Abstract
In this qualitative study, we explored the experiences of non-birth mothers whose child(ren) were planned and conceived within their same-sex relationship. We conducted semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with 14 participants in Ireland. We transcribed the interviews verbatim and analyzed the data using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Our findings comprised three superordinate themes: A Question of Recognition, An Insecure Connection, and Carving Your Own Way and related subordinate themes. Motherhood experiences were characterized by resilience and vulnerability in parenting their children without legal parental rights and within a heteronormative society that privileged biological motherhood. The dynamic relationship between seeking connection and seeking legitimacy that is at the heart of the participants’ experiences of motherhood is highlighted. Participants encountered challenges to their maternal legitimacy within their families and communities and in their interactions with legal and social institutions. Participants described using various strategies to reinforce their parental identity. Despite the challenges, participants were engaged in constructing satisfying parenting roles. The findings highlight the importance of legitimizing the parental identity of non-birth mothers. Therapists should be sensitive to the additional marginalization of non-birth mothers in same-sex parent families. Validating their vulnerability and their resilience in the face of obstacles may enhance their coping resources. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843211003072
Keywords
Planned lesbian-parent families are becoming more common and visible in Western countries, in part owing to the increased availability of assisted reproductive technologies to same-sex couples as well as changes in social attitudes toward non-heterosexual relationships (see Bos & Gartrell, 2020). The corresponding increase in the literature on lesbian motherhood has outlined many strengths of lesbian parenting (Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Bos et al., 2004; Vanfraussen et al., 2003). Positioned outside the dominant heteronormative and biological motherhood ideologies, lesbian non-birth motherhood represents a unique parenting role (Padavic & Butterfield, 2011). In addition, various social, emotional, and legal factors affect non-birth mothers’ personal experiences of motherhood. For these reasons, non-birth mothers in same-sex parent families have begun to attract research attention across various health and social science disciplines (Brennan & Sell, 2014; Cherguit et al, 2013; Hayman et al., 2013; Miller, 2012; Padavic & Butterfield, 2011). In the current study, we aimed to add to this body of literature by exploring how non-birth mothers make sense of their motherhood experiences.
The Route to Parenthood for Lesbian Couples
Increasing numbers of lesbian couples are choosing to conceive through assisted reproductive technologies using donor sperm (Bos & Gartrell, 2020). Donor insemination may be a more attractive alternative than adoption for women who want a biological or genetic connection to their children, but also because adoption can be costly, unpredictable, and stigmatizing against lesbian women (Goldberg & Scheib, 2015). However, accessing donor insemination services through clinics may also be prohibitively expensive for some couples. The pathway to parenthood requires women in same-sex couples to navigate many complex decisions that have far-reaching consequences for their families (Hayman et al., 2015). The principal among these is who will carry their child, as this generally dictates who will have a biological and, in many jurisdictions, a legal relationship to the child (Waaldijk, 2009).
Decisions about donors vary widely among lesbian couples and may be influenced by preference and access to different donor types. In a German study, lesbian couples for whom it was important that their child has access to information about the donor tended to use open identity donors (i.e., those who were open to being contacted once the child turned 18 years old) or known donors (Herrmann-Green & Gehring, 2008). However, results indicated that using a known, identifiable donor was also perceived to raise questions about the role of the non-birth mother.
Lesbian mothers have complex, context-specific views about the meaning of genetic relatedness and parental equality. In a study of lesbian mothers in Belgium, within families where only one mother had a genetic link to the child, its significance was downplayed and parental equality was presented as a given (Raes et al., 2014). However, the participants in this study also spoke about the genetic link being a point of difference between them and their partner and something that was a valuable extra in the relationship between the child and their biological mother. Similarly, in a Swedish study (Malmquist, 2015), women drew on three different interpretative repertoires when speaking about the differences between biological and non-biological motherhood roles: one emphasizing a spontaneous equality, the second acknowledging an imbalance which may be overcome to achieve equality, and the third which views biological and non-biological roles as inherently different.
Becoming a Non-Birth Mother
The process of becoming a mother, regardless of how it occurs, represents a psychosocial transition involving a new maternal identity (Fontenot, 2007). Becoming a mother (BAM; Mercer, 2004) builds on Rubin’s (1967) theory of maternal role attainment, which described the process of achieving a maternal role identity (Mercer, 2004). According to Mercer (1986), the process of a woman becoming a mother involves acknowledging the perpetuity of the transition, sourcing information and advice on mothering, identifying role models of motherhood, and monitoring her own competency as a mother. Drawing on Thornton and Nardi’s (1975) four stages of role acquisition, Mercer (2004) describes the process of achieving maternal identity as involving “anticipatory, formal, informal, and personal identity” stages (p. 227). These include psychosocial preparation, drawing on the advice of expert role models, developing intuition about caring for her own child, and feeling confident and content as a mother. Mercer highlighted the influence of expert role models whom the woman observes and mimics in the process of figuring out how she wants to be a mother in a way that is consistent with who she is as a person. She emphasized the role of others in the co-construction of a woman’s maternal identity through their acceptance of her maternal performance, which is supported by identity theory (Stryker & Burke, 2000).
These theories have largely been developed in relation to biological motherhood and focus on the biological processes of pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding which guide the initial transition to motherhood. The experiences of women who become mothers outside of biological motherhood are not as well documented in the literature, although a review by Fontenot (2007) found evidence of commonalities between adoptive mothers’ adaptation process and that of biological mothers. However, for lesbian non-birth mothers, there may be additional challenges arising from the fact that they are not the sole woman experiencing the transition to motherhood in their relationship, and it is their partner who is the birth mother and experiencing the biological processes described above. If the normative maternal role is being achieved by the birth mother, there may be role confusion for the non-birth mother.
Queer theory and identity theory may give some insights into the experience of constructing a maternal identity for those who are not considered “real” mothers within dominant motherhood ideologies. Identity theory posits that identities are constructed through interactions with society from the shared meanings and expectations of the roles to which they are attached (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Without a universally understood language that accurately describes their identity and their role, and that others can use to address or refer to them, non-birth mothers face barriers to negotiating a maternal identity (Brennan & Sell, 2014; Miller, 2012). Lesbian couples have described feeling judged and scrutinized by people asking who the real mother is (e.g., O’Neill et al., 2012). Park (2013) suggests that queering motherhood involves dismantling the ideas that a child can have only one mother (monomaternalism) and that the biological mother is the real mother. Some non-birth mothers may feel free to construct their own type of motherhood that does not conform to the ideologies of biological motherhood or gender role stereotypes (Ben-Ari & Livni, 2006; Padavic & Butterfield, 2011). For others, the uncertainty resulting from not having the normative maternal experiences of pregnancy and birth, nor the structure of a traditionally defined parental role such as fatherhood, may lead to feelings of role confusion and exclusion (Wojnar & Katzenmeyer, 2014).
From Equal Partners to Unequal Mothers
In lacking legal or biological links to their child, non-birth mothers have a different motherhood status than their partner which significantly alters the equality within the couple (Ben-Ari & Livni, 2006; Malmquist, 2015). In studies in the United States (Bergen et al., 2006) and Australia (Hayman et al., 2013), same-sex couples reported working to redress this imbalance or asymmetry, often using various strategies to add legitimacy to the non-birth mother’s parental status (e.g., by symbols and ceremonies, writing wills, and second parent adoption, where this was available). In their study of Israeli lesbian mothers, Ben-Ari and Livni (2006) found that couples sought to restore equality by reversing roles when having a subsequent child. Shared motherhood, where the fertilized egg of one woman is implanted in the uterus of her partner, may be another strategy used to prevent this asymmetry by including both partners in the biological process (Marina et al., 2010). This procedure has recently become available to women in Ireland.
The asymmetry between birth and non-birth mothers will be experienced differently by various family members. Non-birth mothers may have to negotiate feelings of rejection when their young child(ren) show a preference for their birth mother (Goldberg et al., 2008; McKelvey, 2014). When the parenting team consists of two women, there can be feelings of competition, exclusion, role-confusion, and jealousy (McKelvey, 2014; Pelka, 2009). However, in one U.S. study exploring lesbian mothers’ perceptions of their 3½-year-old child’s parental preferences, results indicated that initial preference for the birth mother was perceived to diminish over time as roles become less differentiated (Goldberg et al., 2008).
Reduced differentiation of roles may arise in the context of increased equality in parenting practices among lesbian parents (Dunne, 2000; Vanfraussen et al., 2003). Sharing roles and parenting tasks equally may help couples to downplay the role of genetics and manage the biological asymmetry in their families. However, equality in domestic labor and childcare may not be a goal for all lesbian women and, in fact, there is a variation on the perceived meaning of domestic work among women in diverse ethnic and class contexts (Moore, 2008). Nonetheless, in one Dutch study, in families with young children, parenting tasks and responsibilities tended to be shared more equally among lesbian parents than heterosexual parents (Bos et al., 2007). A later study in the United States found that division of childcare and housework was more equal among adoptive same-sex couples than adoptive heterosexual couples (Goldberg et al., 2012). This perhaps indicates that equality among lesbian parents is not solely driven by attempts to reduce the effects of genetic asymmetry, since neither parent in adoptive same-sex couples shares a genetic connection to their child. Perlesz et al. (2010) distinguished between egalitarian and equal practices, suggesting that lesbian couples may divide along lines of preference rather than gendered norms. The process by which parenting roles and responsibilities are negotiated among lesbian couples where there is genetic asymmetry warrants further study, as both mothers may have to navigate expectations of their role and experiences of role confusion.
Motherhood Ideologies and Maternal Legitimacy
Non-birth mothers encounter challenges to the legitimacy of their motherhood in their everyday social relations and interactions with legal institutions (Bergen et al., 2006; Hayman et al., 2013; Hequembourg, 2004). The concept of a mother in Western society is equated with the biological processes of pregnancy, birth, and lactation, which are assumed to produce a special maternal bond between mother and child (Park, 2013). By privileging biological motherhood, other types of mothers including non-birth mothers in same-sex relationships are often rendered invisible or secondary (Green, 2015; Morrow, 2001). Internalization of these dominant ideologies can undermine the legitimacy of non-birth mothers’ maternal identity, leading to feelings of invisibility and inadequacy (Ben-Ari & Livni, 2006; Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999).
Legal parental legitimacy is frequently cited in studies as a key concern that negatively impacts non-birth mothers (e.g., Bergen et al., 2006; Hayman et al., 2013). Having legal parental rights has been described as a vital component of the developmental parental identity (McKelvey, 2014; Padavic & Butterfield, 2011), and their lack of rights was accompanied by anxiety that their children could be removed from their care (Wojnar & Katzenmeyer, 2014). Without legal recognition, non-birth mothers cannot exercise parental rights and their legitimacy as a parent may be questioned by other parents, staff at their children’s schools, health care workers, and members of the public (Abelsohn et al., 2013; Brennan & Sell, 2014).
The Irish Context
We conducted the current study in an era of significant social change with respect to rights for sexual and gender minorities in Ireland. While the decriminalization of homosexuality did not occur in Ireland until 1993 (Criminal Law [Sexual Offences] Act), in 2015, the Marriage Equality Referendum was passed by a sizable majority of Irish citizens who voted to legalize same-sex marriage (Ó Caoillí & Hilliard, 2015). The birth mother of a child born in Ireland is the automatic legal mother of that child, even if the child is not genetically related to her as in the case of egg donation (Citizens Information Board, 2015). Parts 2 and 3 of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 addressed the rights of same-sex parents and came into effect in May 2020 (Department of Health, 2020). Under this Act, non-birth mothers whose children were conceived through approved fertility clinics, using identity release donor sperm, are eligible to apply for legal parental status as intending parents. Non-birth mothers who conceive in private arrangements outside clinics or those who use anonymous donors are denied parental rights.
A Feminist Theoretical Lens
We approached the exploration of non-birth motherhood from a feminist perspective and incorporated thinking from queer theory and identity theory. Women’s role as mothers has long been a point of feminist debate and enquiry (see Eagly et al., 2012). Feminist researchers have attempted to deconstruct the homogeneity of the term motherhood, regarding it as a multidimensional construct that should incorporate the experiences of women who mother in diverse contexts (Arendell, 2000). Within Western cultures, motherhood has been socially constructed as essential and fulfilling for all women, yet many groups of women, such as lone mothers, working mothers, teen mothers, depressed mothers, working-class mothers, and lesbian mothers, have been denounced as unsuitable or inappropriate mothers (Arendell, 2000).
Feminist theorists have further argued that traditional notions of gender roles are socially constructed (Risman, 2004) and do not adequately capture the diversity of motherhood experiences and practices (Heffernan & Wilgus, 2018). The concept of lesbian motherhood has been hailed by some as an opportunity to expand conceptions of parenting and decouple it from gender-based assumptions (Dunne, 2000). However, other feminist and queer scholars have questioned whether in seeking legal legitimacy and social acceptance, same-sex parenting becomes subsumed into heteronormative parenting ideologies and further marginalizes less normative queer families (K. R. Allen & Goldberg, 2020; S. H. Allen & Mendez, 2018). There is likely a spectrum of conformity to and subversion of heteronormativity in their relationship and family dynamics among lesbian couples (Ryan-Flood, 2009). Exploring individual experiences of lesbian motherhood may uncover nuanced points of view about how identities and roles are constructed and experienced. Using qualitative methodology, in the present study, we sought to address the following research question: “How is motherhood experienced by women in Ireland who are non-birth mothers to children planned and conceived in the context of their same-sex relationship?”
Method
Participants
Participants were included on the basis of their being a non-birth mother to a child or children (younger than 18 years old) planned in the context of a same-sex relationship using assisted reproductive technology (e.g., intrauterine insemination or in vitro fertilization). Women who became mothers through adoption or fostering, or as a stepmother to their partner’s child(ren) from a previous relationship, were not included in this study.
The sample comprised 14 non-birth mothers who identified as lesbian, gay, or queer. Thirteen participants identified their gender as female and one participant identified their gender as queer having been assigned female at birth. The mean age of participants was 40.9 years, with an age range of 30–53 years. All participants were White; 11 participants were Irish by birth, and three were naturalized Irish citizens. Participants resided in Ireland, nine in urban areas and five in rural areas. Thirteen participants had completed third level education: Bachelor’s degree (n = 5), master’s degree (n = 5), doctorate (n = 2), and professional training (n = 1). The remaining participant had completed second level education. One participant had three children; she was the non-birth mother of the eldest. Four participants had two children, and the remaining nine had one child. At the time of interview, the participants’ children ranged in age from 9 weeks old to 11 years old. The median age of first-born children was 3 years old. One participant was separated from her partner. Four participants used a known donor, with one couple using a family member of the non-birth mother. The remaining 10 participants used identity release donor sperm (non-anonymous donor).
Procedure
Ethical approval for this research was granted by the university in which the study was conducted. There was no financial incentive for participation. Advertisements for the study were posted in the online lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) press, through online LGBTQ+ parenting groups and social media (e.g., Facebook), as well as via the researchers’ personal and professional contacts. Posters were displayed in two Irish universities and in LGBTQ+ social venues. Further recruitment attempts were made through personal contacts of those who had already taken part. Face-to-face interviews took place during 2019 with the first author in a location convenient to the participant (e.g., their home or workplace or the university). Informed consent was obtained prior to the audio-recorded interview and participants completed a demographic questionnaire. Interviews ranged in length from 40 min to 98 min with a mean length of 74 minutes. Following the interview, the researcher provided participants with a debriefing sheet containing information about local support services and the contact details of the researchers. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim.
Design
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA; Smith et al., 2009) was chosen as the methodology for exploring the research question. IPA is concerned with examining in detail the lived experience of individuals and exploring how they make sense of these life experiences (Eatough & Smith, 2008). It is informed by two major theoretical axes: phenomenology, the exploration of experience; and hermeneutics, the theory of interpretation (Smith et al., 2009). The IPA researcher is said to be engaged in a “double hermeneutic,” wherein the researcher is making sense of the participant’s meaning-making of their own experiences (p. 3). IPA uses idiographic (individual, specific) and thematic (cross-case) analysis (Smith & Osborn, 2015).
The foundation of IPA is the participant’s own account of their relationship to, and understanding of, the phenomenon being explored. IPA acknowledges that the researcher cannot access the participant’s world directly and requires the researcher to be aware of the preconceptions and interpretations they bring to the encounter and to the analysis. IPA strives to facilitate the participant’s and researcher’s engagement in a process of “inter-subjective meaning-making” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 143). This is in line with feminist research practice which attempts to maintain transparency and a reflexive awareness about the different cultural contexts of the researcher’s and participants’ experiences (DeVault & Gross, 2012).
Data Analysis
The interview schedule, informed by existing studies, comprised four broad domains of inquiry: planning and decision making, identity and role, language and communication, and opportunities and challenges (see Appendix). It was piloted with a doctoral colleague, reviewed for clarity and leading questions, and subsequently minor amendments were made.
Data analysis followed the recommended procedures detailed by Smith et al. (2009). IPA involves processes such as moving from the individual to the shared and from the descriptive to the interpretative. Initial readings of each transcript were accompanied by the audio recordings to provide contextual information about tone, intonation, and voice quality. Subsequent analysis was conducted without audio. The idiographic analysis focused on staying close to the meaning-making of each participant, analyzing and generating line-by-line commentary within descriptive, linguistic, and conceptual categories for each participant’s account. For example, a descriptive comment about the following line of the transcript: “I do get weary of it” was—participant is tired of explaining her role to others. An example of a linguistic comment: “too huge a piece of ideology” indicated a sense of powerlessness. An example of a conceptual comment: “there’s part of me that is sad that we couldn’t have made a baby together”—implying the ideal parenthood is both parents contributing their genetic material, perhaps an internalization of heteronormativity (see Szymanski & Mikorski, 2016). Following a careful examination of each case separately, the researcher moved to a thematic analysis whereby themes within and across the cases were identified, noting points of convergence and divergence. For example, an initial theme, “comparison with partner’s bond,” was identified across cases, with participants indicating varying degrees of closeness compared with their partner.
As the authors developed a more interpretative stance, the analysis took account of the participant’s use of language and the first author’s field notes. These aided the grouping of themes—for example, the above-mentioned theme, “comparison with partner’s bond,” was clustered with themes such as “fear of child’s rejection” and “worries about connecting with child,” culminating in the theme of insecurity within their relationship with their child. The themes were structured into superordinate and subordinate themes to reflect the relationship between them. Each of the superordinate themes was supported by at least two thirds of the participants. Themes related to the research question were included when they were frequently endorsed within and across cases or when they seemed especially poignant or significant to participants (Smith et al., 2009).
Trustworthiness, Credibility, and Reflexivity
Strategies for ensuring the quality of the research were based on Yardley’s (2000) principles for evaluating the quality of qualitative research: “sensitivity to context; commitment and rigor; transparency and coherence; impact and importance” (p. 215). The first author conducted the initial analysis, maintaining a reflexive journal throughout the study. The second and third authors audited the data, providing feedback and guidance on the suitability of themes in answering the research question. A doctoral peer researcher conducted an independent analysis of a randomly selected transcript and several themes identified in the audit of this transcript converged with themes identified by the primary researcher.
The first author was a counseling psychology doctoral student and the second and third authors were White female psychology faculty members who co-supervised the research. The first author conducted the interviews with participants and analyzed the data. As a White, bisexual, cisgender woman, who does not have children, the first author occupied both insider and outsider positions as a researcher. Her awareness of, and interest in, the invalidation and delegitimizing of identities was heightened by her personal experiences of erasure as a bisexual woman. Throughout the research, she strived to become aware of assumptions and biases that could have influenced the data and analysis, including that non-birth mothers would (a) have wanted a genetic link to their child, (b) feel threatened by the donor, and (c) struggle with their maternal identity and role. She reflected on tensions between these automatic assumptions, which may be internalizations of dominant cultural norms, and the beliefs she holds that are opposed to heteronormativity and ideologies about biological motherhood.
Results
Data analysis yielded insights into the experiences of mothers whose partners gave birth to their children planned in the context of their same-sex relationship. Three superordinate themes were identified: (a) a question of recognition, (b) an insecure connection, and (c) carving your own way, with associated subordinate themes. Participants were given pseudonyms, and identifying information was removed to protect confidentiality. In the excerpts presented below, clarifications have been inserted within square brackets and when a sequence of the interview text has been omitted, it has been marked with […].
Theme 1: A Question of Recognition
This theme captured the meaning and significance of being recognized, or not, as their child(ren)’s mother or parent. The language used by several participants conveyed their sense that the legitimacy of their parenthood could be called into question at any time (e.g., “there’s always a question-mark,” “cannot be taken for granted,” and “I’d be dreading the question”). Having their motherhood or parenthood invalidated by others was described as “hurtful,” “devastating,” and “very difficult,” and participants described encountering this across multiple situations and contexts. Several participants expressed their frustration and powerlessness at not being able to give medical consent for their children or register them for school. They required written permission from their partner to bring their child to medical appointments or travel abroad with them. Their sense of powerlessness was compounded by the feeling that they were at the mercy of other people choosing to recognize their parenthood or not. Lisa spoke about her anger about this: the fact that I can’t even like, you know, I mean I bring her to the doctor, em…but our doctor is, you know, you’re reliant on people’s discretion and that’s em…that’s really angering. I’m nearly waiting for somebody to say something negative and I’m like rea—you know, kind of on tenterhooks, and you’re like, oh somebody’s gonna say something bad now and it’s gonna be awful and…. And then nobody does and your like: “Oh right, ok.”
Capturing the experience of parental recognition for participants, this superordinate theme encompassed three subordinate themes: barriers to recognition, the invisibility of their parenthood, and strategies used to increase participants’ parental legitimacy and establish a balance of parental power with their partners.
Subtheme 1a: Barriers to recognition
The language used by several participants conjured images of barriers and obstacles to having their motherhood recognized and the powerlessness they felt in seeking this recognition. Examples of such language included “too huge a piece of ideology” and “no point going to court to fight a wall.” Participants saw these barriers as arising in the context of dominant cultural ideologies in Ireland that privilege heterosexual, biological motherhood. Several participants mentioned experiences of having their parenthood invalidated or devalued because they lacked a biological or genetic link to their child. Alice described how her mother’s views about the importance of genetic relatedness contributed to a distance between her and Alice’s children. She recounted how her mother “talks about the disappointments of her life and you know, the, the fact of not having grandchildren of her own,” thereby devaluing Alice’s parenthood. Thirteen participants identified the lack of legal parental rights as a significant barrier to parental recognition. Ide described how meaningful it would be to gain legal parental rights: “if I got that piece of paper, it’d be like: ‘To hell with you and what you think.’ Whereas I can say that, but I don’t really feel that at the moment, ‘cause there is the reality.”
Another barrier to parental recognition was the lack of clear, widely understood terminology to describe their status as non-birth mothers, leaving participants burdened with having to explain themselves and their role to others. Five participants mentioned feeling ambivalent about being mistaken for the birth mother. While they enjoyed being recognized as a legitimate parent, they also felt fraudulent or guilty about appropriating an experience which was not theirs. Caroline recounted an instance in a doctor’s surgery where she had not corrected a woman’s assumption that she was the birth mother: “I didn’t say I had the babies, but I let it…her think that I did, which normally I wouldn’t […] To me it does matter. I don’t like denying anything.” Like several other participants, Naomi described her impulse to explain the nature of her relationship with her 4-month-old son to others and her complex feelings on this: I tend to explain […] otherwise, it’s nearly like feeling this person is assuming that I’m his birth mother, but I would then correct that […] “I’m his mum but I’m not his birth mum” […] then you’re left thinking: “I wish I didn’t have to” which I don’t technically, but I obviously feel at the moment that’s where I’m at, that that’s what I should say.
Subtheme 1b: Parenting (in)visibly
As non-birth mothers in Ireland in 2019, participants were not permitted to be named as a parent on their child’s birth certificate. The language used by several participants conveyed how this contributed to their sense of invisibility (e.g., “I’m a nobody,” “legal stranger,” “I don’t exist”). Participants spoke about how the lack of official recognition contrasted with their obvious day-to-day lives and roles as parents. Gillian said: “otherwise I feel fully like a parent to [daughter]. It’s just that the government doesn’t see me as such.” The emotional difficulty of this was conveyed using language such as “devastated,” “I really struggled with that,” and “completely broke down.” The “heart-breaking” experience of erasure was encountered again for three participants when their partner signed a single-parent affidavit to obtain a passport for their child.
Three older participants whose eldest children were approximately 10 years old, did not initially expect to be named on their child’s birth certificate and seemed less emotionally impacted by it. Two of these participants had used known donors, whose names were on the birth certificates. Perhaps their expectations of LGBTQ+ parental rights were shaped by the more socially conservative times in which they grew up in contrast to participants whose children were born since the Marriage Equality Referendum in Ireland. However, despite their different expectations, these participants wanted some official recognition of their parenthood. Within the context of the superordinate theme of maternal recognition, this subordinate theme captured the duality of participants’ parenting experience which is obvious and yet invisible.
Subtheme 1c: Enhancing parental legitimacy to restore balance
Irish law and the primacy of biological motherhood within Irish society created two different parental statuses for participants and their partners. In contrast to participants’ own experience, the legitimacy of their partner’s maternal status would never be called into question. This contributed to an unwelcome power imbalance within their relationship that was apparent in the language used by several participants (e.g., “to pacify me, she gave him [participant’s surname]” and “you’re so reliant on your partner”). Kathy spoke of this as the elephant in the room and highlighted the potential implications for non-birth mothers: the unspeakable is […] if you’ve got issues with your partner…they’re going to be the parent if you split up […] there’s an underlying thing always that you know, you’re going to lose out if it goes wrong, so you’ve got quite an investment in making it go right.
Thirteen participants used maternal address terms (e.g., mammy, mummy, mama), which acted as a signifier of their maternal status and helped reinforce their own maternal identity. Six participants chose the same term they used for their own mothers, while two described choosing a specific term because of its associations with maternal legitimacy. Deborah negotiated that she would be called “mammy” as a compromise for her partner being the birth mother. She explained: “I’m not so sure why it was important […] it was kinda like a feeling of well, if I’m called ‘mammy,’ then I’m actually a mammy.” Despite not using this term for her own mother, she seemed to consider “mammy” the quintessential maternal address term, which would increase the legitimacy of her maternal identity and address the power imbalance created by their different parental statuses. This subordinate theme illustrates how participants responded to and mitigated the questioning of their motherhood captured in the superordinate theme.
Theme 2: An Insecure Connection
The ideologies of heteronormativity and biological family relatedness remain dominant in Irish society and these contributed to an insecurity within several participants’ relationships with their children. Regardless of their feelings toward their children, or their own views about non-biologically related family relationships, they could not be sure how their children might make sense of their relationship in the future. Language such as “plays on your mind” and “this added […] little niggle” conveyed vulnerability and insecurity in the background of these relationships. Naomi captured a lack of certainty about how her 4-month-old son might view their relationship: I think naturally that he would think of me as his mum…that being there is enough for him to feel that…. And I can’t say if he’s going to feel that…I just have to let that be, with whatever way he feels.
Subtheme 2a: Fear of losing my child
Without the protection afforded by legal parental status, participants feared that their children could be taken away from them in the case of their partner’s death or that there would be no legal right of access to their child if their relationship broke down. Bernie, who is now separated from her son’s birth mother, noted that she had had reservations about becoming a non-birth mother because of the emotional and legal vulnerability it entailed. She recalled thinking: “if she walks, you know, if we ever break up, I’ve no rights, I may never see this child again. You’re gonna have formed a bond. It was that fear of rejection, it was that fear of hurt, grief.” She described a challenging experience following the separation and a lengthy process of fighting for access to her son, which she fears could be lost again. Society’s privileging of biological kinship left participants dependent on non-legally binding assurances of others that their parenthood would not be challenged. For example, Lisa conveyed the unpredictability and uncertainty about how her partner’s family might act in the case of her partner’s death: “her family are wonderful, and I don’t think there’d be any kind of em…quarrel there, but again you’re still, you know, in the back of your mind, you just don’t know.”
The donor could also be a source of insecurity and uncertainty in the participants’ relationships with their children. All 10 participants who had used a non-anonymous donor felt that it was their child’s right at 18 years old to seek information about the donor. However, five of them expressed ambivalence about how it might feel or what it might mean for their relationship if their child did. Megan, whose son was 3 years old, wondered: “if he’s querying, I suppose who the other half of that conception is…is there any type of disconnect with me?” For three participants who used known donors, having clear boundaries with the donor and his family, or using a donor who lived outside of Ireland, helped them to feel more secure in their connection to their children. Jean was the only participant reluctant about sharing the known donor’s identity with her 11-month-old daughter in the future, perhaps fearing that his biological link rather than her daily presence would be valued more by her daughter. She explained: Maybe I’m like, I don’t want it to change my relationship with her, by then introducing this person…you know who ok, biologically gave something to the situation but you know, probably hasn’t been here doing the day-in, day-out…parenting.
Subtheme 2b: Anxious for signs of disconnection
Participants conveyed a heightened attention to the quality of their relationship with their child. Nine participants reported that during their partner’s pregnancy, they had worries about being able to attach to their child. Hazel described: “there was a bit of worry, going through the process, that I wouldn’t feel connected to [daughter] and I wouldn’t feel like she’s my daughter […] because there isn’t the genetic connection.” Several participants had clear recollections of the moment they felt bonded and connected to their child and these initial concerns were allayed.
Noticing their child’s lack of physical resemblance to themselves and their family prompted feelings of disconnection among several participants. Participants were also vigilant about the extent to which their bond with their child was comparable to that of their partner. For example, when asked about her own bond with her 11-month-old daughter, Jean responded by drawing a comparison: “she does tend to at times prefer to go to [wife] because she wants to get fed by her, but I don’t think that she, like she doesn’t choose one or the other over another.” Participants’ attention to their child’s parental preference seemed to underscore a greater sense of vulnerability to rejection, disconnection, and exclusion. Also evident were their efforts to cope with this, as Frances said of her wife and son: “they would spend a lot more time together […] I would say: ‘You know, I feel a bit left out here’ and I would kinda call them on it.”
While acknowledging that parental rejection was a normative experience in parent-child relationships, eight participants seemed to feel that they might be more vulnerable to this than other parents who enjoyed the security of biological and legal ties to their children. Describing the “unexpectedly painful” process of her pre-teenage daughter making sense of their non-biological relationship, Alice gave a recent example of her daughter testing the limits of their relationship: “[daughter] got very cross and eventually turned around to me and said: ‘Well, you know, you can’t tell me what to do; you’re not even related to me.’” Some participants with younger children anticipated a similarly painful rejection at some stage. Caroline said: “if they start saying: ‘You’re not my mother’ or something, I still think I’d be devastated but…it’s bound to happen once in a lifetime.”
Theme 3: Carving Your Own Way
Without a template for non-birth motherhood, participants described their experience of having to “carve your own way with it.” For some participants, their role was influenced by health or financial circumstances. Four participants took on primary caregiving roles following their partners’ maternity leave. Ide, who had wanted to carry a child but was ultimately unable to, became her son’s primary caregiver when her wife returned to work. She described finding her way after an initial period of uncertainty: “when she went to work then after another while, I kinda really just stood into my place. I’m his mother. I know him more actually than her now.”
Nine participants described that their parental role was defined by their interests and personality, allowing them to shape the role into what they wanted. They seemed to draw inspiration from diverse relationship types, including their relationships with their own mothers and fathers, with therapists, and with significant adults in their lives growing up. Perhaps due to their non-biological motherhood status, they did not feel pressure to conform to traditional gender and motherhood ideologies. Frances explained that she preferred the term parent than mother: “I usually refer to myself as ‘parent’ and that’s how I feel […] because I feel like I’m this hybrid role.” Lisa, who identified as genderqueer eschewed the gendered term “mother” in preference for using “parent.” This superordinate theme was further expressed in two subordinate themes: firstly, the uncharted nature of their motherhood, and secondly, participants’ search for role models to relate to and guide them in their motherhood roles.
Subtheme 3a: Uncharted motherhood
Participants used phrases such as “uncharted,” “no signposts,” and “new path” to describe the process of figuring out their parenting role. Unlike their partners, they did not have the normative experiences of becoming a mother, such as pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding to initially anchor them in their role. Hazel, mother to a 9-week-old daughter, described her struggle to find where she fits. She saw her wife engage in the normative activities of new mothers and did not have a prescribed role of her own to take on, which left her unsure and anxious about how to contribute and feel connected within their new family: “I’m kinda over here thinking like: ‘Well, when do I get my time with her and what do I get to do?’” Contributing to a sense of role ambiguity, she and three other participants drew comparisons with fatherhood roles which they felt did not fully capture their experience: It’s in the middle […] I think it’s why it’s so difficult to kind of figure out where’s my spot…because, I do have a lot of the responsibilities that a typical dad would be, would have, but I don’t see myself as a dad.
Subtheme 3b: Searching for a role model
Several participants spoke about the challenge of figuring out their role without having many role models of non-birth motherhood within a same-sex relationship. Eimear captured the isolation and loneliness that she sometimes felt not having someone who understood her experience and having to figure it out herself: “I actually don’t have anyone to go to: ‘this is what it’s like to be a mum, who’s not the bio, who’s not the one who gave birth’ […] I don’t have that person.” This feeling was echoed by seven other participants who used phrases such as “lonely,” “different,” “don’t think she would have understood,” and “quite hard to talk about to other people” in relation to their role and experience as a non-birth mother.
More than half of the participants described looking for examples of non-biological parenthood to provide reassurance of the success of these types of relationships. Five participants had personal or family experiences of adoptive relationships which they viewed as warm, close, and loving. Looking at these examples of non-biological relationships seemed to give them confidence that they could have a good quality relationship with a non-biologically related child. Alice, whose father had been raised by his stepmother after his biological mother died, explained how much it meant to her to have an example of a non-biological parent-child relationship which was comparable to that of a biological parent-child relationship: It was kind of important to me that I had, that I had a really good model to sort of, there in the background, of what this might look like […] my [step]grandmother was probably as close to my dad as his father was […] so it was a good model for me to have.
Discussion
In the current study, three superordinate themes, along with related subordinate themes, were identified as capturing important aspects of the lived experiences of non-birth mothers whose child(ren) were planned in the context of their same-sex relationship.
Recognition and Legitimacy
The first superordinate theme, a question of recognition, captured the participants’ sense that the legitimacy of their motherhood could be questioned at any time by others, both socially and legally. This arose in the context of parenting their children without having legal parental rights and in a heteronormative sociocultural context that idealizes biological motherhood (Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999; Padavic & Butterfield, 2011). Feelings of hurt, frustration, and powerlessness emerged when participants felt they were prevented from acting in their capacity as their child’s parent and were reliant on others in positions of power (e.g., doctors, teachers, or civil servants) to join them in recognizing their parental status that was not endorsed by law. These findings underscore the potential negative impact on the process of becoming a mother (BAM; Mercer, 1986) when the permanency of their motherhood is questioned and undermined by various legal and societal institutions.
Despite some positive experiences of recognition and validation, non-birth mothers often anticipated negative responses to their parenthood and family. This might be viewed in the context of experiences of growing up and coming out as lesbian, gay, or queer in Ireland during a more conservative socio-cultural era. In the years since the Marriage Equality Referendum in 2015, there has been a societal shift toward greater awareness and acceptance of gender and sexual minorities in Ireland. As this change is still recent, participants may be slow to let their guard down. Living with the anticipation or worry about having their parenthood questioned might be just as bad as it actually happening, by creating doubt and insecurity, or by negatively impacting maternal identity development (Padavic & Butterfield, 2011). As participants became more well-known in their communities, they encountered fewer questions, suggesting that over time and as same-sex parenting becomes more visible in society, their recognition as parents may increase.
Within this overarching theme, the subordinate theme of barriers to recognition spoke to the participants’ experience of encountering significant obstacles to the recognition of their parenthood. Consistent with findings in previous studies, lacking legal parental rights (Hayman et al., 2013), the primacy of biological motherhood within society, and the lack of clear terminology to communicate their parental role (Brennan & Sell, 2014; Miller, 2012; Padavic & Butterfield, 2011) were identified as barriers to having their parenthood recognized by others. Particularly important is how these barriers may disrupt the process of maternal identity development. According to identity theory, identities are constructed through interactions with society from the shared meanings and expectations of the roles to which they are attached (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Without legal parental rights to authenticate their identity or well-established terminology to describe it, non-birth mothers’ maternal identity went unrecognized by others in society. Lacking a consensual understanding of who they are in relation to their child and an acceptance of their maternal performance, as described by Mercer (2004), their motherhood or parental status was invalidated, which negatively impacted the achievement of their maternal identity (Miller, 2012). Gaining legal parental rights would give authority to their parental status and contribute to the more widespread understanding of the non-birth mother as a legitimate parent within society (Hequembourg, 2004; Miller, 2012).
Biological motherhood is still viewed in Irish society as more legitimate than other routes to motherhood, and non-birth mothers did not experience the same unquestioned parental recognition as their partner, likely arising from the idea of monomaternalism (Park, 2013). Participants described the burden of repeatedly explaining their role to others (Hayman et al., 2013). Unexpectedly, however, they noted their ambivalence at being mistaken for a birth mother. On the one hand, it provided a break from questions and explanations and could be powerfully legitimizing (Brennan & Sell, 2014; Raes et al., 2014). The cost, however, was self-invalidation and delegitimization of their non-birth mother identity, which seemed to produce feelings of confusion and guilt. This does not seem to have been described in previous studies, but it highlights a dialectic between authenticity and legitimacy, which likely results from negotiating a maternal identity and seeking legitimacy for that identity from a culture that is inherently invalidating and disenfranchising (Padavic & Butterfield, 2011).
The subordinate theme, parenting (in)visibly, drew attention to a dual reality for participants—being engaged in the processes of parenting which feels concrete and visible while also living another, perhaps more abstract reality where their role and identity as a parent is invisible. The feeling of invisibility was more salient for participants in contexts where there was no official record of their parental status, such as when they were not named on their child’s birth certificate or when their partner signed a single parent affidavit. In achieving a maternal role identity, Mercer (2004) describes the “congruence of self and motherhood” as being achieved when the woman’s maternal performance is acknowledged by others (p. 227). In the absence of this acceptance of their maternal performance, participants in the current study had to navigate the cognitive and emotional incongruence of these two realities. Their personal experience of this interacts with their broader understanding of the social context within which they live. The changes that have taken place in Irish society within the last 5 years since the Marriage Equality Referendum may have influenced the expectations of women whose children were conceived within the context of their marriage. Participants of older children (approximately 10 years old) had not expected to be granted parental rights, and this lack of expectation seemed somewhat protective.
Similar to findings in previous studies, many participants placed high importance on equality within their relationship (Bergen et al., 2006; Hayman et al., 2013) and sought to redress the power imbalances arising from the asymmetric parental statuses created by the denial of their legal parental rights and their lack of biological tie to their child(ren). Couples for whom equality was important made concerted efforts to promote equal parental status and strengthen the legitimacy of the non-birth mother’s maternal status (Ben-Ari & Livni, 2006; Malmquist, 2015), using several strategies, including choosing maternal address terms, sharing a surname with their child, and obtaining guardianship rights (Bergen et al., 2006; Hayman et al., 2013). These are symbols that denote the parent-child relationship and support the social co-construction of their maternal identity (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Regardless of how participants and their partners arrived at decisions about using these strategies, it was ultimately the birth mother who had the sole power to enact them. This sometimes came across in the participants’ accounts despite many emphasizing their joint role.
Connection and Security
The second superordinate theme, an insecure connection, illustrated participants’ sense that their relationship with their child(ren) could not be taken for granted. While some previous studies on non-birth mothers have focused on anxiety, doubt, and insecurity during the transition to motherhood (Abelsohn et al., 2013; Cherguit et al., 2013), the current study added to previous findings by including mothers of older children, whose concerns had evolved over time. It seemed that as children got older, the fact of their parent-child relationship with the non-birth mother was obvious to them both, which allayed some of the initial insecurity and doubt.
Encapsulated within this theme was the subordinate theme, fear of losing my child, which depicted the fear expressed by participants that they could lose their child in the event of a separation from, or the death of, their partner. While hopeful that courts would recognize their parent-child relationship, they nevertheless had no certainty to reassure them. Such fears also emerged in relation to sharing information with the child about the donor (Van Parys et al., 2016). This highlighted a threat that some non-birth mothers may experience about the power of a biological connection to a stranger, and the potential that it could diminish or overshadow their own relationship with their child (Hayman et al., 2015; Hequembourg, 2004; Raes et al., 2014). While these fears may not be congruent with their experiences of their relationship with their child, they may be difficult to relinquish, perhaps due to cultural ideologies about genetic relatedness in families (Chapman et al., 2012). Queer theorists advocating for broader representations of family types challenge these ideas of genetic relatedness as the sole basis for, or most important aspect of, family relationships (Epstein, 2005; Park, 2013).
The subordinate theme, anxious for signs of disconnection, captured the anxiety of being rejected by their non-biological child(ren) and their vigilance for signs of (dis)connection or parental preference that might exacerbate existing feelings of exclusion and inadequacy (Goldberg et al., 2008). Although rejection by a child might be expected by all parents at some point, it was perceived more intensely in the absence of a biological tie (Pelka, 2009). Internalized ideologies about who and what constitutes a real mother undermined the security that non-birth mothers felt in relation to their child. By having an equally close, or closer relationship to their child than their partner, non-birth mothers may feel they have overcome the dominance of the biological motherhood ideology.
Consistent with previous studies (Goldberg & Scheib, 2015; Malmquist, 2015; Raes et al., 2014), participants had complex feelings about biogenetic relatedness, and many described minimizing its importance. Anxiety during their partner’s pregnancy about being able to connect with their child seemed to highlight internalized ideas about the primacy of biological motherhood (Park, 2013). Feelings of love and protection toward their children were strengthened through the act of parenting, serving as counterarguments to these ideologies and lending support to queer theories of family (Epstein, 2005; Park, 2013). However, a genetic connection to their children may be still be considered ideal (Goldberg & Scheib, 2015; Hayman et al., 2015) and might be expressed in feelings of loss and grief in not seeing physical family resemblances or not continuing a genetic line (Raes et al., 2014). This raises questions about whether using joint genetic material to conceive their children would be the first preference for some couples if it were possible. Relatedly, arguments minimizing the importance of biogenetic relatedness might be borne out of the necessity of navigating genetic asymmetry (Goldberg & Scheib, 2015). These questions are complicated by the legal and sociocultural contexts in which same-sex couples construct their families. Consistent with previous findings, the lack of legal recognition appeared to be more detrimental to their parental identity for some participants than a lack of biological relationship (Padavic & Butterfield, 2011).
Navigating a Parental Role
The third superordinate theme, carving your own way, spoke to the challenges and opportunities participants encountered in navigating their parental role. Supporting previous studies, egalitarian sharing of parental roles was important to most participants (Perlesz et al., 2010; Vanfraussen et al., 2003). However, after their partner’s maternity leave, a few participants had become the primary caregiver for reasons of health, finances, or simply because they wanted to, indicating that there was scope to shape their maternal role (Perlesz et al., 2010). Many reported dividing their roles along the lines of their interests and personality, demonstrating flexibility in defining their maternal roles outside of gender stereotypes (Ben-Ari & Livni, 2006). Previous research identified that role confusion was a common experience for non-birth mothers, whose role might lie somewhere between a mother and a father (Ben-Ari & Livni, 2006; McKelvey, 2014; Padavic & Butterfield, 2011). In contrast to findings by Padavic and Butterfield (2011), most participants in this study were happy to use the term “mother,” with only two preferring the term “parent.”
The subordinate theme, uncharted motherhood, captured a sense of the participants’ loneliness and uncertainty in navigating their role, which felt distinctly different from their partner’s and which did not have many signposts to guide them (Wojnar & Katzenmeyer, 2014). Initially, parenting roles were differentiated due to biological processes such as breastfeeding, but consistent with results in previous studies, for most participants, their roles became more equal over time (Goldberg et al., 2008). Repeatedly enacting the parenting role helped to establish and reinforce their identity (Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999). Known donors added extra complexity to the negotiation of parental roles when they were involved in the child’s life. In these cases, clear boundaries emphasizing the parental authority of the couple were important (Hayman et al., 2015; Herrmann-Green & Gehring, 2008). Three participants who had used known donors reported having worked through many of the challenges that arose (Herrmann-Green & Gehring, 2008); however, legal parental rights may help to clarify parental rights and responsibilities and provide greater security for non-birth mothers.
Although many participants reported acceptance and support from friends and family during this period (Wojnar & Katzenmeyer, 2014), the results of the current study indicate that non-birth mothers in Ireland may still be lacking appropriate role models during the transition to motherhood. This is captured in the second subordinate theme, searching for a role model. Many of the participants had identified examples of non-biological parenthood (e.g., stepparents, adoptive parents) that had reassured them and highlighted the potential success of these relationships. Seeking role models is a key stage in BAM (Mercer, 1986) and thus it is not surprising that non-birth mothers seek models of motherhood that closely represent their own developing maternal role. Growing up with the experience of or witnessing a close non-biological family relationship, either through adoption or step-parenting, demonstrated the potential success of this type of relationship for non-birth mothers who were embarking on a similar type of relationship for themselves with their children. This does not appear to be mentioned in previous studies (e.g., Bergen et al., 2006; Malmquist, 2015), but it indicates the importance of having relatable role models and the challenges non-birth mothers may face in their absence.
Limitations and Future Directions
IPA recognizes that the researcher plays a dynamic and integral role in generating and interpreting the data (Smith et al., 2009). An audit trail of the analytic process and reflexive practices were used to promote transparency (Smith & Osborn, 2015). However, the findings of the current study represent the researcher’s personal interpretation of the data which might be one of many possible readings. Underpinned by idiography, IPA involves establishing theoretical rather than empirical generalizability (Smith et al., 2009). Thus, readers can make links between the results of the current study, the existing literature on non-birth motherhood, and their own personal and professional experience (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Wagstaff et al., 2014).
In IPA, the analysis of the participants’ accounts proceeds case-by-case. Although the researcher strived to approach each case afresh, as each subsequent case was analyzed, the researcher may have been influenced by themes identified in previous cases (see Yost & Chmielewski, 2013). As the analysis proceeded, attempts were made to mitigate this by paying attention to the idiosyncratic aspects of each case; however, the order in which cases are analyzed may still be an important consideration in IPA and other qualitative studies.
IPA calls for some degree of homogeneity among participants (Smith et al., 2009), but efforts were made to ensure that participant recruitment was not limited to small geographic locations or convenience samples of participants known to each other. White, middle-class women are disproportionately represented in research on lesbian motherhood (Biblarz & Savci, 2010). While the study comprised a mixture of participants from various urban and rural regions of Ireland, and included three naturalized Irish citizens, there was a lack of ethnic diversity among participants. This may be reflective of the population of same-sex mothers in Ireland; however, as Ireland is increasingly seen as an attractive destination for sexual and gender minority individuals seeking a more tolerant and accepting society (Noone et al., 2018), future research should seek to explore the experiences of ethnic minority members of the LGBTQ+ community in Ireland. The socioeconomic status of participants was not directly asked. However, 13 participants had completed third level education. Future research should explore the role of socioeconomic status in lesbian family planning, given the costs of fertility services.
The broad age range of the participants’ children (9 weeks old to 11 years old) made it possible to capture a sense of the evolution of the challenges faced by non-birth mothers. However, there were some drawbacks to this, as experiences were retrospectively and prospectively reported, and different challenges were salient at different developmental stages of their children’s lives. Participants reported worrying about potential rejection by their teenage children, and thus future research may benefit from qualitative exploration of the experiences of non-birth mothers of adolescent children specifically.
The recent rapid social change in Ireland regarding rights for sexual and gender minorities means that participants of older children conceived their families in a very different sociocultural context than parents of much younger children. This may have influenced their attitudes, expectations, and experiences of parenthood. Future studies could employ longitudinal methods to explore non-birth mothers’ experiences over time as their children grow up.
Parts 2 and 3 of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 came into effect in Ireland almost a year after the interviews were conducted (Department of Health, 2020). Many participants are now entitled to have their relationship with their child(ren) legally recognized, which may enhance feelings of legitimacy and security. Future research should explore the impact of gaining legal parental rights among these women. There remains a small minority of non-birth mothers (e.g., those who had self-arranged conception with a known donor) whose legal position is unchanged, and it is important to continue advocating for their legal rights too.
Practice Implications
The results of this study highlight the multiple levels of marginalization that non-birth mothers in Ireland may encounter. Non-birth mothers would benefit from support in navigating these various challenges, many of which are largely hidden from mainstream discourses on motherhood and parenting. By recognizing the resilience of non-birth mothers, therapists can help to promote coping in general (Szymanski et al., 2017), and more specifically, empower, and support these women as they negotiate their identity, role, and family relationships. Non-birth motherhood is largely absent from mainstream representations of parenthood and thus they may lack suitable role models for their unique parenting role. Increased access to supports that incorporate information about their role might be facilitated through peer support networks and through the dissemination of research studies that focus on non-birth mothers’ experiences.
Acknowledging and normalizing the impact of invalidating experiences on the development of their maternal or parental identity may alleviate non-birth mothers’ feelings of confusion, inadequacy, and invisibility. Therapists should be aware of the potential implications for non-birth mothers who do not have legal parental rights, which, for example, may manifest in a power imbalance in their relationship with their partner or in their relationships with others who may have a stronger legal claim to their children, such as known donors or their children’s other biological relatives.
Prospective conversations about the donor and their child’s genetic heritage may be an emotionally complex topic for some non-birth mothers. Therapists may additionally be able to support non-birth mothers in navigating any ambivalence associated with this potentially difficult topic that might deter them from being as open as they might aspire to be with their children (Van Parys et al., 2016).
Conclusion
The participants in the current study provided insight into their lived experience of parenting their children with whom they have no legal or biological relationship. They encountered challenges to their parenthood within a sociocultural context that privileged heteronormativity and biological motherhood. Relationships with their children were navigated without the safety net of official recognition, and their motherhood roles and identities were forged in the absence of culturally normative experiences. The findings draw attention to the resilience that these participants showed in the face of multiple layers of marginalization and their commitment to parenting their children despite these various challenges.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material, sj-pptx-1-pwq-10.1177_03616843211003072 - The Motherhood Experiences of Non-Birth Mothers in Same-Sex Parent Families
Supplemental Material, sj-pptx-1-pwq-10.1177_03616843211003072 for The Motherhood Experiences of Non-Birth Mothers in Same-Sex Parent Families by Anna McInerney, Mary Creaner and Elizabeth Nixon in Psychology of Women Quarterly
Footnotes
Appendix
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
