Whose Preferences Align With EU Law? Interest Group Representation, Linguistic Inequality and Semantic Alignment across the EU Legislative Chain

Abstract Understanding how organised interests' stated positions correspond to EU legislation requires moving beyond end‐point measures of preference attainment towards a process‐oriented account of how policy‐position alignment evolves across institutional stages. This study conceptualises semantic alignment as the extent to which an actor's three‐dimensional policy‐position profile corresponds to successive EU institutional texts. This study draws on a corpus of approximately 4800 consultation submissions across three major legislative dossiers: the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, the Artificial Intelligence Act and the Critical Raw Materials Act. We use a multilingual agentic large language model framework to retrieve relevant passages, extract positions on regulatory stringency, governance centralisation, crisis urgency and compute stage‐specific alignment with the European Commission, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament. Given that the analysis is observational and text based, the resulting scores capture semantic alignment and preference attainment rather than causal influence. Four findings emerge. First, semantic alignment is more strongly associated with final preference attainment than textual similarity. Second, preference attainment varies across stages: civil society submissions show their highest alignment at the agenda‐setting stage, whilst business actors display comparatively flatter alignment profiles across institutions. Third, non‐English submissions achieve significantly lower alignment, revealing systematic linguistic inequality in EU consultation processes. Fourth, crisis framing is more strongly associated with alignment in high‐uncertainty contexts than in stable policy environments. Together, these findings offer a process‐oriented, computationally scalable and cross‐linguistically sensitive account of how organised‐interest positions correspond to European integration outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies
Published
2026-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.70182
Primary Topic
European Union Policy and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Whose Preferences Align With EU Law? Interest Group Representation, Linguistic Inequality and Semantic Alignment across the EU Legislative Chain

Yuxuan Lei, Mengxiang Yuan
JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies
European Union Policy and Governance
article

Whose Preferences Align With EU Law? Interest Group Representation, Linguistic Inequality and Semantic Alignment across the EU Legislative Chain

Yuxuan Lei, Mengxiang Yuan
article en

Abstract

Abstract Understanding how organised interests' stated positions correspond to EU legislation requires moving beyond end‐point measures of preference attainment towards a process‐oriented account of how policy‐position alignment evolves across institutional stages. This study conceptualises semantic alignment as the extent to which an actor's three‐dimensional policy‐position profile corresponds to successive EU institutional texts. This study draws on a corpus of approximately 4800 consultation submissions across three major legislative dossiers: the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, the Artificial Intelligence Act and the Critical Raw Materials Act. We use a multilingual agentic large language model framework to retrieve relevant passages, extract positions on regulatory stringency, governance centralisation, crisis urgency and compute stage‐specific alignment with the European Commission, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament. Given that the analysis is observational and text based, the resulting scores capture semantic alignment and preference attainment rather than causal influence. Four findings emerge. First, semantic alignment is more strongly associated with final preference attainment than textual similarity. Second, preference attainment varies across stages: civil society submissions show their highest alignment at the agenda‐setting stage, whilst business actors display comparatively flatter alignment profiles across institutions. Third, non‐English submissions achieve significantly lower alignment, revealing systematic linguistic inequality in EU consultation processes. Fourth, crisis framing is more strongly associated with alignment in high‐uncertainty contexts than in stable policy environments. Together, these findings offer a process‐oriented, computationally scalable and cross‐linguistically sensitive account of how organised‐interest positions correspond to European integration outcomes.

JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies
University of Science and Technology of China (CN), Anhui University (CN), Hefei University of Technology (CN), Hefei University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
European Union Policy and Governance
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.

Laika access coming soon