An upper house is usually different from the lower house in at least one of the following respects

(though they vary among jurisdictions):

Powers:

In a parliamentary system, it often has much less power than the lower house. Therefore, in certain
countries the Upper House

votes on only limited legislative matters, such as constitutional amendments,

cannot initiate most kinds of legislation, especially those pertaining to supply/money,

cannot vote a motion of no confidence against the government (or such an act is much less common),
while the lower house always can.

In a presidential system:

It may have equal or nearly equal power with the lower house.

It may have specific powers not granted to the lower house. For example:

It may give advice and consent to some executive decisions (e.g. appointments of cabinet ministers,
judges or ambassadors).

It may have the sole power to try (but not necessarily initiate) impeachment cases against officials of the
executive or even judicial branch, following enabling resolutions passed by the lower house.

It may have the sole power to ratify treaties.

In a semi-presidential system:

It may have less power than the lower house

in semi-presidential France, the Government can decide to legislate a normal law without the Sénat's
agreement (Article 45 of the constitution), but

It may have equal power to the lower house regarding the constitution or the territorial collectivities.

It may not vote a motion of no confidence against the government, but it may investigate State cases.

It may make proposals of laws to the lower house.

Status:

In some countries, its members are not popularly elected; membership may be indirect, hereditary, ex
officio or by appointment.
Its members may be elected with a different voting system than that used to elect the lower house (for
example, upper houses in Australia and its states are usually elected by proportional representation,
whereas lower houses are usually not).

Less populated states, provinces, or administrative divisions may be better represented in the upper
house than in the lower house; representation is not always intended to be proportional to population.

Members' terms may be longer than in the lower house and may be for life.

Members may be elected in portions, for staggered terms, rather than all at one time.

In some countries, the upper house cannot be dissolved at all, or can be dissolved only in more limited
circumstances than the lower house.

It typically has fewer members or seats than the lower house (though notably not in the United Kingdom
parliament).

It has usually a higher age of candidacy than the lower house.

Powers

The French Senate, hosted in the Palais du Luxembourg

Parliamentary systems

In parliamentary systems the upper house is frequently seen as an advisory or a “house of review”
chamber; for this reason, its powers of direct action are often reduced in some way. Some or all of the
following restrictions are often placed on upper houses:

Lack of control over the executive branch. (On the other hand, in the US and many other presidential
systems, the Senate or upper chamber has more control over the composition of the Cabinet and the
administration generally, through its prerogative of confirming the president's nominations to senior
offices.)

No absolute veto of proposed legislation, though suspensive vetoes are permitted in some states.

In countries where it can veto legislation (such as the Netherlands), it may not be able to amend the
proposals.

A reduced or even absent role in initiating legislation.

No power to block supply, or budget measures (a rare example of a Parliamentary upper house that
does possess this power is the Australian Senate, which notably exercised that power in 1975)

In parliamentary democracies and among European upper houses the Italian Senate is a notable
exception to these general rules, in that it has the same powers as its lower counterpart: any law can be
initiated in either house and must be approved in the same form by both houses. Additionally, a
Government must have the consent of both to remain in office, a position which is known as "perfect
bicameralism" or "equal bicameralism".

The role of a revising chamber is to scrutinise legislation that may have been drafted over-hastily in the
lower house and to suggest amendments that the lower house may nevertheless reject if it wishes to.
An example is the British House of Lords. Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the House of Lords
can no longer prevent the passage of most bills, but it must be given an opportunity to debate them and
propose amendments, and can thereby delay the passage of a bill with which it disagrees. Bills can only
be delayed for up to one year before the Commons can use the Parliament Act, although economic bills
can only be delayed for one month. It is sometimes seen as having a special role of safeguarding the
uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom and important civil liberties against ill-considered
change. The British House of Lords has a number of ways to block legislation and to reject it; however,
the House of Commons can eventually use the Parliament Act to force something through. The
Commons will often accepts amendments passed by the Lords; however, the two houses have
sometimes reached a constitutional standoff. For example, when the Labour Government of 1999 tried
to expel all hereditary peers from the Lords, the Lords threatened to wreck the Government's entire
legislative agenda and to block every bill which was sent to the chamber. This standoff led to
negotiations between Viscount Cranborne, the then Shadow Leader of the House, and the Labour
Government, resulting in the Weatherill Amendment to the House of Lords Act 1999, which preserved
92 hereditary peers in the house. Compromise and negotiation between the two houses make the
Parliament Act a very rarely used backup plan.

The chamber of the House of Lords, the UK's Upper House

Even without a veto, an upper house may defeat legislation. Its opposition may give the lower chamber
a chance to reconsider or even abandon a controversial measure. It can also delay a bill so that it does
not fit within the legislative schedule, or until a general election produces a new lower house that no
longer wishes to proceed with the bill.

Nevertheless, some states have long retained powerful upper houses. For example, the consent of the
upper house to legislation may be necessary (though, as noted above, this seldom extends to budgetary
measures). Constitutional arrangements of states with powerful upper houses usually include a means
to resolve situations where the two houses are at odds with each other.

In recent times, Parliamentary systems have tended to weaken the powers of upper houses relative to
their lower counterparts. Some upper houses have been abolished completely (see below); others have
had their powers reduced by constitutional or legislative amendments. Also, conventions often exist that
the upper house ought not to obstruct the business of government for frivolous or merely partisan
reasons. These conventions have tended to harden with a passage of time.
Presidential systems

In presidential systems, the upper house is frequently given other powers to compensate for its
restrictions:

Executive appointments, to the cabinet and other offices, usually require its approval.

It frequently has the sole authority to give consent to or denounce foreign treaties.

Institutional structure

There is a variety of ways an upper house's members are assembled: by direct or indirect election,
appointment, heredity, or a mixture of these. The German Bundesrat is composed of members of the
cabinets of the German states, in most cases the state premier and several ministers; they are delegated
and can be recalled anytime. In a very similar way, the Council of the European Union is composed of
national ministers.

Many upper houses are not directly elected but appointed: either by the head of government or in some
other way. This is usually intended to produce a house of experts or otherwise distinguished citizens,
who would not necessarily be returned in an election. For example, members of the Senate of Canada
are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

In the past, some upper houses had seats that were entirely hereditary, such as in the British House of
Lords until 1999 and in the Japanese House of Peers until it was abolished in 1947.

It is also common that the upper house consists of delegates chosen by state governments or local
officials. Members of the Rajya Sabha in India are nominated by various states and union territories,
while 12 of them are nominated by the President of India. Similarly, at the state level, one-third of the
members of the State Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) are nominated by local governments, one-
third by sitting legislators, and the rest are elected by select members of the electorate. The United
States Senate was chosen by the State legislatures until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in
1913.

The upper house may be directly elected but in different proportions to the lower house - for example,
the Senate of Australia and the United States have a fixed number of elected members from each state,
regardless of the population.

Abolition
Main article: List of abolished upper houses

Many jurisdictions, such as Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Mauritania, New Zealand,
Peru, Sweden, Turkey, Venezuela and many Indian states as well as Brazilian states and Canadian
provinces, once possessed upper houses but abolished them to adopt unicameral systems.
Newfoundland had a Legislative Council prior to joining Canada, as did Ontario when it was Upper
Canada and Quebec from 1791 (as Lower Canada) to 1968. Nebraska is the only state in the United
States with a unicameral legislature, having abolished its lower house in 1934.

The Australian state of Queensland also once had an appointed Legislative Council before abolishing it in
1922. All other Australian states continue to have bicameral systems (the two territories have always
been unicameral).

Like Queensland, the German state of Bavaria had an appointed upper house, the Senate of Bavaria,
from 1946 to 1999.

The Senate of the Philippines was abolished – and restored – twice: from 1935 to 1945 when a
unicameral National Assembly convened, and from 1972 to 1987 when Congress was closed, and later a
new constitution was approved instituting a unicameral Parliament. The Senate was re-instituted with
the restoration of a bicameral Congress via a constitutional amendment in 1941, and via adoption of a
new constitution in 1987.

A previous government of Ireland (the 31st Dáil) promised a national referendum on the abolition of its
upper house, the Seanad Éireann, during the 24th Seanad session. By a narrow margin, the Irish public
voted to retain it. Conservative-leaning Fine Gael and Left-leaning Sinn Féin both supported the
abolition, while the centrist Fianna Fáil was alone among major parties in supporting the retention of
the Seanad.