Belgium is an early adapter of gender quotas to increase the presence of women in decision-making, as quotas for advisory councils and electoral politics date from the 1990’s. The advisory commission regulations had effects for research and scientific bodies, while the boards of publically funded corporations recently came into view. Notwithstanding many attempts, gender quotas have not (yet) been introduced in the higher regions of the justice system. This article investigates the lively scene of debates on Belgian quotas and comparatively explores the process of adopting quotas in science, business and justice. It focuses on the intensity of the debates, the arguments constituting the debate and the main actors driving it. The analysis demonstrates rich variation with respect to these three elements, which points to the importance of nuanced and context specific analyses when implementation processes of quotas in various sectors are studied.