Governing Legibility: Recognition, Protection, and Mental Health Among LGBTIQ+ Asylum Seekers in the United Kingdom and Lebanon

Abstract Introduction This article explores how inconsistencies between legal recognition and material protection impact the mental health of LGBTIQ+ people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom and Lebanon through a comparative analysis. Methods We draw on 120 semi-structured interviews conducted between 2023 and 2025 with LGBTIQ+ people seeking asylum (50 in the UK; 70 in Lebanon) to develop a legibility–governance framework with two axes: legal recognition of SOGIESC-based claims and material protection in practice. Results The UK represents a system of recognition without protection, while Lebanon exemplifies partial protection without recognition due to criminalization and outsourced governance to UNHCR. Across these systems, we identify four mechanisms through which asylum governance generates mental health harms. Conclusions Mental health challenges are generated not only by violence experienced before leaving one’s country of origin, but also by harms produced by asylum governance systems themselves through uncertainty, waiting, skepticism, and isolation. Policy implications Our analysis illustrates the need to reduce evidentiary burdens in SOGIESC asylum claims, design SOGIESC-sensitive and safer housing, and expand LGBTIQ+-affirming, culturally competent mental health services within both formal and outsourced asylum systems.