Brosius-Gersdorf Responds to Allegations of Biased Reporting

Tue 15th Jul, 2025

Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, a legal scholar from Potsdam and candidate for a position on Germany's Constitutional Court, has publicly addressed accusations made against her following an unsuccessful vote for the court position. She claims that certain media outlets have engaged in biased and inaccurate reporting with the aim of thwarting her election. In a statement released on Tuesday morning, she described terms used to characterize her, such as 'ultra-left' or 'radical left,' as defamatory and disconnected from reality.

Brosius-Gersdorf also criticized some governmental officials for anonymously participating in the public discourse surrounding her candidacy, questioning the motivations behind such actions. She highlighted a contradiction in seeking protection against verbal attacks while simultaneously contributing to anonymous criticisms of others.

She emphasized that a thorough review of her academic work would demonstrate her focus on constitutional, social, and education law, addressing critical issues such as school funding regulations, the management of demographic change, and the digital transformation of public administration. She asserted that her scholarly contributions align with what could be described as a centrist democratic position.

In her statement, Brosius-Gersdorf appointed Bonn-based attorney Gernot Lehr from the law firm Redeker Sellner Dahs to help address the situation. However, she did not comment on the similarities in content between her doctoral dissertation and her husband Hubertus Gersdorf's habilitation thesis.

Regarding her stance on abortion reform, she refuted allegations that she denies the dignity of unborn life or supports abortion until birth. She clarified that she believes the right to life begins at the moment of implantation and has consistently advocated for this position. Brosius-Gersdorf pointed out the constitutional dilemma that arises when granting the unborn the same dignity rights as born individuals, which could make it impossible for abortions to ever be permissible, even in cases where a woman's life or health is at risk.

She also examined the contentious issue of the religious headscarf for legal trainees, drawing attention to the inconsistencies in the application of neutrality principles. While a headscarf ban for teachers in state schools is deemed unconstitutional, she noted that such a ban might be permissible for trainees in certain courtroom situations, highlighting a contradiction in legal interpretations.

Furthermore, Brosius-Gersdorf defended herself against claims that she aimed to undermine democratic election principles through gender parity models for the German Bundestag. She explained that her legal analysis merely questioned whether the constitutional mandate for promoting gender equality could justify intrusions into electoral rights, an issue that remains debated among legal scholars.

Support for Brosius-Gersdorf has emerged from nearly 300 professors across various fields, including former Constitutional Court judges and prominent legal scholars. They expressed their solidarity in an open letter, asserting that any doubt regarding her academic qualifications is unfounded and calling the treatment she has received damaging to the democratic process.

The German Judges' Association also weighed in, stating that political considerations should not overshadow the nomination process for Constitutional Court candidates, as this could compromise the court's independence and public acceptance of its rulings.

In conclusion, the ongoing controversy surrounding Brosius-Gersdorf's candidacy highlights the complexities of intertwining legal qualifications, political dynamics, and media narratives in the realm of German constitutional law.


More Quick Read Articles »