Skip to content
Review Open access

Parliamentary discourse and legislative approaches to artificial intelligence regulation: a comparative analysis of five jurisdictions

Aug 2026 · Frontiers in Political Science · 1 citation · 38 references

TL;DR

An updated five-part typology of AI regulation is proposed, introducing the concept of “sovereignty through partnership” as an alternative to technological autarky and one-sided regulatory borrowing, and conceptualizes “delayed reflection” as a regulatory pattern among established democracies that recognize infrastructural dependency only after it has already emerged.

Abstract

This article examines how parliamentary discourse on artificial intelligence is transformed into legal and regulatory frameworks across different political contexts. It focuses on five jurisdictions—the European Union, the United States, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and the United Kingdom—where recent AI-related legislative and parliamentary developments provide a comparative basis for analysis. The study applies a hybrid qualitative design combining a structured comparative review of academic literature, legal acts, and policy documents with a pilot critical discourse analysis of five selected parliamentary episodes from 2023 to 2026. The analysis is based on securitization theory and the concept of digital sovereignty as a discursive project. The study identifies distinct semantic cores in each jurisdiction: “risk–fundamental rights” in the European Union, “barriers–dominance” in the United States, “inequality–high risk” in Brazil, “national code–partnership sovereignty” in Kazakhstan, and “dependency lock-in–delayed reflection” in the United Kingdom. The findings show that H2 and H3 are supported, while H1 is not confirmed in its original formulation and requires revision. The article contributes to AI governance studies by proposing an updated five-part typology of AI regulation. It introduces the concept of “sovereignty through partnership” as an alternative to technological autarky and one-sided regulatory borrowing, and conceptualizes “delayed reflection” as a regulatory pattern among established democracies that recognize infrastructural dependency only after it has already emerged.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Open access 2026

Governing artificial intelligence and protecting human rights: A comparative legal perspective from the European Union and China

Through a critical comparison of the differences between Western liberal model and more authoritarian approach to technology management, the paper points to the urgent need to establish a globally harmonized and politically sustainable framework of international law for the regulation of AI systems.

M. Bećirović-Alić, Jelica Gordanić · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Governing Artificial Intelligence in a Fragmented World: Toward a Multi-Level Policy Framework for Global AI Governance

It is argued that a layered subsidiarity approach, with specific financing for capacity-building and technical standards that work across the board, is more likely to deliver effective global AI governance than calls for a binding treaty.

Asher Odhiambo Ojuok, Julius Murumba, E. Micheni · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

EU Artificial Intelligence Act Article 50 Rules and Their Implications for the Construction of China’s Artificial Intelligence Legal System

This paper systematically reviews the institutional structure and implementation logic of the transparency rules under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, then analyses the existing framework and legislative progress of China’s AI legal protection system and proposes pathway recommendations for an AI legal system with...

Xue Bai · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Governing Artificial Intelligence in Indian Education: A Doctrinal Analysis of NEP 2020, Constitutional Rights, and Data Protection Law

India’s Educational AI governance problem is characterized by regulatory fragmentation rather than a complete absence of law, and the study proposes a normative, non-empirical Governance Matrix based on the consequences of AI use rather than fixed technology categories.

Anurag Yadav, Rais Ahmad · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Moral Rights and AI: Bridging the Regulatory Gap in European Copyright Law

The regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright in the European Union has proceeded almost entirely within the domain of economic rights, systematically overlooking the moral rights of authors whose works are ingested into AI training datasets and reproduced in AI-generated outputs. This article examines w...

Maria-Daphne Papadopoulou · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Strategic competitiveness between the EU and the United States in artificial intelligence development – human capital, legal frameworks and data

This article analyzes the level of strategic competitiveness of the European Union and the United States in the development of artificial intelligence based on three key factors determining the development of this technology: the availability of human capital, the regulatory environment, and access to data. The analysi...

Robert Lizak · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.