Constitutional and legal nature and concept of parliamentary elections: a comparative analysis of the approaches of Ukraine, Lithuania, and Estonia

The article analyzes the constitutional and legal nature of parliamentary elections as a key institution of popular representation, based on the examples of three countries: Ukraine, Lithuania, and Estonia. The study employs methods of formal legal analysis, comparative legal research, and a functional approach. A significant part of the article is devoted to examining the concept of parliamentary elections, particularly their place within the legal and socio-political paradigms. The dual nature of parliamentary elections is identified: as a legally regulated mechanism for forming the legislative body, and as a practical means of realizing popular sovereignty. The article also focuses on the constitutional foundations for organizing and conducting elections in Ukraine, Lithuania, and Estonia, including the enshrinement of fundamental electoral principles (universality, equality, directness, secrecy of voting, and periodicity of elections), the legal guarantees of citizens’ participation in the electoral process, and the institutional role of parliament within the system of checks and balances. The comparative legal analysis demonstrates that while all three countries formally guarantee a minimum set of electoral principles, the content of constitutional and legislative provisions varies. For instance, the Constitution of Ukraine separately enshrines the fundamental principles of electoral law, emphasizing their foundational nature and universal applicability across all types of elections, unlike the Constitutions of Lithuania and Estonia. In Lithuania and Ukraine, the substance of these principles is further elaborated at the legislative level. In contrast, Estonia uniquely embeds characteristics of a proportional electoral system for parliamentary elections at the constitutional level. Based on the analysis, the article identifies strengths and weaknesses in each approach, particularly regarding the coherence, legal clarity, and degree of constitutional detail. Recommendations are offered to improve Ukraine’s constitutional regulation while preserving a balance between constitutional principles and legislative elaboration.