Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Contemporary struggles for reproductive rights across the globe once more show how politics shape intimate reproductive experiences. The intersectional feminist concept of reproductive justice has become an important political and theoretical agenda to address power relations in the realm of reproductive rights. We argue that the justice-based approach of the concept can serve as an umbrella for debates taking place in diverse subdisciplinary fields such as feminist, Black, biopolitical, health, environmental, and abolition geographies. The concept of reproductive justice further allows to develop a multiscalar and activist spatial approach to questions of necro- and biopolitics. We hence call for and develop in this paper a reproductive justice research agenda for geography.

Keywords

feminist geography reproductive geographies reproductive justice critical population studies abolitionist geographies environmental justice intersectionality black geographies

I Introduction

Transnational organizing of feminist movements and the simultaneous rise of (far-)right politics across the globe in countries such as India, Turkey, Russia, Argentina, Poland, and the United States have turned reproductive politics – that is who has power over matters of sex and pregnancy and its consequences (Solinger, 2019) – into a main political battleground. Traditional, conservative moral values that defend a heteronormative model of the family are the ground for contemporary attacks on reproductive and sexual rights that many had taken for granted. In response, feminist movements stand up against these attacks on reproductive and sexual rights. Moreover, reproductive justice has turned into a key political claim demanding to connect struggles for reproductive rights to questions of social and environmental justice.

Black feminists and feminists of colour developed the concept of reproductive justice in the United States in the 1990s connecting reproductive rights to questions of social justice, pioneered by the SisterSong Collective, which first introduced the term in 1994 (e.g. Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, 2005; Luna, 2009; Luna and Luker, 2013; Ross et al., 2001; Ross and Solinger, 2017; Silliman et al., 2004). They were able to build on the work of Black thinkers such as Davis (1981) or Giddings (1984). As an intersectional activist concept, reproductive justice calls for a broader vision of reproductive rights that goes beyond the white liberal pro-choice focus on individual self-determination and abortion rights. Reproductive justice refers to three sets of rights: 1) the right to decide not to have children; 2) the right to decide to have children, and 3) the right to parent children in enabling economic, social, and environmental conditions and free of individual or institutionalized violence (Ross and Solinger, 2017). More recently, a fourth set of rights – the right to sexual autonomy that focuses on the human right to protect and maintain one’s body, sexuality, and gender freedom – has been added by younger activists (Ross, 2021).

The concept has been taken up by feminist Black, queer, and crip grassroot movements in Latin America (Schultz, 2023), Europe (Kitchen Politics, 2021), South Asia (South Asia Reproductive Justice and Accountability Initiative (SARJAI), 2022), and Africa (Ahaki, n.d). Black feminist NGOs in Brazil, for example, use the concept to fight against maternal mortality of Black women and police violence against Black youth (Criola, 2021; Schultz, 2023). In Germany, the concept allows to join forces of diverse activist collectives of migrant, dis_abled, trans* and Romn*ja perspectives among others (Netzwerk für reproduktive Gerechtigkeit, n.d). The transnational travelling of the concept poses diverse challenges and implies studying the context-specific historical racial formations and intersectional power relations (Kyere, 2021).

Given geography’s extensive engagement with bio- and necropolitics (Davies, 2018; Mbembe, 2003; McIntyre and Nast, 2011; McKittrick, 2011; Philo, 2005; for an overview see Rutherford and Rutherford, 2013; Tyner, 2009, 2015; Vasudevan and Smith, 2020), it is surprising that the discipline has been rather slow to take up the concept of reproductive justice. Our extensive literature research in the main anglophone human geography journals revealed that the concept has gained importance in anglophone geography only since 2020. Most of the empirical case studies that use the concept focus on North America and Europe, with few papers focussing on the Global South and Global East. For instance, it has been taken up in the context of the United States regarding debates on abortion since Roe vs. Wade was overturned (Calkin, 2021) and in Ireland concerning the abortion law reform (Calkin, 2019).

In view of the fast-growing field of reproductive geographies and recent conceptual discussions around intimate geographies (Smith, 2020), uterine geographies (Lewis, 2018a), and geographies of fertility (Coddington, 2021a), it is surprising that geography has not yet engaged in a more systematic manner with the concept of reproductive justice. We argue in this paper that developing a research agenda for a geography of reproductive justice allows us to advance the field of feminist geographies in general and reproductive geographies in particular by centring questions of spatial justice and linking research on reproductive geographies to intersectional feminist activism. Such a research agenda takes a normative stance seeking to contribute to feminist political struggles to address reproductive injustices. Joining forces between intersectional feminist movements and academic research would allow to develop utopias and progressive politics for a just society in terms of access to reproductive rights, sexual autonomy, and good conditions for parenting.

We argue that a reproductive justice research agenda calls for three major shifts in feminist reproductive politics, which have important implications for how geographers think about reproductive relations spatially:

(1) A shift from individualistic and liberal notions of bodily autonomy and self-determination towards a focus on structural inequalities as preconditions for a broad set of reproductive rights (e.g. Price, 2020). For geography, this means a shift away from focussing on the individual experiences of reproduction towards a relational approach which focuses on (re)productive relations of sexuality, parenting, and caring within systems of structural racism, sexism, violence, exploitation, and injustice.

(2) A shift from an isolated focus on gender towards intersectional relations of oppression that shape reproductive relations and politics (e.g. Ross, 2017). This implies to expand the sites of research of reproductive geographies that so far have focused what is often assumed as ‘women’s spaces’ such as gynaecological and birth spaces but also more broadly private spaces of the family and the home. From an intersectional perspective from the margins, issues like homelessness, land grabbing, toxification of livelihoods, the household as workplace, collective accommodation of migrants and refugees, and the spatial separation of fractured families among others need to be considered as ‘reproductive issues’ and studied in an intersectional fashion.

(3) A shift from abortion rights towards a broader set of reproductive rights including having or not having children and rights of parenting under decent conditions (e.g. Hyatt et al., 2022).

In consequence, geographic research on reproduction, sexual autonomy and parenting needs to pay close attention to the (post-)colonial histories of reproductive oppression and current structural discrimination of selective, eugenic, and antinatalist policies.

The paper traces geography’s initial reluctance to engage with questions of reproduction and subsequent inroads of these questions in the fields of population, political, feminist, and reproductive geographies among others. We then discuss four broader themes where we delineate how geographers have already engaged with issues and sometimes also explicitly the concept of reproductive justice. Namely, (1) by contesting population geographies and antinatalist policies, (2) by studying spatially uneven and stratified access to reproductive healthcare, (3) by bringing reproductive justice into concert with environmental justice, and (4) and by engaging abolitionist approaches to reproductive issues. We show how each theme can contribute to formulating a geographic research agenda for reproductive justice. Thereafter, we discuss the practical implications of a justice-oriented research agenda. The conclusion highlights how such a holistic reproductive justice research agenda for geography expands the sites, scales, and spaces of research conceptually and empirically. We embed this endeavour into a vision of an anti-Malthusian geography that contests right-wing and fascist populationalist narratives and contributes to/fights for a social and climate justice agenda.

II Bringing ‘reproduction’ into geography

Within geography, population geography was traditionally the first subdiscipline to study questions of reproduction through a focus on fertility, however, doing so in a rather quantitative fashion. Thereby, population geography has for long neglected not only the intimate and embodied experiences of reproduction but also the biopolitics behind narratives of ‘population’ growth and decline. Calls for a greater engagement with social theory and attention to the multiple relationships between demographic questions, (geo)politics, culture, and mundane life (Ginsburg and Rapp, 1995; Robbins and Smith, 2017; Tyner, 2013) have resulted in ‘more nuanced views of power and politics [in population geography]’ (Robbins and Smith, 2017: 205). Tyner (2013: 702) pushes the subdiscipline towards a politicized approach that asks, ‘Within any given place, who lives, who dies, and who decides?’ Departing from these questions, critical feminist and Black approaches to bio- and necropolitics in geography have started to ask whose bodies and social groups’ reproduction is desired and facilitated and whose reproductive futures are denied and discarded (Krupar and Ehlers, 2017; Pulido and De Lara, 2018; Schultz, 2019, 2023; Schurr, 2017; Smith and Vasudevan, 2017; Sziarto, 2017; Wang, 2017). This body of work not only relates directly to core questions of reproductive justice but also critically questions the ways population geography has been disciplinarily established within a eugenic and Malthusian genealogy. It shows population geography’s problematic linkages to global population politics and the (mis)use of demographic knowledge production for racist and eugenic politics and settler colonialism.

This criticism of the field of population geography led to the development of the new subfield of reproductive geographies. Over the last decade, intimate geopolitics (Brickell, 2014; Campos-Delgado and Côté-Boucher, 2024; Perler et al., 2023; Smith, 2012, 2020; Turner and Vera Espinoza, 2021; Tyerman, 2021) and reproductive geographies (Bagelman and Gitome, 2021; Boyer, 2018; Coddington, 2021a, 2021b; England et al., 2018; Hiemstra, 2021) have emerged as new fields of geographic research.

Building on geography’s turn towards the body (Longhurst, 1997; Nelson, 1999; Parr, 2002; Teather, 1999), the material turn (Boyer, 2018; Colls, 2007; Colls and Evans, 2013; Fannin et al., 2014; Marquardt and Strüver, 2018; Militz et al., 2021; Strüver, 2020), and the emotional, affective, and intimate turn (Bondi et al., 2005; Militz and Schurr, 2016; Moss and Donovan, 2017; Pratt, 2012; Schurr et al., 2023), intimate geopolitics, and reproductive geographies have diversified and politicized the approaches to reproduction in geography.

The field-shaping edited book ‘Reproductive Geographies: Bodies, Places and Politics’ (England et al., 2018: 5) departs by stating that ‘reproductive justice movements and new reproductive technologies are raising important questions about the changing social and spatial dimensions of reproductive life’. The edited volume, however, misses the opportunity to develop a holistic reproductive justice research agenda for geography. At the same time, we consider the edited book as the point of departure for geographers’ engagement with reproductive justice as it puts questions of reproductive rights and social inequalities onto the agenda of human geography.

III Population geographies and antinatalist policies

Geographers have already drawn on the concept of reproductive justice in their critical reflections on population geography’s history as a field that was disciplinarily established within eugenic and Malthusian genealogies (Coddington, 2021a; Hendrixson et al., 2020; Hübl, 2019, 2022; Siedhoff et al., 2023). These scholars criticize the subdiscipline’s lacking reappraisal of this history and its use of quantitative measures of demographic development, population distribution or fertility without reflecting inherent Malthusian presumptions and colonial biases of statistical knowledge production (Bendix and Schultz, 2018). Critical approaches to population geography argue that the epistemic object ‘population’ itself is highly contingent and needs fundamental epistemological reflection (Bhatia et al., 2020).

Feminist researchers suggest the critical notion of ‘populationism’ (Hendrixson et al., 2020). It refers to ‘ideologies that attribute social and ecological ills to human numbers’ (Angus and Butler, 2011: xxi) and questions how population studies support neo-Malthusian global policies which consider ‘population dynamics’ the central cause of different global crises ranging from food insecurity over climate change to migration. Authors of the Gender, Place and Culture special issue on populationism criticize the abstract and decontextualized use of global (or national) population numbers and call instead for a situated understanding of the multifaceted roots of current socioeconomic and ecological crises (Bendix et al., 2020; Bhatia et al., 2020; Ojeda et al., 2020; Rivera-Amarillo and Camargo, 2020; Shaw and Wilson, 2020).

Critical and feminist geographers show that the knowledge produced by population geography and population studies has contributed to an unequal landscape of projections towards different populations at a global and local level suggesting whose reproduction should be averted with the aim to reduce fertility rates – especially among racialized and poor populations (Bendix et al., 2020; Bendix and Schultz, 2018; Hendrixson et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2019; Smith and Vasudevan, 2017). This body of research speaks to the reproductive justice framework and has welcomed it as a helpful concept to analyse normative, unconsented, or even forced contraception or sterilization programmes (Schultz, 2023).

Antinatalist politics involve projections into specific narratives of the future (Smith and Vasudevan, 2017). The ‘demographization’ of social and ecological problems has resulted in an uneven geography of anti- and pronatalist policies (Schultz, 2022). Whereas pronatalist policies are directed towards people in the Global North who are white, educated, middle-upper class, and hold citizenship status, antinatalist policies target mainly poor and rural People of Colour residing in the Global South as well as proletarian, migrants, ‘unhealthy’ and illegalized social groups in the Global North. Wilson (2018: 3), for example, shows how the Indian state in the aftermath of explicit population control policies continues to target ‘poor, Dalit, Adivasi, and religious minority women’ with coercive mass sterilizations and unsafe injectable programs.

Feminist geographers have employed the concept of the global intimate to study the multiscalar relations between global programs of population control, national health policies, and intimate experiences of infertility, sterilization, and contraception (Perler et al., 2023; Perler and Schurr, 2021; Schurr, 2017). The influence of global philanthrocapitalist forces on the reproductive lives of people in the Global South becomes obvious in Shaw and Wilson’s (2020) paper, in which they study the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s strategies towards population and agricultural policies. Globally acting development agencies promote, for example, the contraceptive injection Sayana Press, particularly in Western and Eastern African countries, as a way to foster reproductive autonomy and self-determination (Bendix et al., 2020). These programs are deeply rooted in antinatalist aims of family planning policies within the FP2020 agenda, a program of a network of transnational and national donors, NGOs, government agencies, and Big Pharma (Hendrixson, 2019). They are embedded in a strategic focus of current global family planning programs on long-acting reversible contraception propagating hormonal injectables and implants for certain world regions having a supposed ‘population problem’. Such programs have been highly contested within global feminist reproductive health struggles for decades (Bendix and Schultz, 2018).

Research that critiques population geography and antinatalist policies for their colonial and Malthusian present offers four main insights to inform a research agenda for geographies of reproductive justice. Firstly, geographies of bio- and necropolitics have revealed how access to reproductive rights and individual choices about sexuality and reproduction are always inherently linked to state, transnational, and global politics that address not just individuals but population(s). Secondly, we cannot understand today’s reproductive injustices without understanding the afterlife and sedimentation of violent past bio-/necropolitics (Hartman, 2016; Pérez Hérnandez and Schurr, 2025). Thirdly, asking whose motherhood, parenthood, and children are desired and protected by society and the state and whose are discriminated against, stigmatized, and considered disposable allows us to analyse how certain bodies and future lives are valued over others within a spatially, socially, and racially uneven geography (Perler et al., 2023; Roberts, 1997, 2021; Schultz, 2022, 2023; Schurr, 2017). Fourthly, reproductive/pronatalist and disreproductive/antinatalist policies and technologies always need to be analysed as two sides of the same coin. Contesting the basic assumptions of population geographies enables to contribute to a geography of reproductive justice by showing the linkages between pro- and antinatalist policies and their intersectional effects on certain social groups in terms of geography, gender, race, sexuality, and ability, among others.

IV Health geographies and the spatially uneven access to reproductive healthcare

Geographies of (reproductive) health, which focus on the geographically and socially uneven access to healthcare provision, are an important field that can contribute to developing a research agenda for geographies of reproductive justice. Research in this field studies the ‘raced, classed, and gendered (among others) dimensions of inaccessibility’ (Lopez, 2019: 840) to reproductive healthcare. Lopez (2019) shows that despite the increase in enrolment in Medicaid, maternal mortality rates have continued to be over-proportionally high for Black women. Revealing that maternal and infant mortality vary significantly between different regions in the United States, she calls for the need of a spatial analysis to understand the (lacking) access to reproductive healthcare. In a similar vein, Nash (2021) emphasizes the importance of a geographical approach to unequal health outcomes regarding maternity and infant mortality. She engages with the concept of reproductive justice to study racist obstetric violence and Black women’s lack of access to reproductive health in the United States. Analysing the spatial webs of legal and medical actors involved in pregnancy, birth, and postnatal care, she argues that a singular focus on the hospital as the preeminent site of obstetric violence and medical racism responsible for the over-proportionally high deadly outcomes of Black women and their children is far too narrow. Instead, reproductive justice activists and scholars should consider a broader scope of actors when undertaking a multiscalar analysis of reproductive injustices. Sziarto (2017) also focuses on the racialized politics of reproduction, discussing infant mortality in Milwaukee’s Black community which is three times higher than for white babies. Calling for the need to craft an ‘anti-racist biopolitics’ (Sziarto, 2017: 315), she is in line with the reproductive justice movement when arguing that free choice is not enough but that racial, social, and economic justice are necessary preconditions for reproductive justice. Komposch et al.’s (2024) research on female migrant farmworkers’ access to reproductive health services in Spain shows in a similar fashion that free access to healthcare is not enough. They demonstrate that ‘liminality [in terms of lacking access to reproductive healthcare] often manifests itself through the absence of infrastructures, information, and resources rather than through visible barriers’ (Komposch et al., 2024: 8).

Lack of access to reproductive healthcare can also result in reproductive im/mobilities (Schurr, 2019; Speier et al., 2020). The uneven and unequal access to reproductive healthcare and dis/reproductive technologies engenders all kinds of mobilities in which ‘people travel abroad to seek treatment they have no access to or cannot afford in their home country’ (Schurr, 2018: 2). In general, im/mobility is one of the most applied concepts by geographers to study reproductive issues. Geographers have studied why and how people travel in search of in vitro fertilization treatment (e.g. Schurr, 2018), oocyte donation (e.g. Gunnarsson Payne, 2015; Perler and Schurr, 2021), surrogacy (e.g. Bhattacharjee, 2021; Schurr and Militz, 2018), and sex selection (e.g. Bhatia, 2018). Without explicitly referring to reproductive justice, they show how reproductive mobilities are embedded in colonial and postcolonial histories, emphasizing the ‘legacy of colonial plunder’ and the ‘ruthless utilization of the “native” body for western profit’ (Lau, 2018: 672). When linking women’s decision to provide their reproductive bodies/body parts for the national or global fertility market to culturalized obligations of care and the lack of a social welfare state, these scholars address key questions of reproductive justice (again, often without referring to the concept itself).

The recent rise of geographic literature on access to abortion and the linked im/mobilities incorporates reproductive justice more systematically than earlier work on mobilities (for an overview see Calkin et al., 2022). Given that the reproductive justice movement emerged in response to the white liberal feminist movement’s exclusive focus on abortion rights, this body of work recognizes this potential dissonance (Engle, 2022). Feminist geographers have begun to demonstrate how reproductive justice can be incorporated into scholarship on abortion mobilities and how geography’s attention to the ‘more intricate and often “invisible” realities of gender, poverty, rurality, and immigration statuses, as well as the intersections among these is crucial’ (Statz and Pruitt, 2019: 1107).

Given the increase of ‘abortion deserts’ not only in the United States but also in other contexts in which right-wing and conservative politics have gained force (e.g. Poland), ‘the burden of distance’ (Statz and Pruitt, 2019: 1107) not only implies long travels, time away from work, and care duties and severe health issues, but may eventually result in being denied the right for abortion when travelling is impossible. Distance, as a key geographical concept, is thus not merely about the physical distance but about topological distance (Katz, 2001) dependent on public transport, availability of information, legal entitlement, border regimes, and affordability. As recent research on abortion im/mobilities shows, gender, race, and class shape women’s ability to travel for an abortion (Calkin, 2019; Freeman, 2017; Jackson, 2020; Murray and Khan, 2020; Side, 2016, 2020), abortion medication’s cross-border mobility offers a way out for those not being able to travel for an abortion (Calkin, 2021, 2023). In sum, reproductive and abortion im/mobilities result from the fact that access to dis/reproductive technologies has not only a different cost in different places, but that certain technologies and services are only legal in certain places.

This second body of research on the uneven and stratified access to reproductive health and dis/reproductive technologies speaks to key concerns of the reproductive justice movements that fight for access to different kinds of reproductive healthcare ranging from alternative birth spaces over abortion to culturally and race-sensitive quality reproductive healthcare. We argue that mapping the uneven spatially distribution of healthcare institutions is a first step towards reproductive justice as it renders the often invisibilized neglect of certain communities and regions by state authorities visible. The multiscalar approach of geographies of reproductive justice allows the analysis of reproductive injustices in relation to questions of, for example, social inequality, racism, dispossession, working conditions, or imprisonment. Such a multiscalar approach pushes reproductive geographies to expand the scope of actors and spaces studied beyond the more traditional actors and sites such as gynaecologists, midwives, or hospitals.

V Environmental geographies and reproductive in/justice

A growing strand of literature in geography connects debates on reproductive rights not only with social but also environmental justice. As outlined by the SisterSong Women of Colour Reproductive Justice Collective, reproductive justice also includes the right to parent children in safe and sustainable communities (Ross and Solinger, 2017). This right can be interfered by multiple forces, such as environmental racism, urban segregation, or unsafe places for families such as war spaces or refugee camps.

A fast-growing number of geographers stress on thinking reproductive and environmental justice together, since ‘environmental justice shares with reproductive justice the essential and broad ideological frame of social justice with a focus on the whole instead of the sole’ (Cook, 2007: 32). It is important to understand environment in a broad sense: ‘By expanding our conception of the environment to include the place where we live, toil, and work, we underscore that all environmental matters are reproductive’ (Gay-Antaki, 2023: 18). Thinking the two social justice frameworks together not only allows to see reproductive health concerns linked with toxic exposures or the planetary climate crisis but also illustrates other systemic issues of discrimination of marginalized communities (Sasser, 2023).

Cairns (2022), for example, analyses Black mothers’ struggles to secure clean water for their children in a highly lead-polluted neighbourhood in New Jersey, USA. She concludes that the slow violence of environmental harm demands especially from women increased social reproductive labour to cure and care children, partners, and parents whose health is affected by the environmental toxins. Morrell and Blackwell (2022) draw similar conclusions showing how urban racial segregation pushes Black women in the neighbourhoods that are most environmentally degraded in Milwaukee County, USA. Urban segregation is one example of how place matters in understanding reproductive in/justices. Who has the right and access to parent their children in green cities and neighbourhoods with clean water? And who does not? Where does environmental pollution manifest and who’s bodies and reproductive capacities are getting affected by it? Jokela-Pansini’s (2022) research in the environmentally hazardous region of Taranto, Italy, unveils the deleterious impact of toxic air pollution on women’s reproductive health. She reveals that mothers’ apprehensions concerning environmental pollution compound their overall anxieties about pregnancy, breastfeeding, and uncertainties surrounding their reproductive well-being (Jokela-Pansini, 2022; Jokela-Pansini and Militz, 2022).

Reproductive justice also plays a key role at the intersection of mobility and agricultural labour. Within this domain, the prevalence of reproductive health issues resulting from the exposure to pesticides and unfavourable working conditions has become an inherent part of the daily lived experiences of agricultural workers (Barbour and Guthman, 2018; Cohen and Caxaj, 2018; Galarneau, 2013; Komposch et al., 2024; Sabin et al., 2024). The arduous nature of this work, coupled with its low wages, often falls upon marginalized communities, including migrants, People of Colour, and indigenous populations (McCovey and Salter, 2009) – highlighting the profound interconnection between reproductive justice and environmental racism. Barbour and Guthman (2018) found evidence for reproductive health damages in California’s strawberry industry, where female migrant farmworkers reported severe harm, including miscarriages and birth defects. These women also experienced mental stress due to the ‘additional moral burden on women farmworkers who are made responsible for protecting future populations’ (Barbour and Guthman, 2018: 1). These examples serve as reminders that environmental justice and reproductive justice are inextricably linked not only to factors of race, gender, ethnicity, and class but also to the element of mobility.

As already discussed above, the dynamics of reproductive in/justice unfold across diverse scales, ranging from the global and national to the local and intimately embodied level. The value of a multiscalar approach in comprehending reproductive injustices is further exemplified when examining instances of climate injustices. For example, in their research, Rishworth and Dixon (2018) delve into the historical foundations of inequality, poverty, and the precarious environmental conditions engendered by food insecurity and fluctuating climates in North Ghana, which lead to alarming maternal and child health outcomes. Or a study by Komposch (2025b) illustrates how the worsening of droughts in Spain and Morocco, coupled with repressive migration regimes, are shaping changes in the mobility patterns of migrant agricultural workers, resulting in longer periods of family separation and thus challenging the right to raise children in safe conditions. While such climate-change-related ‘geoviolence’ (Komposch, 2025b) – referring to anthropogenic environmental harm – can be traced back to global actors within capitalist economic flows, its effects are manifested across the planet, often locally and intimately experienced through extreme weather conditions, and deeply embodied in the physical and emotional well-being of entire families. Thus, embracing a multiscalar perspective of the ‘planetary-intimate’ (Komposch, 2025a) proves useful in discerning the intricate web of reproductive injustices and their interconnectedness with climate and environmental factors.

Integrative geographies of reproductive justice thus bring together insights from both physical and human geographies, allowing for a deeper understanding of the connections between the planetary climate crisis, environmental degradations, and everyday reproductive challenges, such as reproductive health problems or emotional distress in families. Further long-term, multi-method research is needed to allow for a better understanding of the multiscalar shape of geographies of reproductive justice and thus facilitate the identification of potential actors and sites of change. Furthermore, we join other feminist scholars in calling for a broader understanding of reproduction that integrates socio-ecological relations as a central moment of more-than-human care relations and bio-/necropolitics (Bhattacharjee, 2018; Murphy, 2017). Murphy’s (2017: 141) concept of ‘distributed reproduction’ points to the importance of turning from questioning ‘how much and which bodies get to reproduce, to what distributions of life chances and what kinds of infrastructures get reproduced’. Investigating these kinds of queries and thereby incorporating a holistic understanding of reproduction into geographies of reproductive justice enables to address pressing planetary challenges, thereby contributing to what Lobo et al. (2024) call ‘planetary justice’.

VI Abolitionist geographies and the right to parent free of state violence

Abolitionist geographies have potentially much to contribute to a research agenda for geographies of reproductive justice, but this connection has not been much developed so far (Gilmore, 2023; for an overview see Hamlin, 2023). Abolitionism, like reproductive justice, is a political-theoretical framework which currently gains much attention in critical geography and social science more broadly. Abolitionist geographies focus on the spatial arrangements and the scalar entanglements between global racial capitalism, settler colonialism, racialized state violence, and the effects and execution of violent state ideologies and policies on lower institutional scales such as the federal state, the county, the city, or the prison administration (Loick and Thompson, 2023). In recent years, border regimes and other forms of institutional violence in the context of the ‘welfare state’ and social and health policies have also come into view (Laufenberg and Thompson, 2021; Walia, 2013).

At the centre of abolitionist geographies remains the analysis of the spatiality and scalarity of carceral violence and the prison-industrial complex (Hamlin, 2023). Highlighting the challenges of parenting in highly institutionalized and regulated prison spaces, carceral geographers address struggles at the heart of reproductive justice without, however, necessarily referencing the concept (e.g. Etter, 2022; Moran et al., 2017; Pallot and Piacentini, 2012; Schliehe, 2017, 2021). Smith et al. (2019: 145) reveal how ‘forced sterilization’s denial of reproductive rights, reproduced in foster care and incarceration alike, and in the carceralization of urban spaces […] destroy Black family life’. They discuss the effects of patriarchal white supremacy as dictating ‘who gets to have ancestors and who gets to have children’, asking ‘in what contexts are children considered innocent and requiring protection?’ (Smith et al., 2019: 145). Meanwhile, in Brazil, reproductive justice advocates debate how to ally with the mothers’ movements within peripheric neighbourhoods who protest against police violence and the murder of their children (Schultz, 2023). These examples illustrate how centring reproductive justice in abolitionist carceral geographies’ inquiries can contribute to understanding and ultimately challenging the ways in which prison spatialities and police violence impend social relations of parenting (Dottolo and Stewart, 2008; Loureiro, 2020; Ouassak, 2020; Smith, 2016).

Denying reproductive rights and breaking family ties in the context of migration and border regimes is another issue at the intersection of abolitionist geographies and reproductive justice (Coddington, 2021b; Hiemstra, 2021; Komposch et al., 2024; Torres, 2018; Torres et al., 2022, 2023). Gahman and Hjalmarson (2019) draw on Walia’s (2013) concept of ‘border imperialism’ and propose the spatial perspective of ‘deracination’ as socio-spatial processes of violent dispersing of inhabitants from a territory. A reproductive justice perspective links deracination with the violent tearing apart – emotionally and spatially – of communitarian interpersonal and interfamily ties in the context of migration and border regimes. Family fracturing has many faces, from the history of national borders being imposed on indigenous communities, dividing them and ascribing them to two different nationalities to the tearing apart of families through restrictive migration policies (Gahman and Hjalmarson, 2019; Smith et al., 2019). Eaves (2019: 1317) also refers to the persistence of gendered violence ‘justified and/or upheld by the state’ and highlights the zero-tolerance immigration policy in the United States since 2018. As part of a broad strategy of criminalization, detention, and deportation of immigrants, there has been a ‘traumatic process of family separation, where children are detained separately from their parents’ (Eaves, 2019: 1317). Komposch et al. (2024) and Pratt (2012) show how migrants are forced to leave their children behind within gendered temporal labour migration regimes.

Reproductive justice as a concept with abolitionist claims itself (Roberts, 2021) enables to broaden abolitionist geographies’ scope towards violence against intersectional reproductive bodies and oppression of parents denying them their right to parent a child at all or in good conditions. Both conceptual debates share the concern of how to analyse institutional and state violence in the context of struggles for access to public services and social policies. This basic abolitionist question provides the framework for the search for a political programme that is conceptualized as anti-reformist reforms (Loick and Thompson, 2023). Nash (2021), for example, works in her research on anti-Black obstetric violence through this challenge for both the abolitionist project and reproductive justice. She asks what a critical stance might look like that both advocates for access to respectful public care and simultaneously positions itself against the violence inscribed within it: ‘At once, reproductive justice advocates contend that Black mothers should have access to institutional medicine, even as they underscore that institutional medicine is the site of violence’ (Nash, 2021: 314).¹

Altogether, work in geography enables an intersectional view of the multiscalar dimensions of repressive statehood and broadens thereby the scope of abolitionist research. At the same time, abolitionist approaches shed new light on reproductive justice’s claim to parent children in good social conditions and free from violence. Abolitionist geographies thus contribute to a reproductive justice research agenda in geography by urging to pay attention to how reproductive relations are shaped and governed by disciplinary or violent practices of state institutions. Struggles for access to public services in the field of reproductive health and social welfare need to constantly reflect on how public services can be claimed while avoiding state violence on marginalized parents and families through state institutions.

VII Taking the justice claim seriously: Towards a justice-based agenda in reproductive geographies

A research agenda for geographies of reproductive justice does not only turn around the themes outlined in the previous sections. The question of justice – as an important dimension of this intersectional feminist framework – needs to be at the centre of such a research agenda. Adopting a research agenda for geographies of reproductive justice hence means being committed to a concept of justice that is transformative and tackles structural power relations and intersectional inequalities (Boyer et al., 2023; Capeheart and Milovanovic, 2020). Such a justice-based agenda departs from the conviction that reproductive relations are framed by and are at the heart of intersectional feminist struggles – from the daily and invisible ones to those that are organized and loud. The global intimate spaces of reproduction are embedded in translocal power relations and must be understood as inherently political spaces. Researching about these power saturated spaces and in collaboration with feminist intersectional social movements means that researchers cannot stay neutral and objective but that their research is inherently political. Geographers working within a reproductive justice agenda should be committed to advancing the transformative politics of these movements. Geographies of reproductive justice, hence, are challenged to position themselves in their research vis-à-vis the transformative, collective, anti-racist, decolonial, antipatriarchal, anticapitalist, and/or communitarian utopian visions embedded in the framework of reproductive justice. This implies for geographers to go beyond the interpretation and presentation of research results and to question and rethink the research process itself, making it more inclusive, democratic, transparent, and accessible to the (marginalized) communities affected by the questions researched.

We follow Hopkin’s (2020: 383) call in his progress paper for a social geography that is committed to social justice and that ‘should be explicitly political in advocating for it’. Questions of social and reproductive justice are underpinned by questions of spatial justice and are inherently ‘a struggle over geography’ (Soja, 2010: 2), as the sections above about the spatial uneven development of anti- and pronatalist policies and uneven access to reproductive healthcare outline. Thus, geographers have a role to play not only in researching these spatial (reproductive) injustices but also in contributing with their research to spatial (reproductive) justice. As Hopkins (2020: 382) argues, ‘social geographers have particular strengths in exploring lived experiences of those suffering due to social inequalities, including offering critiques of problematic government policies or welfare regimes’. Reproductive justice as a specific form of social justice needs careful attention by geographers to understand how it might play out for particular groups and how these groups envision reproductive justice for themselves in their communities.

Our agenda for geographies of reproductive justice needs to be understood as a call for action in these downright frightening times, when reproductive injustices result from multiple crises: from the climate crisis that destroys livelihoods and forces migration, to the welfare crisis with its cuts in social policies and health infrastructures, to the political crisis characterized by increasing attacks of the global (far-)right on basic reproductive rights and the diversity of sexual and family life. All these crises severely affect the intimate experiences of people, especially marginalized social groups. The consequences of politicians and parties that are elected often transcend national boundaries, as evidenced, for instance, by the substantial reduction in global spending on reproductive health under Trump (see, e.g. Tamang et al., 2020).

Geographers committed to this research agenda can promote reproductive justice not only in (1) research but also through (2) teaching, (3) in their academic institutions, and (4) in actively engaging in public discourse.

(1) Research: Beyond researching the topics outlined above, geographers committed to a justice-based approach can support reproductive justice movements’ intervention in protest campaigns as well as participatory planning processes or collaborate with them to formulate political and institutional demands, for instance, to improve their rights to parent also in those spaces that are deemed to rather impend parenting. They can support abolitionist interventions to rethink with the affected groups how more women* and family-friendly maternity wards, birth houses, or family wards in prison should look like in the sense of non-reformist reforms that are able to challenge existing power structures (see Loick/Thompson 2023). Geographers can work hand in hand with social movements deploying their participatory, (counter-)cartographic, or creative methods to support political struggles, for example, against the closure or privatization of healthcare institutions or against repressive practices within public healthcare. In so doing, they can endorse calls of the reproductive justice movement to make visible and value – also economically – collective care and community structures. Finally, geographic justice-based research can contribute to building transnational feminist solidarities across borders of race, class, and nation by mapping and visualizing stratified and uneven access to reproductive healthcare and reproductive im/mobilities.

(2) Teaching: Reproductive justice can be promoted through teaching and classroom interactions (Loder et al., 2020; Reyes, 2023; Ross, 2018). Using concrete examples and mapping exercises with data sets from the local contexts of the students can help introduce them to key ideas and demands of the reproductive justice movement. Broscoe et al. (2023) have provided students with publicly available data to map the deterioration of abortion availability in Ohio, an abortion-hostile state, after Roe vs. Wade was overturned. In response to anti-abortion activism on the campus, Hann (2023) developed a reproductive justice course designed to show students how gender, class, race, ability, sexual orientation, immigration status, and other multifaceted lines of oppression shape one’s reproductive self-determination. Readings, films, guest speakers, daily reflections, and discussions that centred marginalized voices helped students examine the tenets of reproductive justice and apply its concepts to their lived experiences in a religiously affiliated institution in an abortion desert. Ultimately, teaching geographies of reproductive justice should strive ‘to help people become passionate about reproductive politics and discern them in nearly every aspect of human endeavour’ (Ross, 2018: 177).

(3) Academic institutions: As members of the academic community, we have the possibility to work towards more reproductive justice in our universities. Geographers can play a key role in advocating for, designing, and governing family-friendly and reproductive just academic spaces. (Feminist) geographers have already discussed their reproductive experiences in academia and shown ways forward towards more reproductive justice in academic institutions. They have, for instance, written about their protests against visa restrictions for migrant researchers and/or their family members (Murrey and Hassan, 2024), struggles for reproductive health services at university such as lactation rooms (Boswell-Penc and Boyer, 2007), menstrual politics (Nash, 2023), gender-inclusive toilets (Peng and Wu, 2023), safe reporting systems for sexual harassment and violence (Bartos, 2020; Dowler et al., 2014), and home office arrangements to consolidate academic work and care obligations (Gibb, 2022). Basing our work around a (reproductive) justice agenda, as geographers, we can become a ‘feminist ear’ (Ahmed, 2021) to hear complaints of reproductive injustices taking place in academic institutions and share the work with others to redress them. Academic spaces have the potential to function as exploratory and progressive sites where new reproductive policies and forms of reproductive justice are developed, tested, and adjusted for subsequent incorporation into local, sub-national, or national policymaking.

(4) Public discourses: Research, teaching, and institutional work on reproductive justice can and should inform and support reproductive justice struggles in the societies and communities researchers live in and/or work with. This implies rethinking the ways we perform our research and the formats and styles of writing in which we publish our results. Feminist geography offers a wide range of creative methodologies for such an endeavour. Perler’s (2022) research on transnational oocyte donation can serve as an example of how invisibilized voices – in this case, the voice of Spanish oocyte donors – can be rendered visible in public debates when working with creative methods like photography (Perler and Sánchez Pérez, 2024) and develop immersive and a/effective forms of science communication such as research-art exhibitions (Winkel et al., 2023).

VIII Towards geographies of reproductive justice

This paper calls for a reproductive justice research agenda in geography to address current global challenges and advance geography’s conceptual thinking and research practice with reference to reproductive relations and justice. For long, geography has tended to sideline questions of reproduction. Over the last decade(s), the fields of feminist geographies, intimate geopolitics, and reproductive geographies have started to engage with reproductive relations. However, the reproductive justice framework of the Black feminist movement has only recently been taken up. Our tour d’horizon of the state of the literature in Anglophone human geography shows that many of the debates that address issues of reproductive justice have traditionally been relegated to various subfields such as population geographies, geopolitics, health geographies, feminist geographies, environmental geographies, abolitionist geographies, and geographies of migration. Reviewing the already existing and potential connections between these fields and the concept of reproductive justice, this paper develops a research agenda for geographies of reproductive justice. We argue that such a research agenda can serve as a broader umbrella to connect and bridge these diverse debates. It further allows us to challenge and overcome the Malthusian thinking embedded in the genealogy of the discipline by questioning a separate quantitative entity (and research object) called ‘population’.

By expanding the perspective on reproductive relations, the reproductive justice framework also transcends (feminist) geography’s research on reproduction by shifting and expanding research questions and economies of attention to other spaces and structural relations where ‘reproduction’ takes place. First, it shifts from a primary focus on gender towards an intersectional lens to map unequal access to reproductive healthcare infrastructures and services by considering the lived realities along lines of gender but also sexuality, race, class, citizenship, residency status, rural/urban, im/mobility, dis/ability, etc. Beyond such an intersectional perspective on reproductive health, geographies of reproductive justice also focus on how certain spaces, such as social housing projects, community centres, maternity wards, foster care, prisons, or refugee camps, impend or enable social and reproductive relations like parenting for certain groups.

Second, it expands current work in reproductive geographies on how place, im/mobility, and distance matter in understanding reproductive in/justices. Attention to how one’s place or residence, one’s resources to be mobile, and the distances to access reproductive healthcare infrastructure but also to a green, clean, safe, and healthy environment in which to raise one’s children is crucial to meeting the demands of the reproductive justice movement. Employing a research agenda for reproductive justice in geography can enhance these concepts by analysing how contemporary migration and border regimes violate reproductive rights and fracture families. Its transnational scope can further help to reflect reproductive injustices in the uneven and hierarchical global fertility industry.

Third, it builds on and expands feminist geographies of scale (e.g. Perler and Schurr, 2021; Pratt and Rosner, 2006) by shedding light on how the intimate experiences of conception, contraception, abortion, miscarriage, pregnancy, birth, and parenting are always enmeshed in broader political, cultural, economic, and ecological structures. A multiscalar analysis that attends to the entanglements of scale proves essential to grasp how planetary geophysical changes or global and national anti- and pronatalist agendas affect intimate experiences. Geographers’ work on scale jumping in the context of social movements (e.g. Andolina et al., 2005; Nicholls, 2007) allows for the simultaneous development of resistance and emancipation for reproductive justice.

Finally, addressing reproductive justice means necessarily addressing and confronting today’s bio-/necropolitics and considering how reproductive, body, and population politics are inextricably linked when it comes to issues of reproductive justice. The planetary future is increasingly under threat. The future of life itself is contested through climate, financial, political, and social crises resulting from the ‘white (m)Anthropocene’ (Di Chiro, 2017), the (post)colonial ‘plantationocene’ (Wolford, 2021), respectively, and the ‘racial capitalocene’ (Saldanha, 2020). A ‘Malthusian reflex’ (Schultz, 2021) has re-emerged in the climate change debate, which uses the strategy of demographization – claiming that the climate crisis can be addressed by reducing birth rates and controlling demographic growth (Ojeda et al., 2020; Sasser, 2014, 2018). This ‘Malthusian reflex’ can be observed in diverse political milieus from a technocratic mainstream to right-wing nationalist positions to some feminist and climate activist calls for a birth strike (Schultz, 2022). These strategies are incompatible with emancipatory feminist and decolonial projects of social transformation that are committed to fighting global power relations, capitalist exploitation, and social inequality rather than the fertility rates of some dispossessed and marginalized social groups. Geographies of reproductive justice have much to offer to understand the uneven effects of climate change and intersecting crises on marginalized communities. Moreover, the intersectional feminist movement approach of reproductive justice helps to formulate critiques against neo-Malthusian agendas and the associated fascist politics with their basic narratives of innate human inequality. Drawing on the reproductive justice framework – which builds on a long history of anti-Malthusian feminist, anti-racist, anti-eugenic and anti-fascist struggles – enables researchers and activists alike to ground intersectional reproductive politics in these histories. By centring on justice, geographers who work with the framework of reproductive justice are able to address the ‘slow and fast violence’ (Christian and Dowler, 2019) towards marginalized social groups by connecting bio- and necropolitical debates and questioning the uneven geographies that determine ‘whose lives count’ (Butler, 2004, 2009) or whose are considered ‘disposable’ (Pratt et al., 2017; Wright, 2006; Yates, 2011) in the current world order. Geographies of reproductive justice thus build on the principle that all lives matter equally rather than valuing some future lives over others. Bringing geographies of reproductive justice into our research, teaching, academic institutions, and public discourses can foster efforts to build and sustain a just socio-ecological environment for all.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (197429, 216876).

ORCID iDs

Carolin Schurr

Susanne Schultz

Nora Komposch

Nina Etter

Laura Perler

Yolinliztli Pérez-Hérnandez

Note

Author biographies

Carolin Schurr is a Professor of Social and Cultural Geography at the University of Bern. As a feminist geographer she studies how global processes affect people's intimate lives of reproduction. Her work focuses on reproductive geopolitics, family fracturing and bio-/necropolitics. As co-director of the mLAB she advances new methods at the intersections of art, digital media and feminist research and develops embodied forms of science communication.

Susanne Schultz is a private university lecturer in sociology at the Goethe University of Frankfurt/M. Her current research areas are bio-, necro- and population policies, reproductive relations, migration and family policies, state theory and intersectional feminism. She is author of Reproductive Racism. Migration, Birth Control, and the Specter of Population, published by Anthem Press.

Nora Komposch is a postdoctoral researcher in economic geography at the University of Zurich, working on the intersections of labor, migration, and gender. In her doctoral research at the University of Bern, she examined the interrelation of reproduction and production in the context of agricultural labor migration.

Nina Etter is a master's student in the Social and Cultural Geography research group at the University of Bern. Her research is situated in carceral geography, prison studies and feminist geopolitics. In her work, she aims to explore the intersections of incarceration and family dynamics with e specific focus on parenthood in prison.

Laura Perler is a postdoctoral researcher in the Social and Cultural Geography research group at the University of Bern. Trained as an anthropologist, in her PhD she has studied transnational egg donation and contributed to with her research public debates around the legalisation of egg donation, In her current proect, she studies asylum-seeking women's access to reproductive health care in Switzerland.

Yolinliztli Pérez-Hernández is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Geography, University of Bern. Their research bridges medical anthropology, science and technology studies, and reproductive governance to examine how lives and reproduction are differentially valued, Their work has focused on assisted reproductive technologies in France and sterilization practices in Mexico’s family planning programs.

References

Ahaki . Africa reproductive justice litigation alliance (ARJLA). In: Historical, Social and Political Determinants of SRHR. Gayaza Nakwero: Ahaki Institute. https://www.afyanahaki.org/africa-reproductive-justice-litigation-alliance/ (accessed 4 February 2025).

Ahmed

(2021) Complaint!. Durham: Duke University Press.

Andolina

Nina

Radcliffe

(2005) Multi-Ethnic Transnationalism. Indigenous Development in the Andes. Durham: Duke University press.

Angus

Butler

(2011) Too Many People? Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (2005) A New Vision for Advancing Our Movement for Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Justice. Atlanta: SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective. https://forwardtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ACRJ-A-New-Vision.pdf (accessed 28 July 2023).

Bagelman

Gitome

(2021) Birthing across borders: ‘contracting’ reproductive geographies. Dialogues in Human Geography 11(3): 352–373.

Barbour

Guthman

(2018) (En)gendering exposure: pregnant farmworkers and the inadequacy of pesticide notification. Journal of Political Ecology 25(1): 332–349.

Bartos

(2020) Relational spaces and relational care: campus sexual violence, intimate geopolitics and topological polis. Area 52(2): 261–268.

Bendix

Schultz

(2018) The political economy of family planning: population dynamics and contraceptive markets. Development and Change 49(2): 259–285.

10.

Bendix

Foley

Hendrixson

, et al. (2020) Targets and technologies: Sayana Press and Jadelle in contemporary population policies. Gender, Place & Culture 27(3): 351–369.

11.

Bhatia

(2018) Gender Before Birth: Sex Selection in a Transnational Context. Washington DC: University of Washington Press.

12.

Bhatia

Sasser

Ojeda

, et al. (2020) A feminist exploration of ‘populationism’: engaging contemporary forms of population control. Gender, Place & Culture 27(3): 333–350.

13.

Bhattacharjee

(2018) ‘It is a jail which does not let us be...’: negotiating spaces of commercial surrogacy by reproductive labourers in India. In: England

Fannin

Hazen

(eds) Reproductive Geographies: Bodies, Places and Politics. London: Routledge, 106–121.

14.

Bhattacharjee

(2021) ‘Wombs for rent’: the geographies of surrogate motherhood in India. Gender, Place & Culture 28(9): 1351–1355.

15.

Bondi

Davidson

Smith

(2005) Introduction: geography’s ‘emotional turn’. In: Davidson

Bondi

Smith

(eds) Emotional Geographies. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1–18.

16.

Boswell-Penc

Boyer

(2007) Expressing anxiety? breast pump usage in American wage workplaces. Gender, Place & Culture 14(5): 551–567.

17.

Boyer

(2018) Spaces and Politics of Motherhood. London, New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

18.

Boyer

Eaves

Fluri

(eds) (2023) Activist Feminist Geographies. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

19.

Brickell

(2014) “The whole world is watching”: intimate geopolitics of forced eviction and women’s activism in Cambodia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104(6): 1256–1272.

20.

Broscoe

Johns-Wolfe

McGowan

(2023) Mapping abortion access: teaching about abortion through geography. Feminist Pedagogy 3(7): 7.

21.

Butler

(2004) Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso.

22.

Butler

(2009) Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? London: Verso.

23.

Cairns

(2022) Caring about water in Camden, New Jersey: social reproduction against slow violence. Gender, Place & Culture 29(10): 1423–1445.

24.

Calkin

(2019) Healthcare not airfare! art, abortion and political agency in Ireland. Gender, Place & Culture 26(3): 338–361.

25.

Calkin

(2021) Legal geographies of medication abortion in the USA. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 47(2): 378–392.

26.

Calkin

(2023) Abortion Pills Go Global: Reproductive Freedom across Borders. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

27.

Calkin

Freeman

Moore

(2022) The geography of abortion: discourse, spatiality and mobility. Progress in Human Geography 46(6): 1413–1430.

28.

Campos-Delgado

Côté-Boucher

(2024) Tactics of empathy: the intimate geopolitics of Mexican migrant detention. Geopolitics 29(2): 471–494.

29.

Capeheart

Milovanovic

(2020) Social justice: theories, issues, and movements. In: Critical Issues in Crime and Society. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Revised and expanded edition.

30.

Christian

Dowler

(2019) Slow and fast violence: a feminist critique of binaries. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 18(5): 1066–1075.

31.

Coddington

(2021a) For political geographies of fertilities. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 39(8): 1675–1691.

32.

Coddington

(2021b) Incompatible with life: embodied borders, migrant fertility, and the UK’s ‘hostile environment’. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 39(8): 1711–1724.

33.

Cohen

Caxaj

(2018) Bodies and borders: migrant women farmworkers and the struggle for sexual and reproductive justice in British Columbia, Canada. Alternate Routes. A Journal of Critical Social Research 29: 90–117.

34.

Colls

(2007) Materialising bodily matter: intra-action and the embodiment of ‘fat’. Geoforum 38(2): 353–365.

35.

Colls

Evans

(2013) Making space for fat bodies? a critical account of ‘the obesogenic environment. Progress in Human Geography 38(6): 733–753.

36.

Cook

(2007) Environmental justice: woman is the first environment. In: SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective and Ross LJ (Eds) Reproductive Justice Briefing Book. Pro-Choice Public Education Project (PEP), 62–63.

37.

Criola (2021) Dossiê “Mulheres Negras e Justiça Reprodutiva”. Rio de Janeiro: Criola. https://criola.org.br/criola-lanca-dossie-com-retrato-de-violacoes-de-direitos-das-mulheres-negras-e-impactos-na-saude-reprodutiva/ (accessed 21 January 2025).

38.

Davies

(2018) Toxic space and time: slow violence, necropolitics, and petrochemical pollution. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 108(6): 1537–1553.

39.

Davis

(1981) Women, Race and Class. New York, NY: Randon House.

40.

Di Chiro

(2017) Welcome to the white (M)Anthropocene? a feminist-environmentalist critique. In: MacGregor

(ed) Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment. London: Routledge, 487–505.

41.

Dottolo

Stewart

(2008) Don’t ever forget, you’re a Black man in America: intersections of race, class and gender in encounters with the police. Sex Roles 59: 350–364.

42.

Dowler

Cuomo

Laliberte

(2014) Challenging ‘The Penn State Way’: a feminist response to institutional violence in higher education. Gender, Place & Culture 21(3): 387–394.

43.

Eaves

(2019) The imperative of struggle: feminist and gender geographies in the United States. Gender, Place & Culture 26(7–9): 1314–1321.

44.

England

Fannin

Hazen

(eds) (2018) Reproductive Geographies: Bodies, Places and Politics. London: Routledge.

45.

Engle

(2022) Abortion mobilities. Geography Compass 16(9): e12656.

46.

Etter

(2022) Carceral Geographies of Imprisoned Motherhood: Exploring Experiences of and Governance towards Mothers in the Women’s Prison in Hindelbank, Switzerland. Bachelor’s Thesis. Bern: University of Bern. https://www.geography.unibe.ch/research/social_and_cultural_geography/teaching/theses/index_eng.html (accessed 12 February 2024).

47.

Fannin

MacLeavy

Larner

, et al. (2014) Work, life, bodies: new materialisms and feminisms. Feminist Theory 15(3): 261–268.

48.

Freeman

(2017) The crime of choice: abortion border crossings from Chile to Peru. Gender, Place & Culture 24(6): 851–868.

49.

Gahman

Hjalmarson

(2019) Border imperialism, racial capitalism, and geographies of deracination. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 18(1): 107–129.

50.

Galarneau

(2013) Farm labor, reproductive justice: migrant women farmworkers in the US. Health and Human Rights 15(1): E144–160.

51.

Gay-Antaki

(2023) Embodied geographies of environmental justice: toward the sovereign right to wholly inhabit oneself. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 6(4): 2379–2399.

52.

Gibb

(2022) The home-based postdoctoral mother in the neoliberal university. Gender, Place & Culture 29(2): 248–272.

53.

Giddings

(1984) When and where I Enter. The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America. New York, NY: Bantam.

54.

Gilmore

(2023) Abolition Geography: Essays towards Liberation. London: Verso.

55.

Ginsburg

Rapp

(1995) Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

56.

Gunnarsson Payne

(2015) Reproduction in transition: cross-border egg donation, biodesirability and new reproductive subjectivities on the European fertility market. Gender, Place & Culture 22(1): 107–122.

57.

Hamlin

(2023) Geography’s abolitionist turn: notes on freedom, property, and the state. Progress in Human Geography 47(6): 755–768.

58.

Hann

(2023) “How did I not know any of this?” teaching reproductive justice in an abortion desert. Feminist Pedagogy 3(2): 2.

59.

Hartman

(2016) The belly of the world: a note on Black women’s labors. Souls 18(1): 166–173.

60.

Hendrixson

(2019) Population control in the troubled present: the ‘120 by 20’ target and implant access program. Development and Change 50(3): 786–804.

61.

Hendrixson

Ojeda

Sasser

, et al. (2020) Confronting populationism: feminist challenges to population control in an era of climate change. Gender, Place & Culture 27(3): 307–315.

62.

Hiemstra

(2021) Mothers, babies, and abortion at the border: contradictory U.S. policies, or targeting fertility? Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 39(8): 1692–1710.

63.

Hopkins

(2020) Social geography III: committing to social justice. Progress in Human Geography 45(2): 382–393.

64.

Hübl

(2019) Bevölkerung - ein unschuldiges Konzept in der Geographie? Entwurf einer feministischen Bevölkerungsgeographie im Anschluss an Donna Haraway. Frankfurt am Main: Goethe-Universität.

65.

Hübl

(2022) Reproductive justice: impulse für intersektionale Bevölkerungsgeographien. Geographica Helvetica 77(1): 133–139.

66.

Hyatt

McCoyd

JLM

Diaz

(2022) From abortion rights to reproductive justice: a call to action. Affilia 37(2): 194–203.

67.

Jackson

(2020) Trauma, tragedy and stigma: the discomforting narrative of reproductive rights in Northern Ireland. Emotion, Space and Society 35: 100678.

68.

Jokela-Pansini

(2022) Beyond “toxic bodies”: multiplied rationalities of women’s reproductive health in a high-risk environmental area (Taranto, Italy). Health & Place 77: 102900.

69.

Jokela-Pansini

Militz

(2022) Breathing new futures in polluted environments (Taranto, Italy). Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 47(3): 741–755.

70.

Katz

(2001) On the grounds of globalization: a topography for feminist political engagement. Signs 26(4): 1213–1234.

71.

Kitchen Politics (2021) Mehr Als Selbstbestimmung! Kämpfe Für Reproduktive Gerechtigkeit. Münster: Edition Assemblage.

72.

Komposch

Nora

(2025a) Bodies, Borders, Berry Fields: The Planetary-Intimate in Agricultural Labor Migration. Bern: University of Bern, Doctoral Thesis, In press.

73.

Komposch

Nora

(2025b) Geoviolence: Climate injustice, labor migration, and intimacy. Antipode, In press.

74.

Komposch

Schurr

Escriva

(2024) Intimate liminality in Spain’s berry industry. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 49(4): 1–14.

75.

Krupar

Ehlers

(2017) Biofutures: race and the governance of health. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35(2): 222–240.

76.

Kyere

(2021) Kämpfe verbinden. Reproductive Justice auf deutsche Verhältnisse übertragen. In: Kitchen Politics (ed.) Mehr Als Selbstbestimmung! Kämpfe Für Reproduktive Gerechtigkeit. Münster: Edition Assemblage, 61–71.

77.

Lau

(2018) A postcolonial framing of Indian commercial surrogacy: issues, representations, and orientalisms. Gender, Place & Culture 25(5): 666–685.

78.

Laufenberg

Thompson

(eds) (2021) Sicherheit - Rassismuskritische Und Feministische Beiträge. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.

79.

Lewis

(2018a) Cyborg uterine geography complicating ‘care’ and social reproduction. Dialogues in Human Geography 8(3): 300–316.

80.

Lewis

(2018b) International solidarity in reproductive justice: surrogacy and gender-inclusive polymaternalism. Gender, Place & Culture 25(2): 207–227.

81.

Lewis

(2022) Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation. London: Verso.

82.

Lobo

Mayes

Bedford

(2024) Earth unbound: situating climate change, solidarity and planetary justice. In: Lobo

Mayes

Bedford

(eds) Planetary Justice - Stories and Studies of Action, Resistance and Solidarity. Bristol: Bristol University Press, 1–22.

83.

Loder

Minadeo

Jimenez

, et al. (2020) Bridging the expertise of advocates and academics to identify reproductive justice learning outcomes. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 32(1): 11–22.

84.

Loick

Thompson

(eds) (2023) Abolitionismus. Ein Reader. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.

85.

Longhurst

(1997) (Dis)embodied geographies. Progress in Human Geography 21(4): 486–501.

86.

Lopez

(2019) Toward a care ethical approach to access to health care in neoliberal times. Gender, Place & Culture 26(6): 830–846.

87.

Loureiro

(2020) To be black, queer and radical: centring the epistemology of Marielle Franco. Open Cultural Studies 4(1): 50–58.

88.

Luna

(2009) From rights to justice: women of color changing the face of US reproductive rights organizing. Societies Without Borders 4(3): 343–365.

89.

Luna

Luker

(2013) Reproductive justice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 9(1): 327–352.

90.

Marquardt

Strüver

(2018) Körper. Machtgeladene Intraaktionen zwischen Biologischem und Sozialem. In: Vogelpohl

Michel

Lebuhn

and, et al. (eds) Theoretische Kontroversen Und Politische Auseinandersetzungen. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot, 38–59.

91.

Mbembe

(2003) Necropolitics. Public Culture 15(1): 11–40.

92.

McCovey

Salter

(2009) Medicine Trails: A Life in Many Worlds. Berkeley: Heyday Books.

93.

McIntyre

Nast

(2011) Bio(necro)polis: Marx, surplus populations, and the spatial dialectics of reproduction and “race”. Antipode 43(5): 1465–1488.

94.

McKittrick

(2011) On plantations, prisons, and a black sense of place. Social & Cultural Geography 12(8): 947–963.

95.

Militz

Schurr

(2016) Affective nationalism: banalities of belonging in Azerbaijan. Political Geography 54: 54–63.

96.

Militz

Dzudzek

Schurr

(2021) Feministische Geographien der Technowissenschaften. In: Autor*innenkollektiv Geographie und Geschlecht (ed) Handbuch Feministische Geographien: Arbeitsweisen Und Konzepte. Leverkusen-Opladen: Barbara Budrich, 190–214.

97.

Mizielinska

(2022) The limits of choice: queer parents and stateless children in their search for recognition in Poland. Gender, Place & Culture 29(2): 153–176.

98.

Moran

Hutton

Dixon

, et al. (2017) Daddy is a difficult word for me to hear’: carceral geographies of parenting and the prison visiting room as a contested space of situated fathering. Children’s Geographies 15(1): 107–121.

99.

Morrell

Blackwell

(2022) Spatialized intersectionality: gendered and racialized residential segregation and the Milwaukee lead crisis. Environmental Justice 15(1): 31–38.

100.

Moss

Donovan

(2017) Writing Intimacy into Feminist Geography. New York, NY: Routledge.

101.

Murphy

(2017) The Economization of Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

102.

Murray

Khan

(2020) The im/mobilities of ‘sometimes-migrating’ for abortion: Ireland to Great Britain. Mobilities 15(2): 161–172.

103.

Murrey

Hassan

(2024) Anti-Imperial Autoethnographies of Family Separation: Feminist Solidarities Against Imperial Bordering in the UK. Hoboken, NJ: Antipode. DOI: 10.1111/anti.13104.

104.

Nash

(2021) Birth geographies: race, reproductive justice, and the politics of the hospital. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 44(2): 299–328.

105.

Nash

(2023) Breaking the silence around blood: managing menstruation during remote Antarctic fieldwork. Gender, Place & Culture 30(8): 1083–1103.

106.

Nelson

(1999) Bodies (and spaces) do matter: the limits of performativity. Gender, Place & Culture 6(4): 331–353.

107.

Netzwerk für reproduktive Gerechtigkeit . Reproduktive Gerechtigkeit. https://repro-gerechtigkeit.de/de/ (accessed 21 January 2025).

108.

Nicholls

(2007) The geographies of social movements. Geography Compass 1(3): 607–622.

109.

Ojeda

Sasser

Lunstrum

(2020) Malthus’s specter and the anthropocene. Gender, Place & Culture 27(3): 316–332.

110.

Ouassak

(2020) La Puissance des Mères: Pour un Nouveau Sujet Révolutionnaire. Paris: La Découverte.

111.

Pallot

Piacentini

(2012) Gender, Geography, and Punishment: The Experience of Women in Carceral Russia. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

112.

Parr

(2002) New body-geographies: the embodied spaces of health and medical information on the Internet. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20(1): 73–95.

113.

Peng

Y-W

W-N

(2023) Who would (not) use all-gender toilets… and why? a study on university students in Taiwan. Gender, Place & Culture 30(2): 161–182.

114.

Pérez Hérnandez

Schurr

(2025) The afterlife of birth control policies in Mexico: questioning the normalization of sterilization among racialized (mestiza) low-income women. GENDER – Zeitschrift für Geschlecht, Kultur und Gesellschaft 17(1): 11–26.

115.

Perler

(2022) Selektioniertes Leben: Eine Feministische Perspektive auf die Eizellenspende. Münster: Edition Assemblage.

116.

Perler

Sánchez Pérez

(2024) In/visible – a photographic journey into the lives of egg donors in Spain. Medical Anthropology. DOI: 10.1080/01459740.2024.2384734.

117.

Perler

Schurr

(2021) Intimate lives in the global bioeconomy: reproductive biographies of Mexican egg donors. Body & Society 27(3): 3–27.

118.

Perler

Schurr

Komposch

, et al. (2023) Reproductive geopolitics: governing in/fertile bodies in Mexico’s past and present. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 42(1): 102–124.

119.

Philo

(2005) Sex, life, death, geography: fragmentary remarks inspired by ‘Foucault’s population geographies’. Population, Space and Place 11(4): 325–333.

120.

Pratt

(2012) Families Apart: Migrant Mothers and the Conflicts of Labor and Love. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

121.

Pratt

Rosner

(2006) Introduction: the global & the intimate. Women’s Studies Quarterly 34(1–2): 13–24.

122.

Pratt

Johnston

Banta

(2017) Lifetimes of disposability and surplus entrepreneurs in Bagong Barrio, Manila. Antipode 49(1): 169–192.

123.

Price

(2020) What is reproductive justice? How women of color activists are redefining the pro-choice paradigm. Meridian 19(S1): 340–362.

124.

Pulido

De Lara

(2018) Reimagining ‘justice’ in environmental justice: radical ecologies, decolonial thought, and the Black radical tradition. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 1(1–2): 76–98.

125.

Reyes

(2023) Revolutionizing Knowledge Production: Transformative Reproductive Justice Activism through Zine Making. Master’s Thesis. Georgia State University. DOI: 10.57709/36397345. (accessed 4 February 2025).

126.

Rishworth

Dixon

(2018) Reproducing inequalities: examining the intersection of environment and global maternal and child health. In: England

Fannin

Hazen

(eds) Reproductive Geographies: Bodies, Places and Politics. London: Routledge, 201–220.

127.

Rivera-Amarillo

Camargo

(2020) Zika assemblages: women, populationism, and the geographies of epidemiological surveillance. Gender, Place & Culture 27(3): 412–428.

128.

Robbins

Smith

(2017) Baby bust: towards political demography. Progress in Human Geography 41(2): 199–219.

129.

Roberts

(1997) Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

130.

Roberts

(2021) Torn Apart: How the Child Welfare System Destroys Black Families and How Abolition Can Build a Safer World. New York, NY: Basic Books.

131.

Ross

(2017) Reproductive justice as intersectional feminist activism. Souls 19(3): 286–314.

132.

Ross

(2018) Teaching reproductive justice: an activist’s approach. In: Perlow

Wheeler

Bethea

, et al. (eds) Black Women’s Liberatory Pedagogies: Resistance, Transformation, and Healing Within and Beyond the Academy. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 159–180. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-65789-9_9 (accessed 14 January 2025).

133.

Ross

(2021) Reproductive Justice. Ein Rahmen für eine anti-essentialistische und intersektionale Politik. In: Kitchen Politics (ed) Mehr Als Selbstbestimmung! Kämpfe Für Reproduktive Gerechtigkeit. Münster: Edition Assemblage, 17–60.

134.

Ross

Solinger

(2017) Reproductive Justice: An Introduction. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

135.

Ross

Brownlee

Diallo

, et al. (2001) The ‘sistering collective’: women of color, reproductive health and human rights. American Journal of Health Studies 17(2): 79–88.

136.

Rutherford

(2013) Geography and biopolitics. Geography Compass 7(6): 423–434.

137.

Sabin

Komposch

Mestrot

(2024) Exhibiting toxicity: sprayed strawberries and geographies of hope. Cultural Geographies 31(1): 113–120.

138.

Saldanha

(2020) A date with destiny: racial capitalism and the beginnings of the Anthropocene. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 38(1): 12–34.

139.

Sasser

(2014) From darkness into light: race, population, and environmental advocacy. Antipode 46(5): 1240–1257.

140.

Sasser

(2018) On Infertile Ground: Population Control and Women’s Rights in the Era of Climate Change. New York, NY: New York University Press.

141.

Sasser

(2023) At the intersection of climate justice and reproductive justice. WIREs Climate Change 15(1): e860.

142.

Schliehe

(2017) Towards a feminist carceral geography? of female offenders and prison spaces. In: Moran

Schliehe

(eds) Carceral Spatiality: Dialogues between Geography and Criminology. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 75–109.

143.

Schliehe

(2021) Young Women’s Carceral Geographies: Abandonment, Trouble and Mobility. London: Emerald Publishing Limited.

144.

Schultz

(2019) Demographic futurity: how statistical assumption politics shape immigration policy rationales in Germany. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 37(4): 644–662.

145.

Schultz

(2021) The neo-Malthusian reflex in climate politics: technocratic, right wing and feminist references. Australian Feminist Studies 36(110): 1–18.

146.

Schultz

(2022) Die Politik des Kinderkriegens: Zur Kritik Demografischer Regierungsstrategien. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

147.

Schultz

(2023) Reproductive Racism: Migration, Birth Control and the Specter of Population. London: Anthem Press.

148.

Schurr

(2017) From biopolitics to bioeconomies: the ART of (re-)producing white futures in Mexico’s surrogacy market. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35(2): 241–262.

149.

Schurr

(2018) The baby business booms: economic geographies of assisted reproduction. Geography Compass 12(8): e12395.

150.

Schurr

(2019) Multiple mobilities in Mexico’s fertility industry. Mobilities 14(1): 103–119.

151.

Schurr

Militz

(2018) The affective economy of transnational surrogacy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 50(8): 1626–1645.

152.

Schurr

Marquardt

Militz

(2023) Intimate technologies: towards a feminist perspective on geographies of technoscience. Progress in Human Geography 47(2): 215–237.

153.

Shaw

Wilson

(2020) The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the necro-populationism of ‘climate-smart’ agriculture. Gender, Place & Culture 27(3): 370–393.

154.

Side

(2016) A geopolitics of migrant women, mobility and abortion access in the Republic of Ireland. Gender, Place & Culture 23(12): 1788–1799.

155.

Side

(2020) Abortion im/mobility: spatial consequences in the republic of Ireland. Feminist Review 124(1): 15–31.

156.

Siedhoff

Glorius

Wintzer

(2023) Overview: Für eine (Neu-)theoretisierung und (Neu-)methodologisierung bevölkerungsrelevanter Phänomene. Geographica Helvetica 78(1): 199–205.

157.

Silliman

Gerber

Gutiérrez

, et al. (eds) (2004) Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

158.

Smith

(2012) Intimate geopolitics: religion, marriage, and reproductive bodies in Leh, Ladakh. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102(6): 1511–1528.

159.

Smith

(2016) Facing the dragon: Black mothering, sequelae, and gendered necropolitics in the Americas. Transforming Anthropology 24(1): 31–48.

160.

Smith

(2020) Intimate Geopolitics: Love, Territory, and the Future on India’s Northern Threshold. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

161.

Smith

Vasudevan

(2017) Race, biopolitics, and the future: introduction to the special section. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35(2): 210–221.

162.

Smith

Vasudevan

Serrano

, et al. (2019) Breaking families: whiteness, state violence, and the alienable rights of kin. Political Geography 72(6): 144–146.

163.

Soja

(2010) Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

164.

Solinger

(2019) Pregnancy and power. In: Revised Edition. A History of Reproductive Politics in the United States. New York, NY: New York University Press.

165.

South Asia Reproductive Justice and Accountability Initiative (SARJAI) (2022) South Asia reproductive justice and accountability initiative (SARJAI). In: Center for Reproductive Rights. Nashik: SARJAI. https://reproductiverights.org/south-asia-reproductive-justice-and-accountability-initiative-sarjai/ (accessed 4 February 2025).

166.

Speier

Lozanski

Frohlick

(2020) Reproductive mobilities. Mobilities 15(2): 107–119.

167.

Statz

Pruitt

(2019) To recognize the tyranny of distance: a spatial reading of whole woman’s health v. Hellerstedt. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 51(5): 1106–1127.

168.

Strüver

(2020) Urbane metabolismen. verkörperte politische Ökologien des e/essens. Sub\Urban. Zeitschrift für Kritische Stadtforschung 8(1/2): 99–116.

169.

Sziarto

(2017) Whose reproductive futures? race-biopolitics and resistance in the Black infant mortality reduction campaigns in Milwaukee. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35(2): 299–318.

170.

Tamang

Khanal

Tamang

, et al. (2020) Foreign ideology vs. national priority: impacts of the US Global Gag Rule on Nepal’s sexual and reproductive healthcare system. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 28(3): 5–22 (Taylor & Francis).

171.

Teather

(ed) (1999) Embodied Geographies: Spaces, Bodies and Rites of Passage. London: Routledge.

172.

Torres

(2018) A crisis of rights and responsibility: feminist geopolitical perspectives on Latin American refugees and migrants. Gender, Place & Culture 25(1): 13–36.

173.

Torres

Blue

Faria

, et al. (2022) “Asylum is not for Mexicans”: unaccompanied youth and racio-governance at the US border. Geopolitics. DOI: 10.1080/14650045.2022.2086459.

174.

Torres

Glockner

Niño-Vega

, et al. (2023) Lockdown and the list: Mexican refugees, asylum denial, and the feminist geopolitics of esperar (waiting/hoping). Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 41(8): 1503–1520.

175.

Turner

Vera Espinoza

(2021) The affective and intimate life of the family migration visa: knowing, feeling and encountering the heteronormative state. Geopolitics 26(2): 357–377.

176.

Tyerman

(2021) Everyday borders in Calais: the globally intimate injustices of segregation. Geopolitics 26(2): 464–485.

177.

Tyner

(2009) War, Violence, and Population: Making the Body Count. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

178.

Tyner

(2013) Population geography I: surplus populations. Progress in Human Geography 37(5): 701–711.

179.

Tyner

(2015) Population geography II: mortality, premature death, and the ordering of life. Progress in Human Geography 39(3): 360–373.

180.

Vasudevan

Smith

(2020) The domestic geopolitics of racial capitalism. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38(7–8): 1160–1179.

181.

Walia

(2013) Undoing Border Imperialism. Oakland, CA: Ak Press.

182.

Wang

(2017) Fetal citizens? Birthright citizenship, reproductive futurism, and the “panic” over Chinese birth tourism in southern California. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35(2): 263–280.

183.

Wilson

(2018) For reproductive justice in an era of Gates and Modi: the violence of India’s population policies. Feminist Review 119(1): 89–105.

184.

Winkel

Schurr

Perler

, et al. (2023) Multisensorik – Globale Intimität multisensorisch erforschen und ausstellen. In: Artographies – Kreativ-künstlerische Zugänge zu einer machtkritischen Raumforschung. Sozial- und Kulturgeographie. Bielefeld: Transcript, 215–228.

185.

Wolford

(2021) The plantationocene: a lusotropical contribution to the theory. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111(6): 1622–1639.

186.

Wright

(2006) Disposable Women and Other Myths of Global Capitalism. London: Routledge.

187.

Yates

(2011) The human-as-waste, the labor theory of value and disposability in contemporary capitalism. Antipode 43(5): 1679–1695.