This report is part of a series of reports highlighting disinformation narratives spread across Greece, Cyprus and Malta since December 2022. Each report presents a disinformation narrative surrounding a particular topic or issue, bringing together examples of false or misleading claims about the issue, describing how disinformation spread and discussing the context in which it was circulated.
Our approach
For this series of publications, the Mediterranean Digital Media Observatory’s (MedDMO) fact-checking partners developed a framework with specific criteria for analysing disinformation narratives. In this context, we used the European Digital Media Observatory’s (EDMO) definition of disinformation narratives—clear messages derived from a consistent set of contents that can be proven false using fact-checking methodology. Our criteria include examining sets of claims that are demonstrably misleading or false concerning a specific topic and that have emerged within a short period. Furthermore, our objective is to analyse instances where these narratives were crafted by actors or groups with the intention to incite fear, exert influence and control, or harass individuals using social media platforms. When sufficient data on the actors and their objectives is available, we examine whether these instances are part of a disinformation campaign.
A human right and yet a contentious subject almost everywhere, abortion is particularly controversial in Malta, which has some of the strictest abortion laws in the European Union. This short report gives a snapshot of the situation in order to discuss claims and narratives that have circulated locally.
The context
A good way to understand how lack of access to information fuels fear and misinformation is to consider the case of abortion in Malta. [The terms ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ are both used throughout this report, but it is important to note that they refer to different things: ‘Misinformation’ is content that is false/misleading but not necessarily produced with the specific intention to be such. ‘Disinformation’ is produced intentionally.]
Lack of context is another driver of false information, so here we begin with some background. Malta, the smallest EU member state, often prides itself on its ‘liberal credentials’. In 2011, the country held a long overdue referendum to decide whether divorce should begin to be allowed – at that point, it was one of only three countries in the world (counting the Vatican City) where divorce was illegal. The vote was close: ‘yes’ won at around 52%. Years later, it became the first European country to ban ‘gay conversion therapy’; then, in a move based on one of the main electoral pledges of the Labour Party, it legalised same-sex marriage, and later, transgender and non-binary individuals obtained the right to change their gender on official documents.
Yet there is a paradox: when it comes to giving women the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or not, Malta appears to clutch onto conservative ideals.
Malta’s laws criminalising abortion have been in force was among a handful of countries that since the 1800s. Up until 2023, it completely prohibited abortion. What happened in 2023 – almost two hundred years after the original laws were written – was that two legal exceptions were introduced to the Criminal Code. Their essence is that abortion on Maltese territory is only an option if a) a woman’s life is at risk due to medical complications; and b) if her health is ‘in grave jeopardy which may lead to death’. Furthermore, the abortion can only happen with the approval of three doctors.
Even with the changes, the law is still ‘extremely strict’, according to Isabel Stabile, who was interviewed for this report on 23rd April 2025. Stabile is a gynaecologist and professor at the University of Malta as well as an activist with Doctors for Choice Malta, a non-governmental and non-profit organisation of medical professionals advocating for safe and accessible sexual and reproductive healthcare. She is also the first Maltese recipient of the Human Rights Tulip award, which is handed out annually by the Dutch government in its embassies.
In 2022, Stabile filed a judicial protest on behalf of 135 doctors asking the Maltese government to review the country’s blanket ban on abortion – this came after the health authorities refused US tourist Andrea Prudente’s request to terminate a non-viable pregnancy after she began experiencing severe complications at sixteen weeks. The doctors behind the protest believed that the law not only impacted women seeking such medical care, but also medical doctors themselves by prohibiting them from providing necessary care in pregnancies with complications, therefore disallowing them from adhering to international standards. This was the second judicial protest targeting Malta’s abortion ban to be filed in June 2022, a first one having been filed by the Women’s Rights Foundation two weeks prior.
Following the doctors’ judicial protest, the Maltese government reviewed the law. But then-president George Vella, himself a doctor by profession, refused to sign the bill as it was. To avoid the embarrassment of the resignation of a president it itself had appointed (and the first presidential resignation since Malta became a republic), the government watered down the bill’s wording. It added the concept of a three-doctor panel’s approval, and perhaps more significantly, whereas the original bill would have covered women whose health was at risk, the amended version only allows abortion when a patient’s life is in danger. It took seven months from the date the bill was first tabled in parliament to when it finally became law. The reactions to the amended law varied. Anti-abortion groups expressed relief, whereas pro-choice groups believed it to make the situation more dangerous for women. As the situation stands, legal exceptions apart, Malta’s abortion laws remain the most restrictive in the EU, remaining illegal even in cases of rape and incest. Women can face up to three years in prison for terminating a pregnancy, and doctors who assist them face up to four years as well as the permanent revocation of their licence to practice.
The culture
What is interesting from the perspective of media and communication is the interplay of Malta’s size and information dynamics. Being such a small archipelago (around 316km ), one would expect information to travel quickly. However, information tends to get trapped in filter bubbles or echo chambers. As Reporters Without Borders (RSF) notes in its country profile:
“On almost every issue of public interest, Maltese society suffers from deep polarisation. Coverage of topics such as migration and abortion remains unpopular and incites abuse against journalists covering these topics.”
The country’s small size, combined with echo chambers, strong Catholicism, and conservatism on a micro and macro level, has a double effect. On the one hand, it means limited accessibility to reliable information about abortion care. On the other, it allows false and misleading information to spread and propagate with ease.
Misinformation is ‘the order of the day’, said Andreana Dibben, a social policy academic and board member of the Women’s Rights Foundation, in an interview for this report on 9th May 2025. She felt the problem stems from the Maltese being raised in a society where, from a young age, they are exposed to a single perspective: the anti-abortion stance.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But wherever one stands on the issue, it is undeniable that one of the most pervasive misconceptions or, perhaps, narratives – not just in Malta, but everywhere – is that criminalisation stops abortion. In reality, one cannot ban abortion. One can only make it less safe.
[The report continues for another seven pages and is well worth reading. It explains “why false and misleading claims about abortion emerge frequently and are fuelled by lack of information. They are shown to operate at two levels: in healthcare and social care settings and in medical tuition, and in everyday conversation, through the grapevine.” Examples given include: “the belief that providing information about abortion is illegal” and “One is legally bound to report a woman who has had/is going to have an abortion.” A more recent third example is that “Abortion pill reversal is possible”– which is both scientifically wrong and potentially dangerous. A long list of examples of common misinformation are provided and analysed. For example, that “rape victims do not get pregnant”. A series of “fact checks” on these by the Times of Malta are then described.
SOURCE: University of Malta, Disinformation Narrative Report
SEE ALSO: USA 2019: Research on claims of “abortion pill reversal” stopped early. https://www.safeabortionwomensright.org/news/usa-research-on-claims-of-abortion-pill-reversal-stopped-early/