  In this paper, we conduct an empirical analysis of how large language models
(LLMs), specifically GPT-4, interpret constitutional principles in complex
decision-making scenarios. We examine rulings from the Italian Constitutional
Court on bioethics issues that involve trade-offs between competing values and
compare model-generated legal arguments on these issues to those presented by
the State, the Court, and the applicants. Our results indicate that GPT-4
consistently aligns more closely with progressive interpretations of the
Constitution, often overlooking competing values and mirroring the applicants'
views rather than the more conservative perspectives of the State or the
Court's moderate positions. Our experiments reveal a distinct tendency of GPT-4
to favor progressive legal interpretations, underscoring the influence of
underlying data biases. We thus underscore the importance of testing alignment
in real-world scenarios and considering the implications of deploying LLMs in
decision-making processes.
