I have a few thoughts on this. First of all, I have several very important caveats:

1. I study the AIDS crisis in the US, and my knowledge of AIDS outside of the US is somewhat limited.
2. I study the "AIDS Crisis" not the "AIDS Epidemic." This is an important distinction, and one that is relevant to this conversation. The AIDS epidemic is an ongoing, global, public health issue. It's a disease that affects over 30 million people around the world. Gay people, straight people, drug users, prostitutes, people of all socioeconomic levels. Anybody who has HIV is part of the AIDS epidemic; their experiences are as varied as they are. The AIDS crisis is a term we use to indicate a particular set of experiences in a particular time. The "crisis" is usually considered to have started in 1981, when the first cases of what we now know to be AIDS were reported by the CDC, and "ended" around 1995-96 when protease inhibitors came on the market, and combination therapy (the AIDS "cocktail." ) This is somewhat of an artificial distinction, but I think it is a helpful framework for understanding some important qualitative differences. The AIDS crisis, in the US, originally and predominately affected gay men and drug users (also Haitian immigrants and Hemopheliacs, but to a rather lesser extent.) The AIDS crisis was more than just an epidemic. Because the illness was largely associated with marginalized groups, AIDS was never just a disease; it was highly political. As such, AIDS became massively stigmatized, with that stigma largely arising from the homophobia, racism, sex-negativity, and economic inequality already in place in American society. The AIDS crisis was a socially-constructed way of being and feeling that existed in reaction to this discrimination and marginalization. The AIDS crisis is something that is largely centered in the gay male community, as that's where AIDS (as a social and political entity) was "created." So much of how we understand AIDS on a social, political, and cultural level arises from the populations affected by it.
3. Most important caveat: We're not quite 35 years into the AIDS epidemic. Those years have been years of just massive change in how AIDS is understood, both from a scientific and medical point of view, but also in terms of the populations affected and the corresponding social and political perspectives. Also, as a historian, studying AIDS is incredibly challenging because of this change. There are no real works of history on the AIDS crisis. There have been a couple great documentaries and memoirs, but no one has yet (to my knowledge) approached the AIDS crisis from a truly historical perspective. There is obviously a massive amount of writing on AIDS, but nearly all of it is more a primary source than anything. That makes it a real challenge to have a solid, accurate, non-biased understanding of events.

Ok, now I will say a few things about your question (about time, don't you think?)
HIV, as we know, is spread through sexual contact and blood contact (transfusions, accidental needle sticks, and sharing needles for IV drug use.) I'm going to leave the medical transmission routes (needle sticks and transfusions) to one side. I'm also going to set aside drug use/needle sharing for the moment. In the US, HIV entered the collective gay bloodstream (to use a colorful term) sometime in the mid 1970's (although there appears to have been some cases before that.) Although AIDS soon started to affect heterosexual communities (particularly communities of color) it had a pretty strong hold on the gay community (and still does, to a significant extent.) Several Western European countries experienced a similar model, with gay male communities being hit particularly hard by AIDS. I have relatively little information on specifics of health policy in other countries. I do know that an offshoot of the American AIDS activist group ACT UP was founded in Germany, and eventually disbanded after all their demands were met by the government. HIV, as we know, originated in Africa, and has become a massive public health issue for much of sub-Saharan Africa, where it has no real connection to homosexuality. In much of the developing world where AIDS is an issue, it is largely an issue of heterosexual communities. As such, although AIDS carries plenty of stigma in its own right, that stigma is not informed by homophobia in the same way it is in the US.

There are so many variables that are important when we think about AIDS as a social and political issue. That makes it very hard to make comparisons between different countries and time periods. I think there are a lot of unique things about the US that informed and influenced the shape of the AIDS crisis here. The rightward turn in American politics in the 1980's and the 'Moral Majority' certainly had a big influence on the political landscape and how that landscape responded to AIDS. Even if leaders and politicians felt a personal compassion towards people with AIDS, acting on it in the public realm was dangerous. Many, many politicians, on both sides of the aisle let power and politics get in the way of dealing with a massive public health crisis. Additionally, existing social and political structures, notably the lack of universal healthcare, lack of funding for government, science, and social services, and the rigorous bureaucracy of organizations like the FDA made it far more challenging for the nation to respond adequately. All countries have their own unique political, social, and cultural landscape, which along with epidemiological differences, resulted in AIDS looking pretty different in different countries.

Ok, that's all for now. I've done my best to give the information I can while acknowledging the limitations of my knowledge. I'm happy to clarify anything or answer any follow-up questions.