesNigeria: 2 regime category (0-3), 48.2% of unintended pregnanciesNicaragua: 1 regime category (0-3), 27.5% of unintended pregnanciesNetherlands: 3 regime category (0-3), 40.8% of unintended pregnanciesNorway: 3 regime category (0-3), 31.7% of unintended pregnanciesNepal: 2 regime category (0-3), 69.4% of unintended pregnanciesNew Zealand: 3 regime category (0-3), 29.3% of unintended pregnanciesPakistan: 1 regime category (0-3), 60.9% of unintended pregnanciesPanama: 2 regime category (0-3), 41.3% of unintended pregnanciesPeru: 2 regime category (0-3), 47.5% of unintended pregnanciesPhilippines: 1 regime category (0-3), 50.5% of unintended pregnanciesPapua New Guinea: 1 regime category (0-3), 46.3% of unintended pregnanciesPoland: 2 regime category (0-3), 36.6% of unintended pregnanciesPortugal: 2 regime category (0-3), 32.4% of unintended pregnanciesParaguay: 2 regime category (0-3), 51% of unintended pregnanciesRomania: 2 regime category (0-3), 71.2% of unintended pregnanciesRussian Federation: 1 regime category (0-3), 71.8% of unintended pregnanciesRwanda: 1 regime category (0-3), 28.7% of unintended pregnanciesSenegal: 2 regime category (0-3), 25.1% of unintended pregnanciesSingapore: 1 regime category (0-3), 27.5% of unintended pregnanciesSolomon Islands: 2 regime category (0-3), 28% of unintended pregnanciesSierra Leone: 1 regime category (0-3), 51.5% of unintended pregnanciesEl Salvador: 1 regime category (0-3), 41.5% of unintended pregnanciesSomalia, Fed. Rep.: 0 regime category (0-3), 29.2% of unintended pregnanciesSerbia: 1 regime category (0-3), 60.8% of unintended pregnanciesSao Tome and Principe: 2 regime category (0-3), 29.6% of unintended pregnanciesSuriname: 2 regime category (0-3), 46.5% of unintended pregnanciesSlovak Republic: 2 regime category (0-3), 26.2% of unintended pregnanciesSlovenia: 2 regime category (0-3), 24.4% of unintended pregnanciesSweden: 3 regime category (0-3), 48.3% of unintended pregnanciesEswatini: 0 regime category (0-3), 26.5% of unintended pregnanciesChad: 1 regime category (0-3), 29.5% of unintended pregnanciesTogo: 1 regime category (0-3), 32.2% of unintended pregnanciesThailand: 1 regime category (0-3), 64.4% of unintended pregnanciesTajikistan: 1 regime category (0-3), 71% of unintended pregnanciesTurkmenistan: 1 regime category (0-3), 83.4% of unintended pregnanciesTimor-Leste: 2 regime category (0-3), 67.8% of unintended pregnanciesTrinidad and Tobago: 3 regime category (0-3), 58% of unintended pregnanciesTanzania: 1 regime category (0-3), 35.9% of unintended pregnanciesUganda: 1 regime category (0-3), 29.7% of unintended pregnanciesUkraine: 1 regime category (0-3), 75.9% of unintended pregnanciesUruguay: 3 regime category (0-3), 27.6% of unintended pregnanciesUnited States: 2 regime category (0-3), 34.2% of unintended pregnanciesUzbekistan: 1 regime category (0-3), 80.2% of unintended pregnanciesViet Nam: 0 regime category (0-3), 74.5% of unintended pregnanciesVanuatu: 2 regime category (0-3), 45.4% of unintended pregnanciesSouth Africa: 2 regime category (0-3), 36.6% of unintended pregnanciesZambia: 1 regime category (0-3), 28.2% of unintended pregnanciesZimbabwe: 1 regime category (0-3), 24.8% of unintended pregnanciesARMCHECHNCZEFINITAKORMMRNERSOMSWZVNM

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted-0.2150.012137
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted-0.1800.035137
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income-0.3512.8e-5137
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income-0.3110.000137

The rank version uses only each country’s place in line, from lowest to highest, so a few extreme countries count for less. The adjusted and unadjusted versions use the same 137 countries: those that report both measures and GDP per person. So the gap between them comes from the adjustment, not from a change in which countries are counted. Drop in the size of r after adjusting: -0.136 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.383 (without SGP) to -0.328 (without CHN). The bar above shows that range on a scale from −1 to +1, with the solid line at the full result. The single country that moves r most: SGP (-0.032).

Within each region

Countries are not separate, unrelated cases, and neighbors share a lot. A link that holds inside each region is far more believable than one that shows up only when comparing regions.

nr
East Asia & Pacific19-0.52
Europe & Central Asia43-0.37
Latin America & Caribbean23+0.02
Sub-Saharan Africa42-0.20

By income third

If the link shows up only in the richest third of countries, it is a feature of rich countries, not a general pattern.

nr
Poorest third46-0.23
Middle third45-0.35
Richest third46-0.34

By largest religious group

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
Christians91-0.21
Muslims27-0.28

By last european coloniser

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
France21-0.56
Never a European colony16-0.59
Spain17-0.41
United Kingdom34-0.12

Without outliers (countries far outside the middle half of countries on either measure, by more than one and a half times the width of that middle half): r = -0.351 after dropping 0 countries.

Two series, one country

Both measures over the years for one country you pick. The two charts are stacked so they share only the years along the bottom.

Loading…

Over time, within countries

Everything above compares countries with each other at one moment. This section compares each country only with itself over 0years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.

Not enough history inside each country to look at this over time. That needs countries measured for several years in a row, and at least one of these measures is measured too rarely.

The data


regime category (0-3)
% of unintended pregnancies		Years
Uruguay URY327.6%2025, 2019
Trinidad and Tobago TTO358%2025, 2019
Sweden SWE348.3%2025, 2019
New Zealand NZL329.3%2025, 2019
Norway NOR331.7%2025, 2019
Netherlands NLD340.8%2025, 2019
Latvia LVA330.2%2025, 2019
Lithuania LTU327.7%2025, 2019
Korea, Rep. KOR361.9%2025, 2019
Japan JPN330.1%2025, 2019
Italy ITA367.1%2025, 2019
Iceland ISL339.1%2025, 2019
France FRA349.5%2025, 2019
Finland FIN324.8%2025, 2019
Estonia EST341.7%2025, 2019

Coppedge, M. et al., V-Dem Dataset, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project
Bearak, J. M., Popinchalk, A., Beavin, C. et al. (2022), 'Country-specific estimates of unintended pregnancy and abortion incidence: a global comparative analysis of levels in 2015-2019', BMJ Global Health 7(3), e007151. Guttmacher Institute. Supplementary appendix, tables A3-A5.

Sources

Regime type

Regime type, Regimes of the World classification

V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg · via Our World in Data · CC BY 4.0 · updated annual

Four ranked categories, not a scale. It is the only such measure on this site. A closed autocracy holds no multiparty elections for its leader. An electoral autocracy holds them, but they are neither free nor fair. An electoral democracy clears that bar. A liberal democracy also has independent courts and protected personal freedoms. The four steps are not equal distances apart. So read the rank-based link, which uses only the order, rather than the ordinary one. Both are shown. The categories are set by cut-off points on the V-Dem indices already on this site. That is why its pairs with them are flagged as built from the same numbers. It is also why it is kept out of the governance score: a grouping of those indices averaged back in beside them would count each twice. Our World in Data extends the categories back to territories before independence. This site starts at 1960, and its single-year snapshot at 2010, so that extension reaches nothing shown here.

Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion

Share of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion (model estimate, 2015-2019)

Guttmacher Institute (Bearak et al. 2022, BMJ Global Health) · CC BY-NC 4.0 · updated one edition (2015-2019 estimates, published 2022)

Of the unintended pregnancies in the abortion rate's model, the share that ended in abortion, averaged over 2015-2019 (Guttmacher Institute). The rest ended in a birth or a miscarriage. Like the other two, it is an estimate with a range. No "better" direction is set.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2019–2025. To adjust for income, each measure is first predicted from GDP per person (in percentage terms, on a log scale) with a straight-line fit. Only what is left over is then compared. This is called a partial correlation. The line is drawn the standard way (ordinary least squares), which picks the line that comes closest to all the countries at once. The error margins allow for countries in the same region resembling each other, using 7 World Bank regions. The q-value corrects for testing all 14,952 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated DYB 2024. How the country data works · explore Regime type and Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Regime type changes Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.

More links with Regime type or Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion