One of the most complicated spheres of the contemporary governmental process is the legislative one that is characterized by the presence of the technical language, the rigid system of the procedures and the inability to adjust to new society or demands quickly. Although legal texts are fundamental to the regulation of any state, providing legal textual clarity and state legitimacy, legal texts are not always available to the citizens and can be cumbersome in changing circumstances of policy frameworks. In this regard, natural language processing (NLP) and large language models (LLMs), as part of Artificial Intelligence (AI) advancement, promises to render the process of legislative work less complex, more rapid and more democratic. In this paper, the author examines the potential of the AI in closing the gap between technocratic legal systems and other citizens by facilitating better communication, accelerating the system of drafting, and ethically driven automation of lawmaking.

Experimental and applied experiments and applications with GPT-4 and other models such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, and GPT-3 models are being used and can draft legal definitions, translate state statutes into plain language, summarize amendments, and respond to the correspondence of constituents. Such a flurry of technological development heralds a shift in paradigm around the traditional method of manual drafting of law to more of a hybrid approach involving human-AI collaboration. To give an example, the European Commission and Etcheverry et al. demonstrated that legislative drafting tasks that were previously time-consuming challenge and could take many days or weeks can now be completed in only hours and with great accuracy.

However, although the claims about the speed and visualization and non-exclusion are clear, there are also certain risks involved in the introduction of AI into work in the field of legislation. The doubts pointed at the degradation of legal reasoning, inexplicability, boundary gatherings in the algorithm and impairing the democratic right to pronouncements are still applicable. The lack of transparency over AI systems has been flagged as a point of concern by scholars who are also quick to note the necessity to have governance frameworks that would make the systems serve their purpose immaculately.

The paper stands at the cross-section of law and technology, and governance. It aims to assess the practical effectiveness of AI tools in reducing the complexity of legal language and legislative activity and to question what the utilization of those tools means in terms of normative and ethical aspects as well as the aspects of democracy. Leveraging various studies issued between 2021 and 2025, the paper comes up with the overall picture of how AI could enhance the legislative ecosystems: both the technical aspect and a strategic one, making it useful to scholars, policymakers, and legal technologists. Its thesis statement is that AI, when deployed ethically, can enhance the comprehensibility and accessibility of law, as well as make it more welcoming and inclusive to all subjects of legislation, without injecting any amendments in their constitutional integrity or trustfulness in their perception by the general audience.

Related Works

Legislative Drafting

In recent years, the study has enlightened the life-changing nature of generative AI, in particular, the large language models (LLMs), in terms of the drafting of legislation and the uncomplicating of law. The work of Hill et al. (2024) is one of the strongest cases in support of the AI-enhanced process of legislation since it suggests we use LLMs as a tool to facilitate the creation of legislation that would control misinformation and disinformation.

A system of methodology they have proposed, the so-called AI bun, does not make LLMs the helpers in drafting legislation that will resolve the current societal issues, but rather fellow co-authors that contribute to it. The study points to the fact that in spite of the potentially complicated nature of the legislation field, when used within the framework of responsible deployment, AI like ChatGPT can be used to clarify the new laws and make them more relevant.

The logical continuation of this will be the direct demonstration of this, which is offered by the Etcheverry et al. (2024): they propose a generative model that automates legal text consolidation fine-tuned in LoRA. This work, which is generally time consuming and legally delicate is done with 63 percent completion rate on complicated bills, a major jump ahead of an emerging technology.

Automation of consolidation will enhance not only efficiency of laws but will also be timely in updating the changing statutory environmental, which in turn minimizes ambiguity in both the eyes of law expert and mass populations.

The Publications Office of the European Union (2024) shows the generative functionalities and smart tools that can be integrated into the environment of any legislative drafting by the European Commission proactively (see figure 2) and illustrates the use of augmented functions and smart tools in the environment of mass legislative drafting (see figure 3). The system automates AI, with the help of which it can aid in the authorship, combining, and revision control of EU laws. With the textual clarity in legislation becoming an optional luxury, AI-based drafting can soon develop into ordinary practice.

Chouhan and Gertz (2024) present the use of the retrieval-augmented-generation system, which they name LexDrafter, to create consistency in the legal definitions of various documents. The system eliminates the confusion that is caused by inconsistent terminology which is a common problem in multinational legislative cultures such as in the EU.

Policy Implementation

Even though the practical aspect in maximizing words in drafting and utilizing words, it is very questionable whether the LLMs should be applied in other higher levels in terms of legal analysis and policy evaluation. Tritto and Ponce (2025) elaborate on the critical analysis of Causal AI versus the traditional thinking of correlations when it comes to being an expert of law.

According to their evidence, even the correlation-based systems like the transformers (e.g., GPT-4) may be able to produce written text but in no way allow legal thoughts since it displays a lack of interpretative faithfulness. Compared to them, there is an improved level of outcomes on the aspects of the representation of the legal reasoning and the causation of the narrative, in the case of causal AI methods, yet the issues in scalability and the interpretability still persist. The dislocation amid of syntactic generation and the conception that is suggestive of semantics is a heightened precinct of a legitimate use of AI.

The fact is that LLMs cannot learn structured representations of law, most of which is required to build legal decision-support systems whose basis is rules in that regard-the same case occurs in Janatian et al. (2023). They conclude that 60 percent of the pathways generated by LLM are better or equal to human generated pathways based on the concept of using the JusticeBot as a gold standard.

It is indicated that results indicate that AI can aid semantic coding though it does not imply that the human supervision is not a necessity in terms of integrity and ethical justification of the same contextually integral one.

The authors (Ma and Wilson) add further to these problems stating (1) the philosophical and technical limitations of machine-readable law, (2) why it is unlikely that such a machine-readable law project would see the day of light due to the full language of the full law. In their analysis, we remember that what is legal meaning in law is neither necessarily a creation of the logical grammar, but also a creation of the context of jurade in which the legal situation is set, and cultural conventions. Coding of statutes using the logical syntax risks losing the interpretation nuance compared to the human knowledge unless the two get combined.

Democratic Risks

Although the introduction of AI into the work of legislatives provides technical advantages, there are serious ethical and democratic issues behind them. In opposition to such binary thinking that opposes AI to the Rule of Law as a savior or saboteur, Daly (2024) suggests thinking in a more complex way. Rather, the article advances a middle ground view that AI can be used to achieve normative goals at the same time as being cautious of the risks, such as opacity, bias, and overreach of algorithms.

This is the main point of concern expressed by Greenstein (2021), who also identified the discrepancy between the speed of the ever-growing AI systems and the deliberative process that law has always been rooted in and that has always necessitated the slow pace of all legislation. The problem is that, as AI is incorporated into governance, particularly in legal decision-making, there is a looming risk of black-boxing of legal reasons. Such level of opacity destroys even simple ideas of law such as transparency and explainability both of which are paramount to democratic accountability.

Concerns in the same terms of parliamentary systems can be found in Citino and the SantAnna School (2023). They are questioning how the systems of legislation based on the utilization of AI can be introduced into the existing patterns without a threat to democracy. Such arguments may appear as utopic but they raise some important issues like the human agency, the nature of constitutionalism, and the political legitimacy of a digital-automation world.

Finally, the real-life example presented by Kreps and Jakesch (2023) shows that AI language technologies may be applied in terms of the legislative responsiveness to enhance the situation by the possibility of an automated but context-sensitive response to constituent communication. They find in their experiments that inadequately implemented AI can harm the trust of people. Disclosure and ensuring the model of a human-in-the-loop become the major approaches to reducing reputational and democratic threats.

Strategic Implications

The outcome of the macro-level AI usage in policymaking is not only efficient but also governance, inclusivity, and equity problems. The article by Yar et al. (2024) provides a wide scope of research of AI in the process of public policy formulation, communicating advances of transparency, accountability, and ethical safeguard. The work of theirs places AI not only as a technical aid but also as a socio-political participant that is able to redefine the patterns of power and institutional norms.

The meta-review of LLM use in politics by Aoki (2024) offers an excellent opportunity of placing LLM in the field of treating the domains of diplomacy, governance, and legislative analysis. Nonetheless, he cautions that the remaining obstacles are biasness, non-transparency, and dilapidation of democratic check. This is even more urgent because the policy presence of AI increases, warranting the moral frameworks and regulatory systems.

The article by Zimina-Poirot et al. (2025) discusses the accessibility aspect of legislative AI and how generative AI and NLP can rewrite the legal documents in plain or easy-to-comprehend language. The paper cautions that complete automation cannot achieve synthetic simplification of syntax required to establish productive legal communication because it lacks metalinguistic reflexivity. In order to support inclusive policymaking purposes, human revision and training must form part of such systems.

Parycek et al. (2023) provide a systems approach to the implementation of administrative processes with the help of AI. They underline that data quality, transparency of the system, and monitoring are the key aspects in order to guarantee legitimacy and efficiency. In their line of thinking, the AI provides a deployment roadmap and it does not have to lose hands of trust and legal integrity of institutions.

The role of AI as a paradigm-shifting technology in the legal practice and the system of justice is summarised in Madaoui (2024) based on the discussion of these issues. The paper is an excellent example of modification of empirical knowledge and normative problematic; it demands an unambiguous regulatory product that will strike a balance between creativity and the ethical awareness. In the absence of such structures, the implementation of AI in the legislative and the legal fields can result in the aggravation of the pre-existing disparities and can hurt the rule of law instead of supporting it.

In the literature, one can find a rather lively and dynamic discussion of the incorporation of AI (and more precisely, LLMs) into the legislative procedure. Technical innovation in the field of generative drafting and consolidation and conceptual arguments over the status of legal argument, transparency, and the concept of democratic integrity are but a few places where AI has been a driver or a challenge to contemporary governance.

Although the efficiency, inclusivity and transparency are verifiable, they are to be weighed against the ethical controls, accountable design and solid adherence to the principles of the democratic rulemaking processes. When combined, the collection of articles discussed highlights the strategic necessity of determining how the process of designing AI-augmented legislative systems can be conducted in such a way that would not compromise their spatial validity and, instead, ensure the normative fitness of AI-augmented systems of legislative systems.

Table 1: Review Summary

Legislative Drafting

Another of the most evidentially provable consequences of the integration of AI in the sphere of legislation is the terrific rise of the speed of drafting and consolidation. The use of LLMs and AI-assisted systems such as LexDrafter (Chouhan & Gertz, 2024), augmented LEOS (Publications Office of the EU, 2024), and etcheverry et al. (2024) amendment automation model have enabled legislation to be processed, and condensed with a small degree of input by humans whilst ensuring a great deal of accuracy.

Etcheverry et al. (2024) succeeded in the adaptation of an elaborated legislative document under the experimental arrangement scenario with a 63 percent success rate of using a fine-tuned generative model. In the meantime, Janatian et al. (2023) have reported that more than 60 percent of AI-written legislative pathways making use of GPT-4 have been evaluated as similar or better to those that were written by hand. It shows that there is a new pattern that shows that AI is not only catching up but currently surpassing conventional working processes regarding accuracy and productivity.

Table 2: Efficiency Gains

These scores of efficiencies demonstrate a definite trend, namely, that generative models can have a drastic positive effect on turnaround time without a significant deterioration in the level of legal cogency. Nevertheless, such tools are not completely independent in that they are still subject to human involvement when it comes to such subtleties in statutory language and jurisdictional detail.

Legal Language

It is one of the main cases provided by the AI in terms of governance highly possible to simplify language of laws used by both law makers and citizens. According to Zimina-Poirot et al. (2025) and the LEOS initiative work, it is established that LLMs are capable of generating plain-language variants of dense legal documents, which, in many cases, emerge in real-time. These shortened drafts meet the Plain Language and Easy-to-Read standards, thereby making them easy to understand by the common readers.

Although AI systems can be programmed to be syntactic simplification, they can sometimes be functionally oblivious, i.e., have no idea of the impact these linguistic changes can have on legal requirements or meaning. Some of the test scenarios highlighted that the simplifications produced by the AI needed post-editing in case the obligations, the rights, jurisdictional nuances were not saved.

Table 3: Legal Text Simplification

The conclusion points to the idea that the texts produced by AI with its simplification are useful in practical use yet not entirely trustworthy. It is necessary to mediate linguistic transparency and legal correctness and this is only possible through human-in-the-loop (HITL) editing models particularly in either multilingual or different jurisdiction environments.

Trust and Accountability

The use of AI in the processes of the democracies also creates the most important questions: Can we trust AI and rely on democracy? Is it representable by AI? And is it generally accepted by people? In a study conducted by Kreps & Jakesch (2023), the general reaction of the population regarding the correctness of the production of the AI on the one hand and verses the production of the human legs on the other in the legislative correspondence was observed. The general feeling was universal and the constituents accepted AI-generated responses on condition that human supervision was also present. The trust declined significantly in the cases when people thought that the AI was doing its own thing or in the cases where disclosure was not available.

Citino and Sant Anna School (2023) as well as Daly (2024) have noted that the very phenomenon of algorithmic aversion is one of the key threats of the democratic legitimacy. In the event that AI tools are used without sufficient disclosure in decision-making, the outputs of legislation may be perceived by the citizens as illegitimate or technocratic, as opposed to something that is democratically composited.

Table 4: Human vs. AI Communication

Such results indicate that forms of transparency and disclosure have to work well, necessary conditions not only to use AI to enhance democratic legitimacy but avoid having it undermine it as well. Since the term is largely equated with the promotion of responsive governance, AI ought to be introduced as a tool that enhances responsive governance and not as an alternative to human judgment or accountability.

Strategic Implications

The AI in the legislative systems is not risk-free. It is one of the themes that repeat in research conducted by Greenstein (2021), Tritto & Ponce (2025), Yar et al. (2024) on the fact that it is challenging to align AI mechanisms with normative aspirations of democracies, including fairness, transparency, interpretability. Regarding example, although transformer models (such as GPT-4) excel at copying syntax in law, it can be truthful that they are often relying on stipulations of correlation; not cording. The result is products that appear to make sense but do not have any legal rationale to support good policymaking.

According to a study conducted by Tritto & Ponce (2025), when legal uncertainties, meaning ambiguous precedent or conflicting statutes, are presented in current LLMs, which did not receive the inclusion of causal reasoning frameworks, they fail to process them effectively. In their systematic review, they discovered that Causal AI possesses a stronger modeling capability of the logic of the law but it is also burdening computationally and is still in its developmental stages to necessitate production-level implementation.

In the meantime, Madaoui (2024) and Parycek et al. (2023) refer to the implications of AI integration into legal systems concerning the institution. Agencies will have to adjust their regulating procedures, data management, and training systems to be sure that AI tools and people proceed as per the values that citizens pursue.

According to Aoki (2024) and Yar et al. (2024), the strategic stakes expressed by this integration of AI into the work should not simply be determined by the level of automation, but a more profound reengineering of the legislative culture and the design of policies, which have to be targeted too. By having an ethically aligned design, constant monitoring and a structure of effective oversight, AI tools would be able to improve the democratic governance and not serve as its fragmentation.

The findings represent a rather ambiguous but favorable change in the future of AI in legislation. Generative models have been proved to be extremely more efficient in composing and synthesizing of legal material. The LMs are especially promising in the sphere of simplification of the language of law, but the human supervision in this case is like a guarantee of the sustenance of the legal veracity and operational integrity. There is no uniform vision on AI in government, and the governments should attend to it by cultivating trust through transparency and the human-in-the-loop design. Last but not least, a set of strategic risks (algorithmic bias, interpretive opacity, etc.) will require policy, governance, and ethical design solutions.

Such evidence base supports the main assumption of the paper that AI may democratize the work of legislative processes - however, such a practice should be promoted with the help of structural measures of protection, reasonable usage, and a drive to maintain required legal and democratic frameworks.

This paper has investigated the multidimensional application of AI in the transformation of the legislative procedures but has specifically shed light on the possibility of making the language of the complex law simple and enhancing the responsiveness of legislative frameworks. The results affirm that AI and the subculture of large language models (LLMs) have already proven to be measurement-based success in areas like legislative drafting, document consolidation, legal language simplification, and more. Such tools as LexDrafter and augmented LEOS demonstrated a level of efficiency growth of more than 60 80 percent, and readability tools with ChatGPT and E2R standards have proven capable of decreasing the complexity of a legal text, rendering it accessible to a greater number of people. These functional advantages have not been hypothetical but have been tested in practice with its quantity measurements of performance and operation experience.

Equally important are the cross-implications in the fields of trust and transparency as concerns to the democratic systems. The scientific research on the component reactions demonstrates that AI-generated communication may count positively Lord (2022), especially when it is presented as transparently declared and software committed to human monitoring enhancing the responsibility and trust feeling. Nevertheless, when AI is poorly operationalized or hidden, this practice may heavily jeopardize the leadership. In this sense, these results support the effectiveness of human-in-the loop supervision and open design of systems.

Although there are such encouraging developments, this paper identifies some of the challenges that are yet to be solved. Top of it is a conflict of the syntactic generation and semantic reasoning. Though LLMs may create text that is competent when put to test in law, they usually fail in legal interpretation and causal inference as evidenced during the relative performance of systems such as JusticeBot versus the conventional, expert pathways. Causal AI has the potential to be a solution, but it is complicated, its data requirements are high and it is not scalable in the short term. Further, the enhancement of AI to the ecosystem of laws and legislations without violating the principles of Rule of Law will necessitate high measures of protection- ethical design, audit of algorithms, open disclosure platforms, and normative adjustment to democratic principles.

The findings validate, that AI cannot be a silver bullet in policy innovation but an efficient augmentation enhancement- tool, which can transform the way laws are written, interpreted and discussed once used under responsible conditions. The next generation of legislation ought to incorporate a blend-style collaboration system between the AI and human-created processes and operations that benefit the optimal endpoints of improved efficiency and maintain the integrity of the law. Such a model of hybrid governance should be guided by transdisciplinary collaboration of legal scholars, computer scientists, policy analyst, and civic stakeholder.

With the transformative potential to democratize the work of legislatures, AI must comply with high standards of responsibility, transparent and accountable to the population. The technical deployment is not the only challenge that remains in the future but the institution adjustment, legal prediction, and growth of trust in the society.

1. Aoki, G. (2024). Large Language Models in Politics and Democracy: A Comprehensive survey. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2412.04498
2. Chouhan, A., & Gertz, M. (2024). LexDrafter: Terminology Drafting for Legislative Documents using  Retrieval Augmented Generation. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2403.16295
3. Citino, Y. M. & Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies. (2023). Bot-Legislator and AI-powered legislativeprocesses. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371911554_Bot-Legislator_and_AI powered_legislative_processes. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371911554
4. Daly, S. (2024). ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, THE RULE OF LAW AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: THE CASE OF TAXATION. The Cambridge Law Journal, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197324000448
5. Etcheverry, M., Real-Del-Sarte, T., & Chavallard, P. (2024). Algorithm for Automatic Legislative Text Consolidation. Algorithm for Automatic Legislative Text Consolidation, 166–175. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.nllp-1.13
6. Greenstein, S. (2021). Preserving the rule of law in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30(3), 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09294-4
7. Hill, G., Waddington, M., & Qiu, L. (2024). From pen to algorithm: optimizing legislation for the future with artificial intelligence. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02062-3
8. Janatian, S., Westermann, H., Tan, J., Savelka, J., & Benyekhlef, K. (2023). From Text to Structure: Using large language models to support the development of legal expert systems. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2311.04911
9. Kreps, S., & Jakesch, M. (2023). Can AI communication tools increase legislative responsiveness and trust in democratic institutions? Government Information Quarterly, 40(3), 101829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101829
10. Ma, M., & Wilson, B. (2021). The Legislative recipe: Syntax for Machine-Readable Legislation. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2108.08678
11. Madaoui, N. (2024). The Impact of artificial intelligence on legal Systems: Challenges and opportunities. Problems of Legality, 1(164), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.164.289266
12. Parycek, P., Schmid, V., & Novak, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) and automation in administrative procedures: potentials, limitations, and framework conditions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(2), 8390–8415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01433-3
13. Publications Office of the European Union. (2024). AI-based solutions for legislative drafting in the EU : summary report.Publications Office of the EU. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/dece3782-90ed-11ef-a130-01aa75ed71a1
14. Tritto, P. P., & Ponce, H. (2025). Causal Artificial intelligence in Legal Language Processing: A Systematic review. Entropy, 27(4), 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/e27040351
15. Yar, M. A., Hamdan, M., Anshari, M., Fitriyani, N. L., & Syafrudin, M. (2024). Governing with Intelligence: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Policy Development. Information, 15(9), 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15090556
16. Zimina-Poirot, M., Gledhill, C., & Bouyé, M. (2025, May 20). Towards clear, simple, and inclusive legal language: Exploring Generative Artificial intelligence (GAI) models as content rephrasing assistants in multilingual settings. https://doi.org/10.14762/jll.2025.143