The Mobilization of Legal Discourse in the Approval of Laws Restricting Circulation in Public Streets in Brazil

Public security is a major concern in Brazil, generating legislative proposals at all levels. However, public debate often diverges from evidence-based analysis, relying on perceptions and popular opinions. This is especially evident in local contexts with limited access to specialized advisory resources, leading to public policies that may not effectively meet security needs. It is crucial to analyze how these debates are shaped, particularly the mobilization of legal concepts, which serve as tools of persuasion, legitimacy, and respect for legality. The central question is: “What legal arguments are mobilized by municipal legislators for the approval of laws restricting circulation in public streets in Brazil, and how are they presented?”

This study conducts a multiple-case analysis of legislative sessions that approved circulation restrictions in the cities of Natal (Law No. 531/2018), Porto Alegre (Law No. 938/2022), and São Paulo (Law No. 16.439/2016). These cases were chosen for their geographic representativeness, potential to reveal differences, and the availability of necessary documents for content analysis. The debates were examined based on four categories: (1) What legal arguments were mobilized? (2) How were these concepts used for persuasion and legitimacy? (3) How were opposition and civil society reactions addressed? (4) What were the main points of divergence?

In Natal, the discourse framed security as a right justifying circulation restrictions, contrasting the right to life with the right to freedom of movement. In Porto Alegre, the debate focused on the legality of private security, pitting the right to protection against the right to the city. In São Paulo, the discussion centered on balancing acquired rights and judicial decisions after constitutional challenges. These legislative discourses reflect local sociopolitical climates and national ideological interests.