Findings are presented from the second phase of a UK longitudinal study of 33 gay father, 35 lesbian mother, and 43 heterosexual parent families when their adopted children reached early adolescence. Participants predominantly lived in urban/suburban areas and were mostly white and well-educated. Standardized interviews, observations, and questionnaires of parental mental health, parent-child relationships, and adolescent adjustment were administered to parents, children, and teachers between 2016 and 2018. There were few differences between family types. However, adjustment problems had increased in all family types, with better parenting quality and parental mental health associated with fewer adjustment problems. The findings contribute to adoption policy and practice, and to theoretical understanding of the role of parental gender in child development. Anja L. McConnachie and Nadia Ayed joint first authorship. We gratefully acknowledge the children and parents who participated in the study.
Objectives: What motivates same-gender female couples to choose reciprocal in vitro fertilization (IVF)? Do their experiences of becoming and being a mother via reciprocal IVF match their pre-parenthood expectations? Background: Reciprocal IVF is a treatment route available to cis, same-gender female couples, and other couples in which both partners have a uterus and egg stores. One partner's egg is retrieved, fertilized in vitro with donor sperm, then carried by the other partner. Existing debate has considered the ethical implications of this treatment route. To date, no empirical research has explored the experiences of families who have used reciprocal IVF. Method: Semistructured interviews were conducted with genetic and gestational mothers in 14 families headed by cis, same gender female couples who had conceived by reciprocal IVF in the United Kingdom (N = 28 mothers). Data were analyzed according to the principles of reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four themes were constructed: (a) becoming mums together; (b) legitimacy: "who's the real mum"; (c) choices and constraints; and (d) biological connections strengthen family connections. Conclusion: Families had multiple and nuanced motivations for choosing reciprocal IVF, such as the desire to share the journey of motherhood with their partner, to be perceived as legitimate parents, to overcome practical barriers, and to build strong family relationships. Mothers' pre-parenthood expectations often mismatched the reality of becoming and being a mother via reciprocal IVF. Most
We gratefully acknowledge the children and parents who participated in the study. We would also like to thank Catherine Jones for her help in coding FFIs.
STUDY QUESTION Does shared biological motherhood, in which a woman gives birth to the genetic child of her female partner, result in more positive mother–child relationships than donor insemination, in which only one mother is biologically related to the child? SUMMARY ANSWER Mothers in both family types showed high levels of bonding with their children and viewed their relationship with their child positively. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY There is some evidence of feelings of inequality regarding their relationship with their child between biological and non-biological mothers in lesbian mother families formed by donor insemination, with a qualitative longitudinal study showing a tendency for children to form stronger bonds with their biological than their non-biological mother. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Thirty lesbian mother families created through shared biological motherhood were compared with 30 lesbian mother families formed by donor-IVF. All families had two mothers who both participated in the study, and the children were aged from infancy up to 8 years old. Data collection took place over 20 months beginning in December 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Each mother in the family was interviewed separately using the Parent Development Interview (PDI), a reliable and valid measure of the nature of the parent’s emotional bond with their child. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded separately by one of two trained researchers who were unaware of the child’s family type. The interview produces 13 variables that relate to the parent’s representations of themselves as a parent, 5 variables that relate to the parent’s representations of the child, and a global variable that assesses the extent to which the parent can reflect on the child and their relationship. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Families formed through shared biological parenthood did not differ from families created by donor-IVF in terms of the quality of mothers’ relationships with their children as assessed by the PDI. Neither were differences identified between birth mothers and non-birth mothers across the entire sample, or between gestational and genetic mothers within the families formed by shared biological parenthood. Multivariate analyses were conducted to minimize the role of chance. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Ideally, larger samples of families and a narrower age range of children would have been studied, but this was not possible as we were reliant on the small number of families formed through shared biological motherhood in the UK when the study began. To maintain the anonymity of the families, it was not possible to request information from the clinic that may have shed light on differences between those who responded to the request to participate and those who did not. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The findings show that shared biological motherhood is a positive option for lesbian couples who wish to have a more equal biological relationship to their children. One type of biological connection does not appear to have a greater influence on the quality of parent–child relationships than the other. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) grant ES/S001611/1. KA is Director, and NM is Medical Director, of the London Women’s Clinic. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.