Background Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) has been promoted as a global norm within international health and education agendas to improve adolescent sexual and reproductive health and to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the implementation of CSE varies significantly across national contexts, particularly in middle-income countries where social, political, cultural, and religious dynamics influence policy development. This study examines how global CSE norms are contested and translated within national policy. Methods This research employs a qualitative comparative policy discourse analysis of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam from 2015 to 2024. Drawing on Wiener’s theory of norm contestation, the study analyzes publicly available policy documents, including national laws, curriculum frameworks, adolescent health strategies, official government reports to United Nations bodies, and international technical guidance from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Documents were thematically coded and examined through cross-country comparison to identify patterns of framing, institutional positioning, and normative justification. Results Findings indicate that CSE operates as a plural and contested norm rather than a uniformly adopted global standard. At the global level, key international organizations frame CSE through differing normative emphases, including rights-based, health-based, and risk-prevention approaches. At the national level, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam reinterpret CSE by reframing terminology, restricting sensitive content, and embedding sexuality education within broader health, life-skills, or child protection frameworks. Policy debates are strongly shaped by domestic references to religion, morality, and politic. Conclusions The study concludes that variation in CSE policy does not necessarily reflect rejection of global health objectives, but rather processes of normative negotiation within domestic contexts. CSE should therefore be understood as a contested and politically mediated global norm whose meaning is shaped by interactions between international standards and national value systems.
Putri et al. (2026) studied this question.