The State of LGBTI Rights Around the World in 2026: What the Numbers Say, What They Leave Unsaid, and Why They Differ

Three Figures That Put 2026 in Perspective

In 2026, 65 UN member states still criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations, according to ILGA World. The same organization reports that 7 member states legally provide for the death penalty for certain consensual same-sex sexual acts, while marriage equality is recognized in 37 UN member states, in addition to Taiwan. These figures provide an essential but incomplete snapshot: behind them lie laws, borders, different counting methods and, above all, lives exposed to fear, blackmail, or exile.

It is tempting to turn the global map of LGBTI rights into a simple assessment: “advanced” countries on one side and “backward” countries on the other; progress on one hand and regression on the other. This narrative is reassuring, but it does not hold up against the 2026 data.

The reality is less comfortable. Marriage equality is advancing, but remains a minority position among UN member states. Laws criminalizing intimacy between consenting adults remain in force in dozens of territories. Anti-LGBTQ political and legislative campaigns continue to be organized, particularly on the African continent, where The Guardian documented a wave of laws hostile to LGBTQ people in 2026. And even when a criminal provision is rarely enforced, its very existence may be enough to create a lasting climate of vulnerability.

For Quebec, this world map is not merely a matter of international curiosity. It affects protection claims, refugee sponsorship (see our interview with a legal expert on LGBT rights in Canada and elsewhere), community solidarity, and the role Canada claims to play in multilateral forums. The Coalition gaie et lesbienne du Québec, accredited by the United Nations ECOSOC, also has a responsibility to remain vigilant: to reject easy slogans and read the figures for what they truly are.

The Figure of 65: What ILGA World Measures in 2026

ILGA World states that in 2026, 65 UN member states still criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations. The key term here is “UN member states.” This is not an administrative detail without consequences: it is the key to understanding the figure.

ILGA World uses a scope based on United Nations member states. Its count therefore does not cover every territorial entity, every autonomous jurisdiction, or every territory whose international status differs from that of a member state. When the organization says 65, it is not saying that only 65 legal frameworks worldwide criminalize intimacy between same-sex adults. It is specifically saying that 65 UN member states do so.

This distinction is essential because world maps sometimes create the illusion of a perfectly homogeneous political landscape. Yet a map must make choices: which territories does it count? Which legal statuses does it include? Does it treat non-sovereign jurisdictions separately? Is it based on written laws, their enforcement, court decisions, or administrative practices? No map answers all these questions in the same way.

ILGA World's figure is nonetheless highly significant. It means that a substantial part of the international system remains structured by laws that allow consensual intimacy between same-sex people to be punished. In several cases, the very existence of these provisions places LGBTI people in a position of dependence on authorities, employers, landlords, police officers, families, or anyone else who might threaten to report them.

The figure should therefore never be read as an abstract statistic. A criminalization law is not merely a sentence in a criminal code. It can become a social instrument. It can influence whether someone chooses to seek health care, report an assault, rent housing, keep a job, or live openly with the person they love.

ILGA World publishes its up-to-date maps and data on its website. For any specific inquiry, particularly when legislative changes occur, prudence requires consulting the organization's updated mapping directly: ilga.org/ilga-world-maps/.

Why Human Dignity Trust Arrives at 66 Jurisdictions

Human Dignity Trust provides a slightly different figure: 66 jurisdictions still criminalize consensual intimacy between same-sex adults. At first glance, the difference between 65 and 66 might seem insignificant. It is not. Instead, it reveals a methodological difference that many articles poorly summarize or ignore entirely.

Human Dignity Trust does not strictly count UN member states. The organization counts jurisdictions, a broader term that can include non-sovereign territories. This difference in scope explains the discrepancy between the two figures.

In other words, ILGA World and Human Dignity Trust do not necessarily contradict each other. They are not answering exactly the same statistical question.

Sound interpretation of the data requires a few simple habits:

• check whether the source refers to states, countries, territories, or jurisdictions;
• look at the date of the latest update, since laws and court decisions can change;
• distinguish between the existence of a law and its actual enforcement, without minimizing the law's impact;
• avoid comparing two figures without checking whether they are based on the same scope;
• consult the original map when seeking an answer about a specific territory.

This rigor is particularly necessary in public debate. A discrepancy of one can be wrongly used to cast doubt on a source or claim that an organization is “exaggerating.” In this case, the difference does not indicate an obvious error. It stems from the distinction between counting UN member states and counting jurisdictions.

Human Dignity Trust's work remains available in its map on criminalization: humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/. Its presentation makes it possible to track the state of the law according to its own methodological framework.

The lesson is simple, but it changes the conversation: we must stop asking which figure is “the right one,” as though only one could exist independently of any methodology. A better question is: what exactly does each source count, and what does that choice leave outside the frame?

Criminalization Is Not Limited to Arrests or Convictions

The term “criminalization” is often understood too narrowly. People immediately imagine an arrest, a trial, a conviction, or a prison sentence. These realities are serious, but they do not encompass the full impact of a criminal law targeting same-sex relations.

A law that is rarely enforced remains a law that can be enforced. This possibility alone is sometimes enough to change the behaviour of those concerned and the people around them. It can be used for blackmail. Someone who fears being reported may hesitate to leave an abusive relationship, seek help, or contact the authorities after an assault. A landlord may invoke or exploit a climate of criminalization to deny housing or cause an eviction. Access to health care may also be undermined when someone fears that their sexual orientation, gender identity, or intimate life will become known in a hostile environment.

We must not create an artificial hierarchy between the “real” and “symbolic” consequences of these laws. A legal symbol already has material effects when it creates vulnerability. A criminal provision may not be frequently prosecuted and still have a lasting social impact.

It can also foster arbitrary treatment. When some people's intimate lives are placed under the suspicion of criminal law, the line between the written rule and abuse of power becomes more fragile. LGBTI people may be perceived as less entitled to claim protection, less credible when they report violence, or more exposed to pressure intended to silence them.

This reality explains why a debate reduced to the annual number of arrests is insufficient. The absence of comprehensive data on the enforcement of a law does not mean that the law is harmless. Conversely, the repeal of a law does not automatically guarantee the disappearance of prejudice or violence. Law is not the whole of society, but it sends a powerful signal about the place afforded to certain people within society.

In the case of laws targeting intimacy between consenting adults, the fundamental problem remains unchanged: the state interferes in the private lives of people who are harming no one. The effects can spread into the most ordinary areas of life: housing, health, work, family relationships, personal safety, and even the ability to imagine a future without hiding.

Seven States and the Death Penalty: Caution Over Sensationalism

ILGA World reports that in 2026, the death penalty is a legally prescribed punishment in 7 UN member states for certain consensual same-sex sexual acts. The organization adds that, in 5 other states, there is no complete legal certainty allowing the application of the death penalty in this context to be definitively ruled out.

These findings are extremely serious. However, they require particular rigour. The documentary excerpts consulted for this article do not provide the names of the 7 states concerned, nor those of the 5 states where legal uncertainty remains. It would therefore be irresponsible to name countries based on an approximate recollection, an outdated list, or an indirect source.

For the current list, ILGA World's map and updated data should be consulted. Laws, judicial interpretations, and enforcement conditions can change; a serious article should not turn sensitive information into a fixed inventory.

This caution does not weaken the finding. It strengthens it. When the death penalty is at issue, accuracy is not an editorial luxury. It is an ethical obligation. An error concerning a country, date, or legal status can fuel misinformation, further endanger people who are already at risk, and provide arguments to those seeking to discredit human rights defenders.

We must also distinguish between several levels of reality without conflating them. A punishment may be enshrined in law; its exact scope may be disputed; its application may be uncertain; and the actual risk may vary depending on institutions and circumstances. That does not make the provision a secondary detail. The fact that such an irreversible punishment can legally be contemplated for consensual same-sex sexual acts remains incompatible with the very idea of human dignity.

The same caution is required when discussing recent decriminalizations. The material consulted does not provide a list of these changes. We must therefore resist the temptation to list them without a direct source. Readers seeking this information should consult ILGA World's current maps rather than rely on an unverified list in a general article.

Marriage Equality Is Advancing, but It Does Not Yet Constitute a Global Norm

In 2026, ILGA World counts 37 UN member states that recognize marriage equality, in addition to Taiwan, which is not a UN member state. This represents major progress for same-sex couples and the families concerned. It would be absurd to minimize it.

Marriage equality means that the state recognizes that same-sex couples do not form a separate category, tolerated at a distance or confined to an inferior status. It provides access to a civil institution long reserved for heterosexual couples. It also helps change social perceptions because it publicly affirms that love, commitment, and family are not the preserve of a single sexual orientation.

But 37 UN member states, even when Taiwan is added, do not constitute a majority of the world. Recognition of marriage equality therefore cannot be presented as an already established universal norm. It is a real achievement, but one that remains geographically and politically limited.

Canada offers a useful point of comparison for Quebec readers. Same-sex marriage was legalized federally there in 2005 through the Civil Marriage Act. Quebec had previously established civil unions in 2002. Our look back at the history of marriage equality in Quebec details these stages. These dates remind us that Canadian advances are relatively recent within the span of a human life. They should not be treated as a natural state of affairs or as irreversible progress.

Quebec can be proud of its journey without drawing a conclusion of automatic moral superiority from it. Having secured rights here does not exempt us from understanding how contested or absent they remain elsewhere. Rather, it obliges us to recognize the fragility of what appears to be established.

Marriage equality is not the only indicator of freedom either. A person may live somewhere where marriage is recognized and still experience discrimination, hostility, or exclusion. Conversely, the fact that a state does not recognize marriage equality does not necessarily capture all the realities of its LGBTI communities. Legal maps are essential, but they do not replace the stories of those concerned or an analysis of social conditions.

The right approach is to hold two truths together: yes, the number of states recognizing marriage equality reflects considerable progress; no, this progress does not allow us to portray global history as a calm and continuous march toward equality.

An Anti-LGBTQ Wave in Africa Is a Reminder That Rights Can Be Rolled Back

The narrative of inevitable progress is particularly dangerous because it undermines vigilance. In April 2026, The Guardian documented a wave of anti-LGBTQ laws across the African continent. This reporting reminds us that advances in some places can coexist with political and legislative offensives elsewhere.

The word “wave” deserves attention. It does not refer merely to the isolated existence of a law or debate. It suggests a movement, a dynamic in which measures hostile to LGBTQ people multiply or spread. When such a dynamic takes shape, rights become a terrain for political mobilization. LGBTI people may then be instrumentalized as a convenient target, portrayed as alien to society or as a threat to be fought.

The problem is not only legal. An anti-LGBTQ law can foster an environment in which hostile rhetoric gains legitimacy. It can encourage denunciation, intensify censorship, isolate community organizations, or increase the fear of speaking publicly about one's life. Even when the details vary from one legal framework to another, the logic remains troubling: turning the very existence of certain people into a political problem.

We must resist two opposing simplifications. The first is to portray Africa as a uniform bloc. The African continent cannot be reduced to a single legal, political, or social reality. The second is to minimize the impact of hostile laws in the name of this diversity. Recognizing the plurality of contexts must not be used to deny the seriousness of the documented wave.

The Commonwealth provides another revealing indicator. According to Human Dignity Trust, the criminalization of same-sex intimacy persists in more than half of Commonwealth countries. This finding highlights the enduring weight of legal histories and criminal frameworks that continue to shape LGBTI rights in several parts of the world.

However, it would be too easy to place all responsibility on regions portrayed as distant. Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric crosses borders. Political strategies of stigmatization, moral panics, and attacks on the autonomy of LGBTI people are not phenomena confined to a single continent. Quebec and Canada are not immune to setbacks, even though their legal framework differs profoundly from that of states that still criminalize same-sex relations.

Quebec and Canada: real gains, but a responsibility that extends beyond our borders

Quebec established civil unions in 2002. Canada then legalized same-sex marriage at the federal level in 2005. These gains matter. They have changed the lives of many people and families. They have also enshrined in Canadian law a principle of equality that stands in stark contrast to the criminalization still in force in 65 UN Member States, according to ILGA World.

But this legal gap should not fuel complacency. A society that benefits from broader protections also has the means, and therefore a share of the responsibility, to support people fleeing persecution or living under hostile regimes.

Sponsoring refugees is among the avenues often discussed in Canada when it comes to solidarity with LGBTI people facing threats. However, the background material provided for this article does not allow us to detail the applicable programs, eligibility criteria, timelines, or administrative mechanisms. It would be dishonest to claim that access to sponsorship is simple, automatic, or guaranteed.

This limitation should not serve as an excuse for inaction. Rather, it points to the questions that governments and organizations must address publicly:

• are the protection pathways available to LGBTI people sufficiently well known and genuinely accessible;
• do community organizations have the resources needed to support people seeking protection;
• do Canadian policies take into account the specific risks associated with criminalization, blackmail, and isolation;
• do sponsored people receive support tailored to their safety, health, and autonomy;
• do Quebec and Canada adequately consult LGBTI groups when developing their humanitarian responses.

Speaking of responsibility does not mean speaking on behalf of the communities concerned. International solidarity cannot be reduced to a rescue posture in which Quebec portrays itself as a universal model. It must begin with listening, supporting human rights organizations, and recognizing that LGBTI people are not merely victims to be welcomed: they are also agents of their own struggles.

Canada has an international institutional presence, and the CGLQ is accredited with the United Nations ECOSOC. This forum can be used to raise concerns, support the documentation of human rights violations, and emphasize that the criminalization of consensual relations between adults is not a marginal issue. It directly affects dignity, safety, and equality.

ECOSOC: a multilateral tool, not a magic wand

ECOSOC, the United Nations Economic and Social Council, provides a framework in which accredited organizations can participate in certain international processes. For the CGLQ, this accreditation offers a platform for engagement and advocacy. On its own, it does not guarantee legislative change in States that still criminalize same-sex relations. But it makes it possible to contribute to the circulation of information and the visibility of demands.

Multilateralism is often presented in overly abstract language. Yet international institutions matter because they create spaces where States must account for their positions, where civil society organizations can document realities, and where rights violations can be publicly identified. Over the years, we have tracked these developments in our feature on the international LGBT situation.

In the context of LGBTI rights, multilateral action may aim in particular to maintain political pressure against criminalization, support access to reliable legal information, and prevent setbacks from becoming normalized. The work is slow. It faces deep resistance, power struggles between States, and well-organized ideological campaigns. That is no reason to abandon the field.

A consistent Quebec and Canadian approach should avoid two pitfalls. The first would be to lecture others without examining the limitations of our own institutions and debates. The second would be to remain silent in the name of a relativism that would leave LGBTI people alone in the face of criminalizing laws.

Defending human rights requires a more demanding stance: rejecting the imposition of criminal law on consensual intimacy, without caricaturing the societies where these laws exist; defending those at risk, without claiming to speak on their behalf; and supporting international mechanisms while acknowledging their limitations.

For an organization like the CGLQ, ECOSOC accreditation provides a practical opportunity to relay concerns from Quebec to international forums. It can also remind Canadian decision-makers that foreign policy, humanitarian commitments, and positions taken in UN forums have consequences beyond official statements.

For people arriving in Quebec from a country that criminalizes same-sex relations, our guide to LGBTQ+ community resources in Quebec lists active support organizations.

How to read a world map without falling for misleading shortcuts

Maps from ILGA World and Human Dignity Trust are valuable tools. They make visible a reality that national debates sometimes tend to overlook: LGBTI rights are neither uniform nor guaranteed worldwide. But a map should never be read as a definitive moral ranking of peoples.

First, examine the legend. The choice of categories shapes our understanding. A map documenting criminalization answers a specific question: where is same-sex intimacy targeted by criminal law? It does not automatically answer every other question about safety, family rights, protections against discrimination, or the situation of trans and intersex people.

Next, check the date. The law changes, sometimes quickly, sometimes in contradictory ways. A map is a snapshot, not a prophecy. Readers seeking the most recent information should consult the sources directly rather than relying on an image shared on social media.

Finally, be wary of overly broad statements. Saying that a territory “protects” or “persecutes” LGBTI people may sometimes describe a genuine legal trend, but these words can also erase the gaps between the letter of the law, institutions, local practices, and lived experiences.

Here are a few questions to ask before sharing a figure or map:

• Does the source clearly state the scope of its count?
• Does it refer to UN Member States or jurisdictions?
• Does the data concern criminalization, marriage, the death penalty, or another issue?
• Is the date of the latest update visible?
• Does the map make it possible to verify the information at its source?
• Does the text accompanying the image specify what the map does not measure?

This discipline may seem technical. Yet it is political. Opponents of LGBTI rights often exploit inaccuracies, outdated lists, and figures taken out of context to sow doubt. Responding with reliable data is not enough to convince everyone, but it is a minimum requirement if misinformation is not to set the terms of the debate.

In 2026, the global picture is therefore twofold. Undeniable legal progress has been made, including the recognition of marriage equality in 37 UN Member States, plus Taiwan. But 65 UN Member States still criminalize consensual same-sex relations, according to ILGA World. Human Dignity Trust counts 66 when using the broader scope of jurisdictions. The two figures do not reflect a dispute among specialists: they remind us that counting methods shape what we see.