Constructions of surrogates, egg donors, and mothers: Swedish gay fathers’ narratives

Abstract

The study explored in detail how Swedish gay fathers (through surrogacy) talked about the surrogate mother and the egg donor. Thirteen semi-structured interviews with 22 gay fathers were conducted and analysed using critical discursive analysis. The surrogates were primarily constructed as a close family member, but occasionally in terms of their instrumental function. They were often described as active and independent, but occasionally as vulnerable or exploited. The egg donors were in some interviews constructed as close family members, while others talked about them as distant acquaintances. Further, donors were constructed either as a significant individual (for the fathers), or as an instrumental provider of the oocyte. While some participants constructed the surrogate and/or donor as their child’s mother(s), others were more reluctant or ambivalent about the mother construct. In conclusion, the participants engaged in rhetorical work that shed a positive light on surrogacy, and their own decisions were depicted as solid, ethical and genuine. The participants’ positive framing can be understood as the production of a counter discourse, in relation to an ongoing debate in Sweden, in which surrogacy is constructed as exploitation, dehumanization and prostitution.

Childless Bisexual and Gay Men’s Expectations of Obstacles and Enabling Factors for Pursuing Parenthood

“…Surrogacy has been criticized in several television and radio documentaries for exploiting vulnerable women, who commit to surrogacy to make a living under poor conditions (e.g Collmar, 2017;Uppdrag granskning, 2018). Previous research shows how Swedish gay fathers who have become parents through surrogacy relate to this debate, and engage in rhetorical work to justify their decision as being morally sound (Arvidsson et al, 2019;Malmquist & H€ ojerstr€ om, 2020), while gay fathers who have found other paths to parenthood often criticize against surrogacy (Malmquist & Spånberg Ekholm, 2020). The present study shows how childless bisexual and gay men also negotiate the ethics of surrogacy arrangements, and how these ethical concerns guide their parenting decisions.…”

“…Commercial surrogacy was the pathway to parenthood that was most criticized on ethical grounds by the participants. Their reluctance is unsurprising given the ongoing and high-pitched debate on surrogacy in Swedish mass media and social media (Arvidsson et al, 2019;Malmquist & H€ ojerstr€ om, 2020). Surrogacy has been criticized in several television and radio documentaries for exploiting vulnerable women, who commit to surrogacy to make a living under poor conditions (e.g Collmar, 2017;Uppdrag granskning, 2018).…”

“…The present study was conducted as part of a larger research project on bisexual and gay men's fatherhood in Sweden (Malmquist & Spånberg Ekholm, 2020;Malmquist & H€ ojerstr€ om, 2020). Within the project, male same-sex parenting couples' pathways to parenthood were explored.…”

“…However, joint adoption has been shown to be difficult to achieve, mainly because domestic adoptions are rare in Sweden, and because authorized adoption agencies have been reluctant to accept same-sex clients. Surrogacy arrangements are not permitted in Sweden, but some affluent Swedish gay men carry through surrogacy in the United States (Malmquist & H€ ojerstr€ om, 2020;Malmquist & Spånberg Ekholm, 2020). Shared parenting arrangements with three or four social parents are practiced in Sweden, but leave no option for the third and fourth parent to be legally recognized (Malmquist & Spånberg Ekholm, 2020).…”

Experiences of surrogates and intended parents of surrogacy arrangements: a systematic review

“…Twenty-four studies reported on people participating in commercial gestational surrogacy; five studies reported on altruistic gestational arrangements; and 12 studies included a combination of arrangement types, although they were predominantly commercial and gestational. Six studies did not specify all surrogacy characteristics (Zandi et al, 2014;Riggs 2015;Riggs et al, 2015;Ivry and Teman, 2018;Lindheim et al, 2019;Golboni et al, 2020;Malmquist and Höjerström, 2020).…”