Rewriting the Narrative of AI Bias: A Data Feminist Critique of Algorithmic Inequalities in Healthcare

AI-driven healthcare systems perpetuate gendered and racialised health inequalities, misdiagnosing marginalised populations due to historical exclusions in medical research and dataset construction. These disparities are further reinforced by androcentric medical epistemologies where white male bodies are treated as the universal norm. Additionally, the ‘othering’ of marginalised communities manifests in algorithmic exclusions or biases, where AI systems flag non-dominant populations as statistical anomalies rather than central subjects, reinforcing structural biases in healthcare access and treatment. This article critically examines the framing of AI bias within legal narratives, particularly through the EU AI Act, arguing that bias is not merely a technical flaw, but a structural consequence of exclusionary knowledge production. The study integrates data feminism as a counter-narrative to dominant AI governance frameworks, applying insights from Richard Sherwin’s legal narrative theory, Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality theory, Carol Smart’s socio-legal critiques, and Ruha Benjamin’s abolitionist AI perspectives. The analysis highlights how specific articles in the EU AI Act: risk-based classification (Article 6), bias audits (Article 10), and transparency requirements (Article 13), reinforce androcentric, racialised, and neoliberal exclusions, failing to mandate intersectional accountability or structural interventions. By challenging the formalist bias framing in AI regulation, the article advocates for equity-driven AI governance through data feminism, embedding data sovereignty, participatory oversight, and redistributive justice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Law Technology and Humans
Published
2025-06-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3845
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Employment and Welfare Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.82
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Rewriting the Narrative of AI Bias: A Data Feminist Critique of Algorithmic Inequalities in Healthcare

Pin Lean Lau
1 citations
Law Technology and Humans
Employment and Welfare Studies
2.82
article

Rewriting the Narrative of AI Bias: A Data Feminist Critique of Algorithmic Inequalities in Healthcare

Pin Lean Lau
article en
1 citations

Abstract

AI-driven healthcare systems perpetuate gendered and racialised health inequalities, misdiagnosing marginalised populations due to historical exclusions in medical research and dataset construction. These disparities are further reinforced by androcentric medical epistemologies where white male bodies are treated as the universal norm. Additionally, the ‘othering’ of marginalised communities manifests in algorithmic exclusions or biases, where AI systems flag non-dominant populations as statistical anomalies rather than central subjects, reinforcing structural biases in healthcare access and treatment. This article critically examines the framing of AI bias within legal narratives, particularly through the EU AI Act, arguing that bias is not merely a technical flaw, but a structural consequence of exclusionary knowledge production. The study integrates data feminism as a counter-narrative to dominant AI governance frameworks, applying insights from Richard Sherwin’s legal narrative theory, Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality theory, Carol Smart’s socio-legal critiques, and Ruha Benjamin’s abolitionist AI perspectives. The analysis highlights how specific articles in the EU AI Act: risk-based classification (Article 6), bias audits (Article 10), and transparency requirements (Article 13), reinforce androcentric, racialised, and neoliberal exclusions, failing to mandate intersectional accountability or structural interventions. By challenging the formalist bias framing in AI regulation, the article advocates for equity-driven AI governance through data feminism, embedding data sovereignty, participatory oversight, and redistributive justice.

Law Technology and Humans
University of London (GB), Universidad de Londres (MX), Brunel University of London (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Employment and Welfare Studies
2.82
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.