Since its global uptake, 'obstetric violence' is increasingly used to capture any/all violations during reproductive healthcare, with few conceptual limits. Consequently, it runs the risk of becoming an overgeneralised concept, making it difficult to operationalise in socio-legal reform efforts. This article draws on the Latin American origins of the concept and aims to provide a theoretical framework to support a focused and coherent socio-legal reform agenda. It offers a universal definition of violence, being the violation of physical or psychological integrity, and localises this definition using the 'view from everywhere'. The article proposes that violence will qualify as 'obstetric violence' if the violation of integrity occurs in the context of antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care. Further, the subject of the violence is the birthing woman, trans or non-binary person. Thinking in terms of a 'continuum of violence' in reproductive healthcare ensures that different forms of obstetric violence are recognised and helps envisage overlaps with other violences.
It is now commonplace for courts to remark that standing to seek judicial review is 'context-sensitive'. The questions of how the courts adapt standing to context, and whether they do so appropriately, have, however, received remarkably little scholarly and judicial attention. This is perhaps because, until recently, there has been relatively little in the case law to spark scholarly interest. Standing, however, is in the midst of a resurgence. This article makes use of a distinction between three types of judicial review case-challenges to (i) favourable targeted, (ii) unfavourable targeted and (iii) non-targeted decisions-as a mode through which to explore the growing body of standing case law. In doing so, it both seeks to further understanding of how courts determine what constitutes a 'sufficient interest' and to highlight areas of the law in need of clarification or reconsideration.