Intersectionality.

Intersectionality has been increasingly utilized in studies focusing on GBV to better understand the extent to which multiple systems of oppression and inequalities converge and exacerbate women’s vulnerability to violence [26–30]. As argued by Shannon and colleagues [31], an intersectional perspective rejects a single-axis analysis in understanding women’s GBV experiences but focuses on the overlapping processes and inequalities that reinforce GBV [32,33]. In this review, intersectionality is valuable in illuminating the convergence of various systems of oppression and inequalities that impact women’s access to precarious employment and how this shapes their experiences of GBV. Understanding the interconnectedness of precarious employment and GBV against migrant women requires looking beyond single categorizations of identities and recognizing that numerous factors intersect to shape their lived experiences [34]. Homogenization of migrant women’s experiences of GBV and precarious employment conflates within-group differences and obscures the lived realities of migrant women [35]. Thus, adopting an intersectional lens is appropriate for a comprehensive analysis that accurately captures the lived experiences of migrant women in precarious employment and at the risk of GBV.

Feminist political economy framework.

The Feminist Political Economy (FPE) framework, widely applied across disciplines such as economics, social work, and public health, is essential for understanding inequality and analyzing how gender, power, and class along with economic, political, and cultural forces interact to impact access to resources and opportunities [36]. The FPE framework critiques the way in which patriarchy and neoliberalism, and the substantial changes brought by neoliberal restructuring and policies, have weakened labor protections and pushed women into precarious work [37,38]. Several studies have utilized this framework to better understand labor inequities and the need for equitable policies to increase the value of work assigned to women [36]. For instance, the FPE framework has been used to assess the impacts of digital labor platforms on the regeneration of intersectional inequalities [39] and to examine women’s roles in informal and precarious work during the COVID-19 pandemic [36]. The FPE framework allowed us not to only focus on the micro-level power dynamics experienced daily by migrant women in precarious jobs such as domestic and care work, but also on macro-level influences like labor and state policies that contribute to economic and legal precarity, and shape migrant women’s experiences of abuse and exploitation [40]. Through this framework, GBV and precarious employment are not only regarded as individual issues but structural ones, exposing the gendered and racialized nature of precarious employment that places migrant women at heightened risk of abuse and exploitation.

By integrating intersectionality theory and the FPE framework, this study adopts a comprehensive approach to understanding GBV within broader economic structures. It also considers the diverse, intersecting vulnerabilities faced by migrant women. This integration enhances the study’s ability to analyze power dynamics, structural inequalities, and policy gaps, ensuring that the findings reflect both the systemic drivers of labor precarity and violence, as well as the lived experiences of migrant women.

Socio-cultural influences on precarious work and GBV risks.

Migration often triggers a reconfiguration of gender roles as migrant women navigate new environments in the host countries. This transition can be complex as migrant women balance their pre-migration traditional roles (e.g., unpaid caregivers in the home) rooted in patriarchal systems, with the new labor market realities that provide them with an income and often require them to work in unsafe work conditions. Across studies, migrant women reported that the intensified frustrations and violence in the home were exacerbated by the disruption of cultural and social expectations around gender roles in intimate relationships- post-migration (e.g., man as breadwinners and women as caregivers) [51–53]. The economic pressures, mostly rooted in poverty post-migration, often force women to take on paid work outside their caregiving roles within the home, resulting in a shift in family dynamics. This economic empowerment can result in IPV within the home as male partners struggle with performing their culturally expected roles as primary earners [52]. For example, in a study conducted in Australia, migrant women reported that even though having access to work and an income reduced their dependency on their partners, they also ran the risk of being forced into precarious jobs, particularly cash jobs with unsafe working conditions [54]. This was mainly because their partners (as a way of asserting control) refused to contribute to paying bills such as rent, leaving women with many financial obligations that could not be met with the salary from one job [54].

Few studies discussed how partner sabotage is not only a form of IPV but is also embedded in broader structural and systems with migrant women facing compounded challenges where gendered expectations, immigration status, and partner control intersect to restrict economic opportunities, leading to a reliance on precarious work with limited protections [54,55]. For women under spousal visas, the economic precarity that women experienced intersected with their partner’s economic control, which was grounded in threats to return to their home country of origin if women did not give their partner control over their income or comply with their sexual demands [54,55]. A study conducted in Canada highlighted how migrant women enter marriages of convenience to obtain legal immigration status for employment purposes, creating a pathway of sexual abuse and threats of deportation and termination of employment [55]. Migrant women who secured employment through their partners often faced public humiliation from both their partners and employers (who were typically friends of the partner) [55]. In another study conducted in the US with immigrant women who experienced IPV, access to transport to travel to workplaces was used by partners to block women from working by either using the car the same time its needed for work, failing to pick up or drop women on time at work and not giving women transport fare to go to work [56]. By limiting women’s access to transport, partners caused increased lateness and absenteeism at work, restricted migrant women’s job search options, and limited them to precarious jobs [56].

Workplace violence as a gendered and racialized experience.

Most of the studies reported on how precarious labor practices, largely characterized by exploitative working conditions, limited benefits, exacerbated by power imbalances and lack of legal protections, create a fertile ground for abuse of migrant women [53–55,57–76]. Precarious employment conditions create an environment where gendered violence is tolerated and often goes unaddressed and unreported, mostly due to precarious immigration statuses intersecting with poverty and limited awareness of migrant women’s rights [54,55,62,63,65,73,74,77,78]. For instance, a study conducted with Filipino migrant women in Israel highlighted that it was common for novice migrant home care workers to bathe their employers with their shirts off because this was presented to them as part of their job requirements, thus increasing their vulnerability to sexual abuse [79]. However, Filipino migrant women in Taiwan were reported to be generally more aware of their rights than women from Indonesia and Vietnam due to higher education levels and greater westernization influenced by their socio-economic backgrounds and cultural contexts [57].

In some studies, quid pro quo is used as a method of coercive control, preying on the vulnerabilities of migrant women to obtain sexual favors [55,67]. This issue is worsened by weak workplace regulations and restrictive immigration policies that label undocumented women as illegal, making it difficult for them to seek support and report abuse. For example, studies conducted in Canada and the US highlight that supervisors ask for sexual favours in exchange for better working hours, along with sexual insinuations with lips and eyes, and physical grabbing, followed by threats of job termination if women do not comply [55,63,67]. Misogyny is also evident as women reported being seen as sex objects, with gestures and conversations that undermine their purpose for going to work [55,61]. Even after changing jobs, the problem persisted with male supervisors asking for sexual favours [67]. However, women found it harder to report for fear of deportation due to their tenuous immigration status.

Importantly, there is evidence of workplace violence moving beyond the binary notions of male perpetrators and female victims, especially in feminized occupations such as domestic and care work. Wives of male employers also enforced exploitative practices and perpetrated workplace violence against migrant women. For instance, migrant domestic workers living in their employer’s residence experienced occasional physical and emotional violence and death threats, which led to suicide from wives who became jealous [74,80]. In another study conducted in Spain involving domestic and care workers, some women experienced ongoing abuse with female employers often denying them food and subjecting them to verbal abuse, while daughters in the household frequently shouted at them [75]. This persistent abuse reflects a broader pattern of gendered and racialized power dynamics within domestic labor settings.

Notably, few studies highlight how the lack of workplace protections in precarious work environments intensifies racial discrimination with supervisors and co-workers exerting control over migrant women based on racial prejudices, thereby heightening the risk of abuse and exploitation [55,59,62,63,65,68,71,74,81]. In Canada, a study involving Latine/x women in the hospitality sector revealed that race (whiteness) serves as a protective factor against sexual abuse, with migrant women facing greater exposure to sexual abuse and possessing limited power to negotiate or contest such treatment compared to non-racialized Canadian women [55]. Another study [65] emphasized the importance of using an intersectional lens to examine the experiences of Black care workers from Liberia, South Sudan, Nigeria, Zambia, and Sierra Leone employed in nursing homes within predominantly white US neighborhoods to shed light on how race and unequal social structures contribute to experiences of abuse in the work environment. In this study, migrant women reported experiencing racial discrimination, being sworn at because of their skin color, called derogatory names, and subjected to physical violence, such as having hot coffee spilled on them, with their white supervisors doing little to address or prevent workplace abuse [65]. A study conducted with Latine/x platform-based cleaners in Germany, highlighted how imbalance in power relationships with clients based on race paves way for abuse with employers often taking the side of the German white clients over the Latin American migrant female workers, leaving women highly vulnerable to persistent abuse and exploitation [82].

The intersection of gender, ethnicity, and class manifests as within-group discrimination among racialized migrant women, indicating that racial discrimination extends beyond skin color to include factors such as nationality, language, class, and socio-economic background, reflecting its deeply rooted and multifaceted nature [63,71,75,82]. In a study conducted in the US focusing on Latino migrant housekeepers, some migrant women reported experiencing compounded verbal abuse and harassment from both their supervisors, who favored African Americans, and their Latine/x colleagues, with women from Mexico emotionally abusing women from El Salvador based on ethnicity [71]. In some instances, women face institutional racism in the form of disproportionate qualification and language requirements imposed on newly arrived immigrants. For example, in a study conducted with women in domestic and care work in Spain, there is a firm requirement to remain registered in a municipality for three years and complete a Catalan language course before their residency and employment status can be formalized and these conditions increase their vulnerability to exploitative and abusive labor practices [75].

Service providers also recognized the patterns of abuse and noted how precarious work conditions created a fertile ground for the exploitation and abuse of migrant women [51,57,79]. Remarkably, recruitment agents offered a contrasting perspective, often justifying the abuse faced by migrant women in workplaces. In a study conducted in Lebanon, managers of recruitment agencies justified the physical and verbal chastisement of migrant women by their employers, arguing that such measures were necessary to control the workers and instill discipline, ensuring that duties were performed according to contract terms [83]. In some cases, recruitment agents even instructed employers to bring migrant women to their offices for disciplinary actions to ensure compliance [83]. This reflects how the absence of weak legal protection and labor policies can facilitate abuse and exploitation by creating pathways where recruiters can also abuse migrant women without any repercussions [66]. Furthermore, it also highlights the deeper issues of control, misogyny, and patriarchal norms that support the belief that women need to be controlled and disciplined, reflecting a broader societal acceptance of gender-based power imbalances and normalization of abuse.

Inter-relationships between financial insecurity, precarious employment and GBV.

Several studies discussed financial insecurity as an outcome of precarious employment and one of the key factors exacerbating migrant women’s risk of experiencing GBV, which encompasses a broad range of factors, including debt bondage, low wages, and familial obligations [53,58,62,66–70,72,78,79,84,85]. Notably, across several studies, financial insecurity, intersecting with factors such as poverty and country of origin, significantly impacted migrant workers by increasing their vulnerability to abuse and exploitation [71,78,86].

Debt bondage.

In this review, debt bondage is understood as a situation where migrant women work to pay off their debts incurred during the migration process. Across several studies, debt bondage was identified not only as a modern form of slavery but also a cornerstone of the precarity faced by migrant women and results, in part, from the large financial debt incurred by migrant women because of their premigration related costs including recruitment fees, safety deposits to prevent overstay and unauthorized work and mandatory savings imposed in receiving countries [53,58,70,72,75,79,84,86–90]. Evidently, the debt experienced is multifaceted, with migrant women being indebted to their employers, the state, their recruitment agents, and their families and friends [58]. Some women borrow money from friends, family, and employers with the promise of paying them back, while others take loans that amount to thousands of dollars to acquire work permits [67,84,88].

The lack of strong legal protections emboldens employers to use debt as a tool of coercion and abuse, allowing employers to maintain a flexible and disempowered workforce that cannot easily seek justice, contest debt agreements, or find alternative employment without risking deportation (particularly for undocumented migrant women) [58,72,87]. In Vietnam and Japan, migrant women were required by government-sanctioned practices to make a safety deposit ranging from US$6,000 to US$10,000 to prevent absconding, with contracts stipulating that they must complete their labor terms to reclaim these deposits, thereby making it extremely difficult for them to escape violence and exploitation [58]. In another study conducted with Filipino migrant women and service providers in Israel, financial insecurity as a result of debts extended throughout the government/agency level and the family level with home care workers instructed to pay agencies in the Philippines and Israel to secure employment, force migrant women to work in domestic labor under unsafe circumstances, to pay their debts [79]. Consequently, migrant women are forced to endure instances of exploitation and violence and desist from claiming their rights and reporting instances of physical and sexual abuse within their employment environment [57,58,79].

Low wages and the financial burden of familial obligations.

Low wages and familial obligations create a compounding financial burden for migrant women in precarious employment, deepening their vulnerability to GBV [58,70,84]. The intersecting factors of poverty, immigration status, and economic disadvantages place migrant women at the margins of society, where low-paying jobs are their only available option [88]. In several studies, migrant women were reported to enter live-in labor roles with low wages that are seemingly beneficial due to enhanced ability to meet their financial obligations (e.g., caring for their families back home), further entrenching women in cycles of financial insecurity and poverty leaving little room for escaping the abuse and the exploitative work conditions [53,68,91]. For instance, in studies with migrant domestic workers, financial insecurity, resulting from the pressure to support family back home, forced migrant workers to engage in sexual activities with their employers to get additional income [55,63,67,69].

This layered oppression highlights how migrant women can experience both GBV and economic exploitation, shaped by their unique social identities, such as socio-economic status, race, and gender. Notably, for migrant women in the US who rely on cash payments mostly due to their undocumented status, there is an increased risk of GBV, such as violent robberies and rape, mainly linked to gender rather than race [68]. Regardless, migrant women desist from reporting their experiences of abuse primarily due to the risk of losing income [53,68], thus prioritizing financial stability over leaving violent situations.

Power imbalances in work environments and vulnerability to GBV.

In this review, power imbalances were more pronounced among migrant women working in domestic work, care work, and informal work. Familiasm (a cultural value that emphasizes warm, close, supportive family relationships) was reported to be a key pathway for abuse of migrant women working in home environments [54,55,57,63,66–68,72,74,81,87,92]. In a study conducted in Turkey with migrant live-in domestic and care workers, familialism fostered an abusive environment for migrant women due to blurred boundaries between ‘family member’ and ‘employee’ [92]. This provides a fertile ground for manipulation, resulting in employers withholding work permits from women and increasing their workloads [92]. By treating migrant women as family members, a sense of loyalty is ingrained in them [54], forcing them to make sacrifices that expose them to vulnerable situations. In this regard, workplaces become precarious spaces where one is regarded as a family member on one end and exploited and regarded as a low-class laborer on the other end [57,92]. For migrant domestic workers from Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, the exclusion of migrant women from the family kinship (a network of family relationships that include multiple households) did not reduce or prevent abuse, as women were regarded as strangers and laborers and subjected to abuse and exploitation [57].

Very few studies reported on the phenomenon of gratitude trap, a situation where migrant women feel obligated to remain loyal and compliant to their employers even when it comes at a personal cost [54,70,91]. In a study conducted in Spain with migrant women from Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Nicaragua, and Honduras, migrant women felt content with their current work situations characterized by abuse and harsh working conditions, viewing it as less precarious than their previous jobs in their home countries, and grateful for the job opportunities [91]. Likewise, migrant domestic workers in Chile regarded their employers as “good” despite the physical and emotional abuse they faced, along with food deprivation, unsafe living conditions, low wages, and long working hours [70].

Work-family life imbalance.

Several studies highlight how migrant women often face excessively long working hours, particularly in roles such as domestic work, home-based care, farm labor, and agriculture, which makes them more vulnerable to abuse from their employers [57,64,83,93]. In some studies, long working hours were reported to have limited migrant women’s access to social support, increase their vulnerability to abuse, and hinder their ability to pursue further training and education, making it difficult for them to integrate into the labor market [70,77,84]. Likewise, migrant workers report experiencing schedule unpredictability, which entails women showing up for work any day or night [54,77]. The unpredictability of work schedules resulted in women failing to maintain a balance between their personal/family commitments and professional/working lives, and in extreme cases, face unemployment, thus increasing their susceptibility to IPV [54]. This is more prominent among migrant women working in informal employment who are not protected through social schemes in both the country of origin and the destination country [69,94]. This highlights how work-life imbalance should not be seen as migrant women’s failure to balance responsibilities, but rather as a structural issue caused by policies and practices that undervalue women’s unpaid care work and overlook the burden of their exploitative, precarious paid jobs.

The outcomes of work-life imbalance (e.g., exhaustion and stress) were reported to significantly contribute to the presence of IPV, often resulting in migrant women and their partners struggling with cognitive tasks such as problem solving, which made it difficult for them to de-escalate any conflicts within the home [52]. A study conducted with Eritrean migrant women in Israel highlighted how economic and family pressures, along with stress and extreme exhaustion from working long hours (12–18 hours per day), make it difficult for couples to resolve their differences or seek guidance from their social networks, leading to severe IPV and femicide [69].