The Location of Sovereignty in the UK | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: Nov 5
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 80 minutes
The location of sovereignty in the UK A-Level Politics revision brings together the major relationships within UK government. You need to decide how power is divided between Parliament, the Executive, judiciary and devolved institutions, and whether constitutional changes have altered where sovereignty lies. The key is the distinction between legal and practical power. Parliament retains a powerful claim to legal sovereignty, but devolution, executive dominance and judicial influence make the practical picture much more complex. This is the final synthesis of Edexcel's Relations between the Branches topic.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain why Parliament retains a strong claim to legal sovereignty.
Analyse the relationship between Parliament and the Executive when locating political sovereignty.
Analyse how the judiciary can constrain the Executive and influence Parliament.
Explain how devolution has dispersed political power across the UK.
Assess how constitutional changes since 1997 have affected the practical exercise of sovereignty.
Evaluate competing arguments and reach a justified judgement about where sovereignty can now be said to lie in the UK.
Revision Notes đź“š
What does it mean to locate sovereignty?
Edexcel requires you to consider the location of sovereignty in the UK political system. This means identifying where ultimate authority is found and assessing whether that authority is concentrated in one institution or dispersed across several institutions.
This lesson builds directly on the distinction between sovereignty in law and sovereignty in practice.
That distinction is essential because different answers can be correct depending on which type of sovereignty is being discussed.
Legal sovereignty concerns the legal right to exercise sovereign power.
Political sovereignty concerns the practical ability to exercise that power.
The central debate is therefore not simply:
"Is Parliament sovereign?"
A better set of questions is:
Which institution possesses the ultimate legal authority?
Which institution exercises the greatest political influence in practice?
Have constitutional changes caused these answers to diverge?
The traditional answer: sovereignty lies with Parliament
The strongest traditional claim is that sovereignty lies with Parliament.
Edexcel defines parliamentary sovereignty as the principle that Parliament can:
make law
amend law
unmake law
avoid being permanently bound by earlier Parliaments
avoid permanently binding future Parliaments.
This principle is one of the central characteristics of the UK constitutional system.
The UK Constitution is also unentrenched, meaning there is no special procedure that generally prevents Parliament from changing constitutional law through legislation.
This gives Parliament an exceptionally strong legal position.
Why Parliament remains legally sovereign
Parliament makes primary legislation
The Executive proposes and implements much public policy, but primary legislation requires Parliament.
This distinction matters.
A government may dominate political decision making, but if legislation is required, ministers still depend on Parliament to turn policy into law.
Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme specifically uses the Executive's dependence on Parliament for legislation as evidence that Parliament remains legally sovereign.
Therefore:
Executive political power does not automatically equal Executive legal sovereignty.
Parliament can change earlier legislation
Because Parliament cannot normally bind its successors, constitutional arrangements created by one Parliament may be changed by a later Parliament.
This supports the argument that legal sovereignty has not permanently transferred to another institution.
It becomes particularly important when considering:
devolution
the Human Rights Act 1998
the UK's former membership of the European Union
the institutions created through constitutional reform
Each can place important limits on the practical exercise of parliamentary power, but each must be analysed carefully before concluding that Parliament has lost legal sovereignty.
The unitary nature of the UK Constitution
Edexcel defines a unitary political system as one in which all legal sovereignty is contained in a single place.
This is particularly important when studying devolution.
The UK may now look less centralised than it did before 1997, but the specification defines devolution as:
the dispersal of power, but not sovereignty, within a political system.
This gives you the starting point for analysing relations between Westminster and the devolved institutions.
Parliament and the Executive
Why the Executive may appear sovereign in practice
The first challenge to the traditional location of sovereignty comes from the Executive.
The Executive includes the Prime Minister, Cabinet and other government ministers.
Although Parliament possesses formal legislative authority, the government may exercise substantial control over Parliament.
This brings together your work on government dominance and parliamentary scrutiny.
The key Edexcel concept is elective dictatorship.
An elective dictatorship occurs where an elected government dominates Parliament, normally because it has a sufficiently large parliamentary majority.
How political power can move towards the Executive
A government may dominate Parliament because of:
a secure majority in the House of Commons
party discipline
the operation of the whips
control of much Commons parliamentary time
government dominance of the legislative programme
Edexcel's 2024 sovereignty mark scheme explicitly identifies these factors when explaining why political sovereignty may effectively lie with the Executive.
The relationship can be shown as:
government majority → party discipline → government controls Commons votes → Executive determines much of Parliament's programme → political sovereignty moves towards the Executive
This does not change Parliament's formal legal powers, but it can change who exercises them in practice.
Parliament may become a vehicle for Executive power
A powerful government can often rely on its own MPs to approve legislation.
This creates an important distinction:
Legally:Â Parliament passes the law.
Politically:Â the content and direction of the legislation may have been determined largely by the Executive.
The argument that sovereignty lies with Parliament alone therefore becomes less convincing if Parliament normally approves a programme controlled by ministers.
The issue is not whether Parliament retains formal authority. It does.
The issue is whether Parliament exercises that authority independently.
Why Executive dominance has limits
Executive dominance is not permanent.
A government may struggle to control Parliament when:
its majority is small
it has no overall majority
its own party is divided
backbench MPs rebel
opposition parties can combine against it
The Brexit difficulties faced by Theresa May provide an example used by Edexcel to illustrate that an Executive may ultimately be unable to make law without parliamentary support.
This is particularly useful because it demonstrates that the constitutional rules had not changed, but the political balance of power had.
Therefore:
Political sovereignty can move between Executive and Parliament without legal sovereignty moving at all.
Overall judgement: Parliament versus Executive
The distinction is clear.
Parliament | Executive |
Retains ultimate law-making authority | Often determines the policy and legislative agenda |
Strongest claim to legal sovereignty | Strong claim to political sovereignty under majority government |
Can reject government legislation | Normally controls a disciplined Commons majority |
Remains necessary for primary legislation | Can dominate parliamentary decision making |
Stronger when government is weak or divided | Stronger when government is united and has a secure majority |
A useful judgement is:
Parliament is legally sovereign, but political sovereignty between Parliament and the Executive depends heavily on parliamentary arithmetic and party discipline.
Parliament and the judiciary
Why the judiciary matters to sovereignty
The judiciary is another potential location of political power.
The Supreme Court can:
interpret law
conduct judicial review
determine whether Executive actions are lawful
apply the doctrine of ultra vires
These powers are covered in detail in judicial influence over Parliament and government.
The growth of judicial influence creates a sovereignty debate because judges can prevent elected governments from acting unlawfully and can place political pressure on Parliament.
Judicial review limits the Executive
Judicial review can constrain the Executive where ministers or public bodies act outside the law.
This does not necessarily weaken parliamentary sovereignty.
In fact, judicial review may strengthen Parliament.
If Parliament has authorised the Executive to act within particular legal limits, a court that prevents ministers exceeding those limits may be enforcing Parliament's law.
The relationship can therefore be:
Parliament makes law → Executive exercises powers under law → court ensures Executive remains within law → parliamentary authority is upheld
This is very different from the Court replacing Parliament as the sovereign legislature.
The Miller and prorogation example
Edexcel's 2021 material uses the Miller/Cherry litigation concerning prorogation to demonstrate how the Supreme Court could protect Parliament against an Executive attempting to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.
This is an especially important example because it demonstrates interaction among all three central branches:
the Executive took an action
the judiciary ruled on its legality
Parliament's constitutional position was strengthened
The case therefore does not fit a simplistic argument that:
more judicial power always means less parliamentary sovereignty.
The judiciary may constrain the Executive in order to protect Parliament.
Can the judiciary override Parliament?
The Court's power is nevertheless limited.
Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme stresses that Parliament retains the ultimate legal position in relation to the Human Rights Act.
Court decisions can create political pressure, but Parliament retains its legislative authority.
This means the judiciary can exercise considerable political influence without possessing Parliament's legal sovereignty.
Political influence of the courts
A major judicial judgement can still be politically significant.
It can:
require government action to change
expose a legal problem
influence public debate
place political pressure on Parliament
alter the balance between Parliament and the Executive
The judiciary is therefore not politically insignificant merely because it lacks parliamentary legal sovereignty.
The stronger judgement is:
The judiciary has gained influence within the constitutional system, particularly over the Executive, but has not replaced Parliament as the ultimate legal law-maker.
Parliament, Executive and judiciary together
The relationships between these three branches should not be treated as separate two-way contests.
Sometimes strengthening one institution affects the relationship between the other two.
For example:
Strong Executive → Parliament may become weaker
but:
Judicial intervention against unlawful Executive action → Parliament may become stronger
This is why the location of political sovereignty can shift without producing a simple permanent transfer of authority.
A useful model is:
Relationship | Possible effect on sovereignty |
Executive dominates Parliament | Political sovereignty moves towards government |
Parliament defeats or constrains Executive | Political sovereignty moves towards Parliament |
Judiciary restrains unlawful Executive action | Can strengthen Parliament and rule of law |
Judicial decisions pressure Parliament | Judiciary gains political influence |
Parliament retains authority to legislate | Parliamentary legal sovereignty remains central |
Parliament and devolved institutions
Devolution transformed the distribution of political power
One of the biggest constitutional changes since 1997 has been devolution.
Students need to understand the role and powers of devolved institutions in:
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
England
These arrangements are covered fully in the dispersal of power across the UK.
Devolution means that significant policy decisions are no longer made exclusively at Westminster.
Political authority has therefore become geographically dispersed.
Why devolved institutions challenge parliamentary sovereignty in practice
Devolved institutions possess:
elected representatives
areas of policy responsibility
democratic legitimacy
institutional permanence in political practice
This means it would be politically difficult for Westminster simply to treat them as insignificant subordinate bodies.
Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme treats devolution as an important political limit on parliamentary sovereignty.
The reason is straightforward.
If voters have chosen devolved institutions and those institutions exercise established powers, removing those powers may be legally possible but politically extremely difficult.
Why devolution does not remove legal sovereignty
The specification's definition is decisive:
devolution disperses power, but not sovereignty.
This means devolved institutions are powerful without becoming sovereign in the same legal sense as Westminster Parliament.
Therefore:
Political power:Â dispersed.
Ultimate legal sovereignty:Â remains located at Westminster under the traditional constitutional doctrine.
This distinction should appear explicitly in any essay about sovereignty.
Scotland and the sovereignty debate
Scottish devolution is particularly significant because the Scottish Parliament possesses considerable political legitimacy and its powers have developed through constitutional reform.
The Scottish independence referendum also demonstrates how referendum-based legitimacy can strengthen the political position of devolved institutions.
The important issue is not whether Parliament could legally change the settlement.
The issue is whether Westminster could realistically make fundamental changes without regard for political consent.
This illustrates the difference between:
legal capacity and political practicality.
Wales and Northern Ireland
The same basic distinction applies to Wales and Northern Ireland.
Power has been dispersed through devolved institutions, creating separate centres of political decision making.
This means Westminster no longer exercises day-to-day political control over every policy area throughout the UK.
However, Edexcel still defines devolution as a dispersal of power rather than legal sovereignty.
Therefore, devolved government provides some of the strongest evidence that political sovereignty is dispersed even though legal sovereignty remains concentrated.
England and asymmetrical devolution
Devolution has not developed identically across every part of the UK.
Edexcel requires students to examine English devolution alongside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
This matters to the sovereignty debate because the distribution of political authority is uneven.
The UK remains formally unitary, but practical decision making is no longer uniformly centralised.
This creates a constitutional system in which it is increasingly difficult to identify one institution as the location of all practical political power.
Constitutional reform and sovereignty
The Edexcel specification requires students to study major constitutional reforms since 1997, including:
devolution
the Human Rights Act 1998
the creation of the Supreme Court
further devolution
other major constitutional reforms.
For this lesson, the key issue is not simply what each reform did.
You need to ask:
How did the reform affect where sovereignty is exercised?
Devolution and sovereignty
Effect
Devolution dispersed decision-making authority away from Westminster.
Sovereignty consequence
Political sovereignty became more dispersed because policy is made by institutions outside Westminster.
Limitation
The specification defines devolution as dispersing power rather than sovereignty, so parliamentary legal sovereignty remains intact.
Overall judgement
Strong effect on political sovereignty, weaker effect on legal sovereignty.
The Human Rights Act and sovereignty
Effect
The Human Rights Act strengthened the role of rights within the constitutional system and increased the significance of the judiciary in disputes involving government.
The 2024 Edexcel mark scheme identifies judicial decisions concerning the Human Rights Act as an important political limit on parliamentary sovereignty.
Sovereignty consequence
Court decisions can create strong political pressure on Parliament.
This makes it harder to argue that Parliament operates without meaningful constitutional limits.
Limitation
The Human Rights Act itself is legislation passed by Parliament.
Parliament therefore retains the ultimate legal authority associated with legislation.
Overall judgement
The Human Rights Act strengthened judicial political influence without making the judiciary legally sovereign over Parliament.
The creation of the Supreme Court and sovereignty
Effect
Creation of a separate Supreme Court strengthened the institutional distinction between legislature and judiciary.
Sovereignty consequence
The judiciary became a clearer and more visible constitutional check on the Executive.
Judicial review can also affect the relationship between Executive and Parliament.
Edexcel's 2024 constitutional-reform mark scheme treats the creation of the Supreme Court as a reform that strengthened checks and balances.
Limitation
The Supreme Court does not possess Parliament's general power to make or unmake primary legislation.
Overall judgement
Judicial power has increased relative to the Executive, but this does not mean legal sovereignty has transferred from Parliament to the courts.
Leaving the European Union and sovereignty
The relationship between EU membership, withdrawal and Parliament is covered in the effect of Brexit on parliamentary sovereignty.
During membership, Parliament's practical freedom in areas affected by EU obligations was constrained.
Leaving the European Union altered this relationship.
Edexcel's 2024 sovereignty mark scheme uses the legislation associated with EU withdrawal as evidence that Parliament retained the ability to change the UK's legal relationship with the EU.
This provides strong evidence for continuing parliamentary legal sovereignty.
Why leaving the EU strengthens the case for Parliament
If Parliament can legislate to change arrangements which previously constrained its freedom, this supports the argument that ultimate legal sovereignty remained at Westminster.
The reasoning is:
Parliament accepted legal arrangements connected with EU membership → Parliament could subsequently alter those arrangements → Parliament retained ultimate legal authority
Leaving the EU therefore strengthens the argument that parliamentary legal sovereignty is ultimately recoverable or exercisable.
But political sovereignty remains dispersed
Leaving the EU did not remove:
Executive dominance
devolution
judicial influence
the political importance of referendums
Therefore, Brexit does not settle the entire sovereignty debate.
It strengthens Parliament's claim to legal sovereignty, but not necessarily its claim to possess all practical political sovereignty.
Referendums and the location of sovereignty
Although the main institutional relationships in this lesson concern Parliament, Executive, judiciary and devolved institutions, referendums are important because they affect how those relationships operate.
The political importance of referendums is covered in direct public decision making.
Parliament authorises referendums through legislation, supporting its legal sovereignty.
However, a referendum result can create a powerful political mandate which Parliament may find extremely difficult to ignore.
Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme uses the EU referendum as evidence that public votes can create a real political restraint on parliamentary sovereignty.
This provides another example where:
legal authority remains with Parliament
but
political freedom is constrained by another source of democratic legitimacy.
How constitutional change has altered sovereignty
The overall pattern since 1997 is therefore not a simple transfer of sovereignty from Parliament to one replacement institution.
Instead, constitutional change has dispersed political authority.
Before extensive constitutional reform
The traditional Westminster model placed overwhelming emphasis on:
parliamentary sovereignty
centralised government
a weaker institutional separation between legislature and judiciary
After constitutional reform
Political authority is exercised through a more complex network involving:
Westminster Parliament
the Executive
the Supreme Court
devolved institutions
referendum mandates
This makes the traditional claim that Parliament is the only meaningful location of sovereignty harder to sustain politically.
However, constitutional reform has not clearly created a new legally sovereign institution to replace Parliament.
Constitutional changes compared
Constitutional development | Effect on practical power | Effect on parliamentary legal sovereignty |
Devolution | Disperses policy-making power to devolved institutions | Does not formally transfer sovereignty under Edexcel's definition |
Human Rights Act 1998 | Strengthens rights-based constraints and judicial influence | Parliament retains legislative authority |
Creation of the Supreme Court | Strengthens judicial checks, especially over the Executive | Court does not replace Parliament as ultimate legislature |
Use of referendums | Gives public decisions powerful political authority | Parliament legislates to establish referendums |
Leaving the EU | Returns greater policy-making autonomy to domestic institutions | Strengthens the case for parliamentary legal sovereignty |
Changing Parliament-Executive balance | Can move practical power towards or away from government | Does not itself alter Parliament's formal legislative sovereignty |
The most significant pattern is therefore:
constitutional change has affected political sovereignty much more dramatically than legal sovereignty.
Competing arguments about where sovereignty lies
Argument 1: sovereignty lies with Parliament
This remains the strongest argument if legal sovereignty is the test.
Parliament:
makes and unmakes legislation
cannot normally bind future Parliaments
is legally required for the Executive to pass primary legislation
remains formally superior to devolved institutions
retains legislative authority in relation to the Human Rights Act
demonstrated its ability to alter the UK's legal relationship with the EU
Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme provides all of these as arguments supporting Parliament's continuing sovereignty.
Evaluation
This is the strongest constitutional and legal argument.
The weakness is that it says less about who actually controls political decisions from day to day.
Argument 2: sovereignty lies with the Executive
The Executive has a strong claim to political sovereignty where it dominates Parliament.
A government with:
a secure Commons majority
strong party discipline
effective whips
control of much parliamentary time
may largely determine the legislative programme.
Edexcel explicitly links this to elective dictatorship.
Evaluation
The strength of this argument varies significantly between governments.
A minority or deeply divided government may be heavily constrained by Parliament.
Executive sovereignty is therefore political and conditional rather than ultimate and legal.
Argument 3: sovereignty has moved towards the judiciary
The Supreme Court can constrain Executive action and exert political pressure through important constitutional decisions.
This can change the balance among institutions.
Evaluation
The judiciary clearly possesses greater political influence than a narrow interpretation of parliamentary sovereignty might suggest.
However, the Court does not possess Parliament's ultimate law-making power.
It is therefore better described as an important constraint on sovereign power than as the new location of legal sovereignty.
Argument 4: sovereignty is dispersed through devolution
The devolved institutions exercise meaningful policy-making authority and possess their own democratic legitimacy.
Westminster no longer makes every important domestic political decision throughout the UK.
Evaluation
This is powerful evidence for dispersed political sovereignty.
However, Edexcel's own definition of devolution states that it disperses power rather than sovereignty.
It therefore does not displace Parliament's claim to ultimate legal sovereignty.
Argument 5: there is no single location of political sovereignty
This interpretation brings the previous arguments together.
The UK may be understood as having:
Parliament as the location of legal sovereignty
the Executive exercising substantial practical power
courts imposing legal checks on Executive action
devolved bodies controlling policy within devolved areas
referendum results imposing democratic political constraints
Under this interpretation, asking for one location of sovereignty may oversimplify modern UK government.
Political power is dependent on:
the issue
the institution involved
the size of the government's majority
the existence of devolved competence
whether a legal dispute arises
whether a referendum mandate exists
This makes political sovereignty fluid.
Has sovereignty actually moved?
A particularly useful distinction is between movement of sovereignty and movement of power.
Genuine movement of legal sovereignty
This would mean that Parliament no longer possessed the final legal authority and another institution had acquired it.
The evidence for this is limited.
Movement of political sovereignty
This means another institution has acquired enough practical authority to restrict Parliament or determine outcomes.
There is strong evidence for this.
For example:
Executive dominance can control Parliament's practical legislative agenda.
Devolution transfers substantial policy decisions away from Westminster.
Courts can constrain the Executive and exert political pressure.
Referendum results can make particular parliamentary choices politically unrealistic.
Therefore, when Edexcel asks whether sovereignty has moved, the strongest analysis is often:
Political sovereignty has moved much further than legal sovereignty.
A method for judging where sovereignty lies
When answering a sovereignty essay, use four steps.
Step 1: Define the test
Are you judging:
legal sovereignty?
political sovereignty?
both?
Never leave this unclear.
Step 2: Compare institutions directly
Do not write four disconnected mini-essays on:
Parliament
Executive
courts
devolution
Instead compare them.
For example:
Executive versus Parliament:Â who actually controls legislation?
Judiciary versus Executive:Â who determines whether government action is lawful?
Parliament versus devolved institutions:Â who controls policy, and who possesses ultimate legal authority?
Step 3: Separate legal power from political reality
For every example ask:
Has Parliament lost legal authority, or has exercising that authority simply become politically difficult?
This is often the difference between an accurate answer and an oversimplified one.
Step 4: Rank the competing claims
A conclusion should not simply say "sovereignty is shared".
Decide which institution has:
the strongest legal claim
the strongest political claim
the most conditional claim
Then justify the ranking.
A hierarchy of sovereignty in the UK
A useful way of reaching an overall judgement is to rank the institutions.
1. Parliament: strongest legal claim
Parliament remains the clearest location of ultimate legal sovereignty.
It has the strongest formal claim because it can make and unmake primary legislation.
2. Executive: strongest recurring rival for political sovereignty
A strong majority government can exercise enormous practical control over Parliament.
However, this power fluctuates and remains dependent on parliamentary support.
3. Devolved institutions: strong territorial political authority
They exercise substantial political power in devolved areas and possess democratic legitimacy.
Their power is politically significant but does not replace Westminster's traditional legal sovereignty.
4. Judiciary: strong constitutional influence
The judiciary can constrain government and alter relationships between institutions.
Its influence is substantial, but it does not amount to general legislative supremacy.
This ranking is not an Edexcel-required formula. It is a useful way to organise evaluation based on the relationships required by the specification.
So where does sovereignty now lie?
There are three possible conclusions.
Conclusion A: Parliament alone
This works if sovereignty is defined exclusively in legal terms.
Parliament remains the institution with the strongest claim to ultimate legislative authority.
However, this conclusion risks ignoring the political reality of modern constitutional government.
Conclusion B: sovereignty has transferred away from Parliament
This reflects the importance of:
Executive dominance
devolution
judicial influence
However, it can exaggerate how far Parliament has lost formal legal authority.
Conclusion C: legal sovereignty remains with Parliament while political sovereignty is dispersed
This gives the most complete account of the Edexcel debate.
It recognises that:
Parliament remains legally supreme
government may dominate Parliament politically
devolved bodies possess real territorial political authority
courts constrain government and influence constitutional relationships
constitutional reforms have multiplied the centres of political power
The UK can therefore have a single strongest location of legal sovereignty while possessing several competing locations of political power.
Overall judgement
The constitutional changes required by the Edexcel specification have not clearly replaced Parliament with another legally sovereign institution.
Instead, they have transformed the environment in which parliamentary sovereignty operates.
Devolution has dispersed policy-making authority. The Human Rights Act and creation of the Supreme Court have strengthened judicial influence and checks on government. Changing relations between Parliament and the Executive mean that a strong government may exercise much of Parliament's practical political power. Leaving the EU, meanwhile, strengthened the argument that Parliament retains the ultimate ability to alter the legal arrangements under which it operates.
The strongest overall judgement is therefore:
Legal sovereignty can still be said to lie primarily with Parliament, but political sovereignty is increasingly dispersed and conditional. Modern UK government is best understood as a system in which Parliament retains ultimate legal authority while the Executive, judiciary and devolved institutions exercise substantial and sometimes decisive political power.
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint: Make the distinction between legal and political sovereignty the framework of the whole answer. The 2024 mark scheme deliberately rewards arguments that Parliament remains legally sovereign alongside arguments that the Executive, devolved institutions, courts and referendums can restrict its political sovereignty.
Examiner hint: Be precise about the Supreme Court. The 2024 examiner report identified confusion between judicial review of Executive actions and challenges involving Parliament's legislation. Do not use every court judgement as automatic evidence that Parliament has lost sovereignty.
Examiner hint:Â The Miller rulings should not automatically be presented as evidence that sovereignty transferred from Parliament to the judiciary. The 2024 report specifically noted that these rulings can instead be used to show the courts upholding parliamentary sovereignty.
Examiner hint:Â Keep Parliament and government separate. The 2025 report identified confusion between government and Parliament as a recurring weakness in constitutional answers. A government dominating Parliament is evidence about political sovereignty, not proof that the two institutions are the same thing.
Examiner hint:Â Use evidence to build judgement rather than attaching examples to a pre-prepared essay. The 2025 examiner report warned against forcing prepared plans onto a slightly different question and stressed that answers should be shaped around the exact wording set.
Examiner hint:Â Do not merely state mini-judgements. The 2024 report found that some candidates announced conclusions without sufficiently supporting them through the preceding analysis. Your judgement should follow logically from the comparison you have just made.
Examiner hint:Â Use contemporary evidence where it genuinely develops the argument. Recent examiner reports praise answers that use evidence in context and warn against relying entirely on historical material without explaining its relevance to where power lies now.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying sovereignty is simply "shared"
Why this is incorrect: This avoids the central distinction between legal and political sovereignty. Different institutions do not necessarily possess the same type or degree of power.
How to improve:
Specify:
who possesses legal sovereignty
who exercises political power
why the two may differ.
Mistake: Treating Parliament and the Executive as interchangeable
Why this is incorrect: Parliament is the legislature. The Executive is the government. A government may dominate Parliament politically, but it still depends on Parliament for primary legislation.
How to improve: Identify the institution responsible every time you use an example.
Mistake: Claiming devolution has made the UK legally federal
Why this is incorrect: The Edexcel specification defines devolution as the dispersal of power, but not sovereignty.
How to improve: Say that devolution provides strong evidence of dispersed political power, while Parliament retains the traditional claim to legal sovereignty.
Mistake: Assuming courts are sovereign because they defeat governments
Why this is incorrect: A judgement against the Executive may simply enforce legal limits created by Parliament.
How to improve:
Ask who the court has constrained:
Executive action:Â may strengthen parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliament itself:Â consider the continuing limits on judicial authority over primary legislation.
Mistake: Using the Miller cases as automatic evidence against parliamentary sovereignty
Why this is incorrect: Edexcel examiner feedback specifically warns against this. The cases can demonstrate the judiciary protecting Parliament from Executive action.
How to improve: Explain the relationship among all three branches rather than simply writing "the Supreme Court won".
Mistake: Assuming a strong Executive has acquired legal sovereignty
Why this is incorrect: An elective dictatorship concerns political dominance, not a formal transfer of law-making sovereignty.
How to improve:
Use the distinction:
Executive dominance = political sovereignty.Parliamentary law-making supremacy = legal sovereignty.
Mistake: Saying Parliament is completely unrestricted because it is legally sovereign
Why this is incorrect: Formal legal authority does not remove political constraints.
How to improve:
Consider whether using a legal power would be politically realistic in relation to:
devolution
court decisions
government majorities
referendum mandates.
Mistake: Writing separate descriptive paragraphs on every institution
Why this is incorrect: The question is about the location of sovereignty. Listing powers does not decide where sovereignty lies.
How to improve:
Pair institutions and compare them directly:
Parliament versus ExecutiveParliament versus devolved institutionsParliament versus judiciary
Then reach a mini-judgement after each comparison.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define parliamentary sovereignty. (2 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer:
Parliamentary sovereignty is the principle that Parliament can make, amend or unmake any law and cannot bind its successors or be permanently bound by earlier Parliaments.
Question 2
State one difference between legal sovereignty and political sovereignty. (2 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer:
Legal sovereignty concerns the formal legal right to exercise sovereign power, whereas political sovereignty concerns the practical ability to exercise power.
Question 3
Explain why devolution does not necessarily remove Parliament's legal sovereignty. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A developed answer should explain that:
devolution transfers or disperses political decision-making power
Edexcel defines devolution as the dispersal of power, not sovereignty
Parliament therefore retains its traditional ultimate legislative authority
devolved institutions nevertheless place important practical political limits on Westminster.
Question 4
A government has a large Commons majority and almost all its MPs follow the party whip.
Explain how legal sovereignty and political sovereignty may be located differently in this situation. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response should explain that:
Parliament remains the formal law-making body
Parliament therefore retains legal sovereignty
the government controls a majority of Commons votes
party discipline makes approval of government proposals likely
the Executive may therefore determine much of the legislative agenda
political sovereignty may consequently appear to lie with the Executive despite Parliament's legal supremacy.
Question 5
Explain two ways in which the Supreme Court can affect the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive without becoming legally sovereign. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Possible points include:
judicial review can prevent the Executive from acting outside its lawful powers
this may protect Parliament's authority rather than undermine it
court rulings can require government action to change
judicial decisions can create political pressure
Parliament nevertheless retains the ultimate authority to make primary legislation.
Credit two developed explanations.
Question 6
Explain how constitutional changes since 1997 have made the location of political sovereignty more difficult to identify. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response could explain that:
devolution has dispersed policy-making power away from Westminster
the Human Rights Act has strengthened rights-based judicial influence
creation of the Supreme Court has strengthened judicial checks on government
referendums can create strong political mandates
the balance between Parliament and the Executive also varies
political authority is therefore exercised by several institutions even while parliamentary legal sovereignty remains.
Question 7
Evaluate the view that constitutional reform since 1997 has significantly weakened parliamentary sovereignty. (30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting the view may include:
devolution has transferred substantial practical policy-making authority
devolved institutions have democratic legitimacy
the Human Rights Act has strengthened the judiciary's political influence
creation of the Supreme Court strengthened judicial checks
referendum mandates can constrain Parliament politically
modern constitutional arrangements make political sovereignty increasingly dispersed
Arguments challenging the view may include:
devolution disperses power rather than legal sovereignty
Parliament retains the authority to make and unmake legislation
the Human Rights Act remains an Act of Parliament
the Supreme Court does not possess Parliament's general legislative supremacy
the Executive still depends on Parliament for primary legislation
withdrawal from the EU strengthens the argument that Parliament retains ultimate legal authority
A strong judgement should assess legal sovereignty separately from political sovereignty.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that the Executive rather than Parliament is now the main location of sovereignty in the UK. (30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting the view:
elective dictatorship
government control of much parliamentary time
party discipline
whips
secure Commons majorities can make government legislation highly likely to pass
Parliament's formal powers may therefore be exercised largely according to Executive priorities
Arguments challenging the view:
Parliament remains necessary to make primary legislation
weak governments can be defeated or forced into concessions
government majorities can disappear or become divided
courts can constrain Executive action
devolved bodies exercise significant policy-making authority
ultimate legal sovereignty still rests with Parliament
A strong conclusion should recognise that Executive political sovereignty is conditional, while parliamentary legal sovereignty is more enduring.
Question 9
Evaluate the view that devolution has transferred sovereignty away from Westminster. (30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting the view:
significant policy areas are decided by devolved institutions
political authority is no longer concentrated at Westminster
devolved institutions possess their own democratic legitimacy
removing established devolved authority could be politically difficult
sovereignty in practice therefore appears increasingly territorially dispersed
Arguments challenging the view:
Edexcel defines devolution as dispersal of power rather than sovereignty
Parliament remains the ultimate law-making institution
devolved arrangements exist within the wider UK constitutional framework
legal sovereignty therefore remains concentrated even if practical authority is decentralised
A high-level answer should avoid treating political autonomy and legal sovereignty as identical.
Question 10
Read the following source extract.
Parliament remains the only institution with the ultimate authority to make and unmake primary legislation. The Executive depends on parliamentary approval for laws, devolved institutions exercise powers within the wider constitutional settlement and the judiciary cannot simply replace Parliament as the UK's legislature. This suggests that sovereignty still lies at Westminster.However, political reality is far more dispersed. Governments with strong Commons majorities can dominate Parliament, judges can constrain Executive action and devolved institutions make important decisions with their own democratic legitimacy. Constitutional reform has therefore made it increasingly difficult to claim that meaningful sovereignty belongs to Parliament alone.
Using the source, evaluate the view that sovereignty can still be said to lie principally with Parliament. (30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Strong responses should pair the competing arguments directly.
Arguments that sovereignty lies principally with Parliament:
Parliament can make and unmake primary legislation
the Executive relies on Parliament to legislate
devolution disperses power rather than sovereignty
the judiciary cannot replace Parliament as the legislature
Parliament therefore retains the strongest claim to legal sovereignty
Arguments that sovereignty is more dispersed:
Executive dominance can transfer political control towards government
courts constrain the exercise of Executive power
devolved institutions exercise substantial policy-making authority
constitutional changes have created several powerful centres of political decision making
Parliament's theoretical legal power may therefore differ considerably from political reality
For the highest levels, the conclusion should answer "principally"Â rather than treating sovereignty as an all-or-nothing concept. A convincing judgement would argue that Parliament remains the principal location of legal sovereignty, but no longer provides an adequate description of where political sovereignty is exercised in practice.
Comments