Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study draws on the conceptual distinction between “mothering” and “motherhood” as a framework to explore the experiences of Israeli women who have partnered with widowers, raising young children as non-biological mothers. Qualitative analysis of 30 in-depth semi-structured interviews revealed that although the majority of participants performed the traditional roles dictated by the institution of motherhood, most did not define themselves as the mothers of their partner's children, reserving the title “mother” for the deceased biological mother. Regardless of how they defined their maternal status, most participants expressed deep maternal love for their partner's children. Some described having different emotional experiences with their biological versus non-biological children, which they attributed to the former being “part of them” and the bond formed from birth. Other participants reported similar emotional experiences with both biological and non-biological children. Notably, our findings indicate that the cultural climate, where the biological mother is regarded as the “real” mother, contributes to shaping the participants’ motherhood experience. This study expands the distinction between the concepts of motherhood and mothering to the context of non-biological mothers, highlighting the complexities inherent in mothering children whose biological mother has died.

Keywords

Non-biological mothers mothering motherhood blended families loss of biological mother

Introduction

Non-biological motherhood represents a growing phenomenon in recent decades, largely resulting from the increase in families formed through assisted reproductive technologies, including planned lesbian-mother families and families formed through egg donation (Imrie et al., 2020; McInerney et al., 2021). Non-biological motherhood also arises in the context of adoption (Brakman & Scholz, 2006) and, more commonly, following divorce or the death of the biological mother, when a new couple relationship is formed, resulting in the creation of a blended family (Nixon & Hadfield, 2016). Despite the growing prevalence of non-biological mothers, motherhood is still predominantly viewed in terms of biological relatedness (Pritchard, 2023; Waterman, 2003) and biological motherhood remains more highly valued within the hierarchy of motherhood (Sanner & Coleman, 2017).

Non-biological mothers must navigate the dominant view that regards biological motherhood as the embodiment of femininity (Whitehead, 2016). This view is grounded in patriarchal values rooted in society, which sanctify motherhood, particularly biological motherhood (O’Reilly, 2010). In this regard, Rich (1976) distinguishes between ‘motherhood,’ signifying a patriarchal institution shaped by male definition and control and deeply oppressive to women, and ‘mothering,’ which reflects women's personal experiences of being a mother, featuring a female-defined and centered perspective with the potential for empowerment (O’Reilly, 2017). Through this lens, mothering can be influenced by and simultaneously independent from the institution of motherhood. Rich's distinction challenges common myths about motherhood and allows for a broader perspective that considers not only maternal roles but also the maternal experience, which is unique to each woman and can serve as a source of power (O’Reilly, 2010).

Non-biological Mothers in Blended Families

Non-biological mothers in blended families, formed after divorce or following the loss of the biological mother, represent a distinctive subgroup of non-biological mothers. In the absence of established norms and the vagueness surrounding the role of the non-biological parent (Ganong & Coleman, 2004; Lahad et al., 2018), defining their role within the newly formed family unit poses a key challenge for these mothers (Pritchard, 2023). The lack of clarity regarding the role of the non-biological parent often encourages attempts to replicate traditional family roles, resulting in unrealistic expectations and pressure on the non-biological parent (Braithwaite et al., 2001). Role vagueness has indeed been found to be a major source of stress for non-biological mothers in blended families (Johnson et al., 2008).

Non-biological mothers in blended families may also face ambiguity surrounding their maternal role, which is exacerbated by conflicting cultural expectations (Penor Ceglian & Gardner, 2001). On one hand, they are expected to embody a loving and nurturing maternal figure, and to display “instant love” towards their partner's children. On the other hand, they are often stereotyped as the villainous archetype of the “wicked stepmother”. This societal myth carries negative connotations about non-biological mothers, and complicates their maternal identity formation (Cutler, 2019).

While second marriages once occurred most often due to widowhood, today, they more commonly occur following divorce (Ganong & Coleman, 2018). Accordingly, most studies of blended families focus on the experiences of non-biological mothers due to divorce (Braithwaite et al., 2001; Gosselin & Gosselin, 2016; Johnson et al., 2008), with only two studies (Hickey, 1998; Lavy, 2015) specifically focusing on non-biological mothers in families formed after the loss of the biological mother. Some studies address non-biological motherhood resulting from relationships with widowers and divorced parents as a unified category (Kehnt, 2018; Sanner & Coleman, 2017). These studies make no distinction between women who enter non-biological motherhood as their first motherhood experience, versus those who already have biological children. Overall, non-biological motherhood of young children with a deceased biological mother is often subsumed within the literature on blended families, overlooking the unique challenges associated with this situation. Here we aim to enrich the limited knowledge about mothers who first experience motherhood by parenting their widowed partner's young children.

Non-biological Mothers in Blended Families Formed Following Loss of the Biological Mother

Families formed after loss of the biological mother must cope with the unraveling of the pre-loss family unit, and establish a new family configuration (Kapolnik & Raphael Ashouri, 2019). The father bringing a new partner into the family further disrupts the family equilibrium, creating a new family dynamic. This transition compels family members to confront additional personal and interpersonal challenges, which can present unique difficulties for the woman entering the family (Hickey, 1998; Lavy, 2015; Peichic & Segal-Engelchin, 2022). One such challenge is that the non-biological mother's relationship with the children is linked to the experience of losing the biological mother (Lavy, 2015; Waterman, 2003). Losing a parent at a young age has many implications regarding psychological, physical, and social factors, which can be temporary or persist throughout life (Lytje & Dyregrov, 2019). A child's enduring pain following parental loss may deter them from developing close relationships (Granot, 2005). Children often cope with the loss of their mother by idealizing her—remembering her as a perfect mother figure. This can complicate the child's relationship with a non-biological mother, who may be cast into the role of the “evil stepmother” (Rothenberg, 2017).

Another key challenge faced by non-biological mothers in families formed after the biological mother's death pertains to the level of responsibility they must undertake. In contrast to blended families formed after divorce, where children are typically under the custody of their biological mother or in joint custody, living part-time with their biological father and non-biological mother (Crohn, 2006; Visser, 2015), children in these families reside permanently with their biological father and non-biological mother, without an additional maternal figure actively involved in their upbringing and care. This situation requires the non-biological mother to assume full responsibility for their rearing (Hickey, 1998). Additionally, the symbolic presence of the deceased mother continues to influence family life, affecting the relationships that develop with the non-biological children (Lavy, 2015; Hickey, 1998).

In this study, we sought to expand the scarce knowledge regarding non-biological mothers in blended families formed after the biological mother's death. We draw on the conceptual distinction between “mothering” and “motherhood” (Rich, 1976), as a framework to explore the participants’ unique experiences as non-biological mothers of their partner's children.

Method

This study was conducted within a broader investigation of the overall experience of Israeli women who started a family with a widower raising young children. The present findings specifically pertain to these women's experiences as non-biological mothers of their partner's children. The study employed a constructivist-qualitative paradigm, using the principles of Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006).

Participants

The sample comprised 30 women who had entered a family relationship with a widower with children. The eligibility criteria included being in a relationship with a widowed partner for at least 1 year, having no biological children at the start of the relationship, and their partner having at least one child younger than 18 years at the start of the relationship. Participants were recruited through appeals on online widow support groups, Facebook, the authors’ campus bulletin boards, and the snowball method (Noy, 2008), whereby participants referred eligible acquaintances.

All participants were born in Israel and were Jewish, except for one Muslim Arab woman. Ten participants defined themselves as religious. At the time of the interview, participants’ ages ranged from 32–78 years, 24 had an academic degree, 5 had post-secondary education, and 1 had a high school diploma. With one exception, all participants were married to their widowed partner. For most participants, this was their first familial relationship, with only two having been previously divorced. Their relationship durations ranged from 1.5–39 years. The ages of their partner's children at the start of the relationship ranged from 1–18 years. With two exceptions, all participants also had joint biological children with their partners, whose ages ranged from 6 months to 24 years.

Data Collection

Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted. First, the participants were asked to speak freely about their experiences as women in a couple relationship with a widower having young children. Next, they were asked specific questions outlined in the interview guide. The questions continuously expanded as part of the circular process of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), where data collection and analysis are conducted in parallel. Topics addressed by the questions included challenges in their relationships with their non-biological children, and the deceased wife's role in the family dynamics and the family home.

Participants chose the time and location for the interviews, which were conducted by the first author and lasted between 90 minutes and 3 hours. All interviews were recorded and fully transcribed with the participants’ consent.

Data Analysis

Content analysis comprised three stages—open coding, axial coding, and selective coding—as suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990). During open coding, data were broken down, conceptualized, and categorized. Axial coding entailed drawing connections between categories and subcategories, revealing three main categories: the experience of home, the motherhood experience, and the couplehood experience. In the present study, we focus on the motherhood experience.

During selective coding, we identified the processes and characteristics of each of the three main categories. Several aspects were identified as playing important roles in shaping the motherhood experience. The analysis was directed towards understanding the connection and hierarchy between these aspects, as reflected in the participants’ narratives. We identified three major subcategories of the motherhood experience: adopting traditional gender roles attributed to mothers, negotiating their motherhood status relative to their non-biological children, and ongoing introspection regarding their feelings toward their partner's children.

The data were analyzed separately by each researcher to establish inter-rater reliability (IRR) (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) during the coding process, and in all other interpretative stages. This was a crucial step in ensuring trustworthiness. Other strategies to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings included the use of field notes providing detailed descriptions of the interviews and quotations from the interviews, demonstrating the participants’ authentic perspectives. Additionally, the researchers applied reflexivity to enhance their understanding of how their personal conceptions and values might influence the research process (Shaw, 2010). Specifically, they examined the potential influence of their personal experiences and social positioning as mothers—one a non-biological mother to her widowed partner's children and the other a biological mother—on the interpretation of the findings.

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Departmental Ethics Committee of the authors’ university. The study aims and procedure were explained to the participants, who then signed an informed consent form. At the end of the interview, participants were informed that they could contact the first author—an experienced therapist—if they experienced any distress following the interview. They were also assured that she would assist them in finding a suitable therapist if needed. Pseudonyms were used to protect the participants’ confidentiality.

Findings

Analysis of the interviews revealed three main themes elucidating participants’ experiences as non-biological mothers of their partner's children: (1) adopting traditional gender roles attributed to mothers; (2) negotiating their motherhood status relative to their non-biological children; and (3) ongoing introspection of their feelings toward their partner's children. These themes were observed among participants, irrespective of both their age and the age of their non-biological children at the time they entered the family.

Adopting Traditional Gender Roles Attributed to Mothers

The vast majority of participants (n = 27) started to describe their motherhood experience by referring to their rapid and abrupt transition to a maternal role, lacking prior experience or preparation. Some noted that this swift transition bypassed typical preceding processes, such as building a relationship without children, pregnancy, and childbirth.

In many ways, it's a completely different life. It's not two people getting to know each other and starting something from scratch. It's a different situation. I wasn’t a mother before. It's like putting someone who doesn’t know how to ride a bike straight onto a highway. (Na’ama)

When you start not from zero but from a hundred, you have to catch up. I still didn’t know what it meant to give birth to a child…there are no regular processes of motherhood; I learned things on the go. (Orly)

Most participants (n = 28) emphasized that upon entering the maternal role, they immediately assumed the traditional gender roles attributed to mothers. For some, this meant shifting to part-time employment or taking a leave of absence from work to increase their availability for raising the children.

We got married in August, and immediately September 1st arrived, along with school and everything. I remember taking a two-month leave of absence from work to establish the home, to be available for parenting, for the children, to be with them at the start of the school year, and to pick them up from school. I stepped into the role of wife and mother. (Noa)

Participants’ accounts revealed that the children's needs were prioritized over their own needs:

I immediately found a job, in a place I didn’t like, but it was very convenient for me. A comfortable job until two in the afternoon, with great flexibility, enabling me to come home to the children. It's not like I am independent anymore and can work full-time. (Mira)

Interestingly, many women's accounts (n = 18) referred to their spouse's expectations that they would assume the traditional gender roles attributed to women immediately upon entering the family.

It was clear to him [her spouse] that I needed to cook, clean, and do laundry. He used to be responsible for that before I arrived. And now, as if this is how it should be, no one thought differently. (Rakefet)

He [her spouse] wanted me to take full charge of the household. That includes everything a woman does at home. Before I arrived, he was responsible for it. I didn’t feel like I was doing something that wasn’t right for me to do. (Malka)

For some women (n = 10), like Malka, their spouse's expectations were aligned with their own. However, others (n = 8) felt compelled into roles their spouses had previously assumed, regardless of whether those roles suited them at the time they entered the family.

Before I arrived, he used to take care of them [the children], everything was on him. But he ran away! Now that I’m here, why not?! He stayed with me for the first few days, showed me how to wake the little one up, how to make their sandwiches … It was hard for me every morning … I cried a lot. (Mira)

Divergent expectations between the women and their spouses often led to marital conflicts.

He wanted responsibility to immediately shift to me and … it was impossible! He in some way just “threw me into the deep water.” It didn’t suit me. So, we had a lot of explosions over this backdrop. I felt my daily life was so overloaded. “Don’t overwhelm me; let me learn at my own pace.” (Hana)

Some women (n = 6) described ambivalence about assuming family roles traditionally attributed to women. On one hand, they chose to fulfill these roles and felt it enhanced their sense of belonging to the family; on the other hand, commitment to these roles seemed like a burden.

Gradually, more tasks were assigned to me. On one hand, it made me feel good and gave me a sense of belonging and all that. On the other hand, there were moments when I felt like I’m the servant. (Ronit)

I was a happy and cheerful single woman. I have a great profession; I travel abroad … and suddenly I entered a framework [motherhood] that I chose and desired, but I had to give up all of that…It felt like a distressing framework. (Mira)

Negotiating Their Motherhood Status in Relation to Their non-biological Children

Another key aspect in the participants’ experience of motherhood is the challenge of defining their maternal status in relation to their partner's children.

Look, I can break this down into several topics. Firstly, there's the issue of motherhood. Secondly, there's my place in this story. I mean, where is my place? Am I not a mother? Am I a mother? Am I a substitute? (Naama)

Participants’ stories revealed the complexity of their experience regarding their maternal status. The women described varied perspectives, with some seeing themselves as mothers to their non-biological children, and others believing that the status of “mother” belonged exclusively to the biological mother.

“But I am not their mother”

About two-thirds of participants, irrespective of their non-biological children's ages when they joined the family, did not define themselves as their mother. These women used different terms to define their maternal status, emphasizing that the title “mother” is reserved only for the children's biological mother.

I’m not going to replace your mother. I want to be “like a mother”, in the role of a mother, but I’m not a mother. She [the biological mother] is your mother. She will be your mother forever. (Eden)

Some women (n = 4) shared that their struggle with defining their maternal status in relation to their partner's children continued over years:

No matter how much I try to evoke the feeling that I am their mother and give it time, I know I will never truly be able to fill that role. Their mother has passed away, and I cannot fill that void. From the beginning, I expected myself to become their mother and fully occupy that place for them. At some point, I felt disappointed in myself for not feeling it toward them. (Vered)

“I feel that I am their mother in every aspect…”

About one-third of the women emphasized their self-perception as being mothers to their partner's children in every aspect.

I saw them as my own children, and I considered myself as their mother. I remember that I was truly very happy that I am a mother. It was a very, very strong experience. (Noa)

Nevertheless, most of these women acknowledged the complexity of this subject, describing how they defined their maternal status as it evolved and changed over time.

At first, I was “like a mother”…. Today, it's absolutely not “like a mother”! Today, it's being a mother in every way! Back then, I didn’t really know what it meant to be a mother, so it suited me better. (Orly)

Some emphasized that the evolving relationship with their non-biological children was an important component of defining their maternal status. They noted that, unlike in biological motherhood where maternal status is automatically conferred at birth, in non-biological motherhood, it develops over time.

My perception of being their mother was not immediate; it took time. I did not define myself as their mother and did not feel it initially. I don’t know exactly when it happened, but the relationship was formed first and only then came the recognition. With my biological children, the moment they were born, I was already defined as their mother, and then the relationship with them began; it's different. (Yael)

Participants’ accounts (n = 7) highlighted the intertwined contradictions in defining their maternal status. For example, Devora said “She [their deceased biological mother] is their biological mother; there is only one mother.” However, later in the interview, she stated: “I feel that I am their mother in every aspect. Alongside the memories, I am their mother for better and for worse.” Similarly, Sigal said “I don’t love like a mother and I’m not ‘like a mother’, I am her mother!” However, later in the interview, she noted “I always knew that I am an adoptive mother. At no point did I have the naturalness, simplicity, and comfort that come with biological motherhood. It's really dichotomous.”

The “dichotomy” Sigal referred to is related to the common view of the biological mother as the “one” mother, which doesn’t align with how she actually experiences motherhood to her partner's daughter. Some women (n = 3) resolved the inherent contradiction in defining their maternal status by adopting a broader perception of motherhood, asserting that their partner's children have two mothers who play significant roles in their lives, with their motherhood coexisting alongside that of the biological mother.

They have two mothers, one who is their foundation and me…. I took on the whole emotional package and I am their mother. There was mother Ruth [the biological mother] and she has an important place in their lives, and they have me. (Ilana)

The complexity in defining participants’ maternal status is also reflected in how the women are addressed by their non-biological children. Among women who defined themselves as mothers to their partner's children, most (n = 7) reported that these children call them by their name rather than by the title “Mom”. Some accepted this with understanding, as they believed that “Mom” is reserved for the biological mother.

It doesn’t bother me that he calls me by my name, because I knew he carries some baggage in this world. His mother passed away, and I think that calling me “Mom” would take something away from his memory of her, maybe even erase her. I know he feels that I am his mother, that's what matters. For me, being a mother is simpler because a mother can have many children. For him … all these years, they’ve been told that “there's only one mother”‘, the biological mother. (Rotem)

In contrast, a few (n = 3) described their discomfort when the children address them by their first name:

Every time he [her partner's biological son] calls me Orly… it puts me in my place… “Don’t forget, what is your place here!” (Orly)

Ongoing Introspection of Their Feelings Toward Their non-biological Children

A recurring finding among most participants (n = 28) pertains to the wide range of emotions they developed towards their non-biological children. Some women (n = 6) described the emotional complexity characterizing their relationships with these children, emphasizing their difficulties in feeling positive emotions toward them, along with accompanying guilt.

From the moment I met him [her non-biological child], the problem was that I didn’t have a good relationship with him. To this day, the relationship is not idea…It's hard for me, this feeling I have towards him. Thoughts go through my mind like “You’re not a good enough mother; you’re not showing him enough love like his real mother would have”. (Sima)

Another interviewee also described difficulty in forming a maternal bond with her non-biological children and noted her disappointment in herself:

By deciding to marry Yoel [her partner], I took on the responsibility to love them like my own children, and it's really, really hard. No matter how wonderful and good they are, sometimes they are very annoying. It causes difficulties between Yoel and me. I sometimes feel that I don’t love them enough, and its painful for me because I thought I would be able to truly love them. (Eden)

In contrast, most participants (n = 22) expressed deep maternal love towards their partner's children.

I love them so much! There is a charm about them that is irresistible. It's a love reserved for children, a mother's love. (Yael)

These women described intensified introspection regarding their emotions towards their non-biological children after becoming biological mothers. The experience of biological motherhood prompted comparisons of the love they feel towards their biological versus non-biological children.

When Yonathan [her biological child] was born, I was constantly preoccupied with this question: whether I love him more than them [her non-biological children], or maybe it's because he's a sweet baby, and everyone loves a little baby. (Orly)

For some participants (n = 14), this comparison undermined the way they perceived their feelings towards their non-biological children, highlighting differences in their emotional bonding and feelings towards their biological versus non-biological children.

Until Nir [her biological child] was born, I felt that they [her non-biological children] were truly like my own children. And suddenly, when Nir was born, I felt, maybe also because he's a baby and all, that it was a completely different connection. Suddenly, it seemed to me that there was some kind of gap. I don’t know if it was in the love, the bond, or something else … Suddenly, I felt what it means that the child is biologically yours. (Ronit)

The women attributed the difference in their feelings to their view of their biological children as being “part of them”, and to the bond formed with them from the moment of their birth.

When they [her biological children] were born, I also had to cope with the fact that it wasn’t the same love … they [her non-biological children] are very good children, they are cute children, but it's not the same thing. They are not part of you. After I gave birth, I felt that there is some kind of difference. (Hana)

I wasn’t with them [the non-biological children] at age 0. I didn’t give birth to them … There is love, there is closeness, there are tensions, there is everything that comprises a relationship with children. But it's still not the same thing. I’m not saying this negatively or positively; it's just different. And one must acknowledge that; you can’t say “there is no difference”. (Ilana)

Some (n = 5) emphasized their disappointment at not feeling similar maternal emotions towards their non-biological children.

I feel it more since my biological children were born. I really love them [her non-biological children]. But the feeling that comes with a child that is from you is missing … and in some way, I’m disappointed with myself that I don’t feel towards them as I would like to feel. (Vered)

Conversely, among women who expressed positive feelings towards their partner's children, one-third (n = 7) indicated that biological motherhood helped them recognize similar maternal emotions for both their biological and non-biological children.

After giving birth, I understood that I’m always his [her non-biological child] mother, and that I have the same love for him. I always said I have three children, I love all three, and I gave birth to all three. I didn’t give birth to him physically, I gave birth to him from the soul. It's the same for me. (Gaya)

Some women who had similar emotional experiences with their biological and non-biological children described a range of maternal feelings, both positive and negative.

I sometimes feel like I’m the luckiest person in the world to have them [the non-biological daughters]. And sometimes, like all mothers, I feel like hanging them from the tallest tree around, just like I sometimes feel like doing with my biological son. I feel that any feeling of anger I have towards them is okay, I’m okay with it. I also get angry with my biological son; he annoys me too. (Ya’ara)

Discussion

This study elucidates the motherhood experiences of a distinctive subgroup that has received little research attention: women whose first motherhood experience is as non-biological mothers in blended families formed following the loss of the biological mother. Consistent with Hickey's (1998) findings, our results indicate that most participants experienced the transition to motherhood as rapid and abrupt, bypassing typical preceding processes.

The participants’ descriptions of their motherhood experiences revealed three prominent inter-related aspects: adopting traditional gender roles attributed to mothers; negotiating their motherhood status relative to their non-biological children; and ongoing introspection regarding their feelings toward their partner's children. These aspects, which were prominent across participants regardless of their own age or their non-biological children's ages when they joined the family, can be viewed through the lens of the distinction between “motherhood”, referring to the patriarchal institution of motherhood, and “mothering”, referring to women's own experiences (Rich, 1976).

Our participants’ adoption of traditional maternal roles can be explained through the concept of “motherhood”, described by Rich (1976) as a patriarchal institution that oppresses women by channeling them into gendered roles defined and controlled by men (Green, 2015; O’Reilly, 2017). Although second-wave feminism inspired significant social changes, traditional maternal roles have remained largely unaltered, and the “institution of motherhood” continues to impose demanding expectations on women (O’Brien Hallstein & O’Reilly, 2012). In western societies, the institution of motherhood draws on the cultural model of “intensive motherhood” (Green, 2015; Lavee et al., 2018), first introduced by Hays (1996), which posits that a “good mother” devotes herself to her children, prioritizing their needs and care. Possibly, our participants, similar to other women, are trapped in this model and thus strive to fulfill the role dictated by the institution of motherhood (Forbes et al., 2020; Henderson et al., 2016). Similar patterns have emerged in previous studies of women partnered with widowers raising children (Hickey, 1998; Lavy, 2015).

Empirical knowledge indicates that women tend to adopt traditional gender roles after childbirth (Johnstone et al., 2011). Similarly, our participants reported an immediate adoption of traditional maternal roles upon entering non-biological motherhood, suggesting that non-biological mothers are also influenced by the cultural imperatives of patriarchal motherhood.

According to feminist perspectives, motherhood is characterized by dialectical tensions that evoke ambivalent emotions—navigating between the woman's personal happiness and dedication to a social vocation, versus feelings of enslavement and oppression (Arendell, 2000). Such dialectical tensions are evident in the current study. Most participants embraced traditional maternal roles. However, some expressed ambivalence, feeling caught between the heightened sense of family associated with these roles, and the burdens they imposed. Participants expressed their desire to be “good mothers” to their non-biological children, while simultaneously noting the difficulty of fully committing to maternal tasks. Similarly, biological mothers experience conflict between idealized expectations of motherhood versus actual mothering experiences (Prikhidko & Swank, 2018). This suggests that the culturally dominant ideology of intensive motherhood restricts both biological and non-biological mothers, “capturing” them in traditional roles regardless of their personal desires (Henderson et al., 2016).

The inherent complexity of the participants’ experiences as non-biological mothers is intensified within the cultural context of Israeli society, considered a familistic and pro-natalist society (Shenkman et al., 2022). In pro-natalist societies, biological motherhood is often viewed as the fulfillment of feminine identity (McKennon Brody & Frey, 2017) and is prioritized within the hierarchy of motherhood types (Nelson, 2009). As such, childless women frequently feel excluded from society and struggle for acceptance into the “mothers’ club” (Nelson, 2009; Whitehead, 2016). Within this context, our participants’ immediate adoption of traditional maternal roles may reflect their desire for acceptance into the “mothers’ club” and their efforts to counter their devalued societal status as non-biological mothers, stemming from a patriarchal institution that regards biological mothers as “real” mothers (O’Reilly, 2016).

The participants’ perceptions of their maternal status in relation to their partner's children are linked to the concept of “mothering”, focusing on the mother's experiences (Rich, 1976). Most participants did not define themselves as the mothers of their non-biological children, reserving the title “mother” for the biological mother. This reflects the prevailing ideology of monomaternalism (Park, 2013), positing that a child can have only one mother—the birth mother. Such beliefs impact the motherhood experience of non-biological mothers in lesbian couples, who often feel that their role as a mother is not acknowledged, hindering their maternal identity development (McInerney et al., 2021). While many participants accepted the biological mother as the “one” mother, some expressed the perspective that their motherhood coexists alongside that of the biological mother, suggesting that one does not negate the other. A similar perspective was reported in Lavy's (2015) study.

The differentiation between “motherhood” and “mothering” (Rich, 1976) is also reflected in the participants’ feelings towards their non-biological children. Most participants experienced positive maternal feelings, regardless of how they defined their maternal status. However, some described different emotional experiences with their biological versus non-biological children, despite fulfilling identical maternal roles with both. Day (2019) reported similar findings, linked to the notion of the “motherhood hierarchy”, where biological motherhood holds the highest position, and a higher emotional status in women's motherhood experience. Some participants attributed their different emotional experience to the fact that they did not begin bonding with their non-biological children at birth. This aligns with a systematic review indicating that the quality of bonding between mothers and infants early in pregnancy or postpartum predicts later bonding quality (Tichelman et al., 2019).

Interestingly, some participants reported that the birth of their biological children helped them realize that their emotional experiences were not influenced by the biological aspect. Previous research on non-biological motherhood in other family forms (Golombok et al., 2006; Golombok et al., 2023) indicates that the biological aspect does not play a major role in shaping the mother–child relationship. The variability in participants’ bonding experiences reflects the individual and nuanced nature of the bonding process among non-genetic mothers (Imrie et al., 2020).

Our participants experienced a wide range of positive and negative emotions towards their non-biological children, which varied over time, corroborating the assertion that mothering encompasses a broad spectrum of evolving and changing emotions (Rich, 1976). This perspective challenges the one-dimensional view of mothering as exclusively characterized by maternal love, which disregards mothers’ ambivalent feelings towards their children (Takševa, 2017) and can promote maternal shame (Slobodin, 2019). Our study enriches understanding of the mothering experiences of non-biological mothers, revealing that they also manifest the multi-dimensional emotional experiences reported among biological mothers (Parker, 2012; Takševa, 2017), thereby undermining the “wicked stepmother” stereotype (Miller et al., 2018).

A major limitation of this study is that the sample predominantly comprised Israeli-born Jewish women who entered a familial relationship with a widower raising children. This raises the question of whether our findings are applicable to women from other cultural backgrounds who have partnered with widowers raising children. Future investigations with more diverse and representative samples of non-biological mothers in these families may enhance the generalizability of the findings in Israel, and cross-national studies would allow for validation of these findings in other countries as well as enable exploring culture's role in shaping the motherhood experiences of this distinctive subgroup of non-biological mothers. Future studies will also benefit from investigating the motherhood experiences of women who entered a familial relationship with a widower raising young children, while also having their own biological children. This could generate insights into the diverse motherhood experiences within the group of non-biological mothers in blended families formed after the loss of the biological mother. Finally, longitudinal studies are recommended to enhance our understanding of the experiences of non-biological mothers over time, as they navigate the evolving processes and dynamics within their family relationships.

Conclusion

This study deepens our understanding of the issues associated with non-biological motherhood in blended families formed after the loss of the biological mother. It highlights the complexities shaping the maternal status of non-biological mothers in these families, the distinctive dynamics within their families, and the multi-dimensional emotions they experience towards their non-biological children. In doing so, it addresses a significant gap in the literature, where research on motherhood often overlooks non-biological mothers, particularly those who form relationships with widowers raising children.

Our findings suggest that fulfilling maternal roles does not necessarily reflect women's mothering experiences or self-definition of maternal status. This adds another layer to the understanding of the term “mothering”, showing that the mothering experience among non-biological mothers encompasses not only their mothering practices and feelings towards the children, but also how they define their relationship with them. As such, the study provides new insights into Rich's (1976) distinction between “mothering” and “motherhood”. Additionally, we found that the persistent presence of the biological mother in participants’ relationships with the non-biological children, along with the cultural climate, played significant roles in shaping their mothering experiences and self-perception of maternal status. This demonstrates the contextual nature of their mothering experiences, highlighting how these experiences are shaped by both relational and cultural factors.

Implications for practice

Our findings, shedding light on the complexities shaping the motherhood experience of non-biological mothers in blended families formed after loss of the biological mother, stress the importance of acknowledging the diversity within the broader group of non-biological mothers and the varied realities they face across different family forms. This recognition may enable professionals who provide services to mothers to develop interventions tailored for their needs, based on a nuanced approach that takes into account the distinct mothering experiences of mothers in diverse family forms.

Another implication of our findings highlights the necessity for family therapists working with blended families formed after the death of the biological mother to acknowledge the deceased biological mother as an integral part of the family dynamic, while also acknowledging the motherhood of the non-biological mother. This understanding may encourage therapists to assist family members in creating space for both maternal figures, enabling their coexistence without one negating the other, and to support the family in processing both the loss and the renewal they have experienced. Furthermore, our findings stress the need for family therapists working with these families to consider the unique challenges confronting non-biological mothers, alongside those faced by widowed fathers and children, and to incorporate these challenges into the therapeutic process.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.P.-A. and D.S.-E.; methodology, T.P.-A. and D.S.-E.; data collection, T.P.-A.; formal analysis, T.P.-A. and D.S.-E.; writing—original draft, T.P.-A.: writing—review and editing, D.S.-E.

Consent to Participate

All the participants signed informed consent forms before beginning the interview.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical considerations but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Departmental Ethics Committee at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (#OROO10022015).

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Dorit Segal-Engelchin

References

Arendell

(2000). Conceiving and investigating motherhood: The decade's scholarship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1192–1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01192.x

Braithwaite

D. O.

Olson

L. N.

Golish

T. D.

Soukup

Turman

(2001). “Becoming a family”: Developmental processes represented in blended family discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(3), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880128112

Brakman

S.-V.

Scholz

S. J.

(2006). Adoption, ART, and a re-conception of the maternal body: Toward embodied maternity. Hypatia, 21(1), 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2006.tb00964

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.

Crohn

H. M.

(2006). Five styles of positive stepmothering from the perspective of young adult stepdaughters. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 46(1-2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v46n01_07

Cutler

D. C.

(2019). The modern family and the integration of the wicked stepmother archetype [Master's thesis, Pacifica Graduate Institute].

Day

(2019). What stepmothers can teach us about contemporary family life, the institution of motherhood, and the reproduction of gender inequality [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire, Durham]. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/2443

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications.

Forbes

L. K.

Donovan

Lamar

M. R.

(2020). Differences in intensive parenting attitudes and gender norms among U.S. mothers. The Family Journal, 28(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480719893964

10.

Ganong

Coleman

(2004). Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and interventions. Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

11.

Ganong

Coleman

(2018). Studying stepfamilies: Four eras of family scholarship. Family Process, 57(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12307

12.

Golombok

Murray

Jadva

Lycett

MacCallum

Rust

(2006). Non-genetic and non-gestational parenthood: Consequences for parent–child relationships and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at age 3. Human Reproduction, 21(7), 1918–1924. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del039

13.

Golombok

Shaw

McConnachie

Jadva

Foley

Macklon

Ahuja

(2023). Relationships between mothers and children in families formed by shared biological motherhood. Human Reproduction, 38(5), 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead047

14.

Gosselin

(2016). Women’s maternal experiences in Canadian stepfamilies: An exploratory study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 57(6), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2016.1196848

15.

Granot

(2005). Without you: Children and young people growing up with loss and its effects. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

16.

Green

F. J.

(2015). Re-conceptualising motherhood: Reaching back to move forward. Journal of Family Studies, 21(3), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2015.1086666

17.

Hays

(1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. Yale University Press.

18.

Henderson

Harmon

Newman

(2016). The price mothers pay, even when they are not buying it: Mental health consequences of idealized motherhood. Sex Roles, 74(11–12), 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0534-5

19.

Hickey

(1998). Stepmothering when the mother has died [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Union Institute in partial fulfillment].

20.

Imrie

Jadva

Golombok

(2020). Making the child mine”: Mothers’ thoughts and feelings about the mother–infant relationship in egg donation families. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(4), 469–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000619

21.

Johnson

A. J.

Wright

K. B.

Craig

E. S.

Gilchrist

E. S.

Lane

L. T.

Haigh

M. M.

(2008). A model for predicting stress levels and marital satisfaction for stepmothers utilizing a stress and coping approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(1), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507086809

22.

Johnstone

Lucke

Lee

(2011). Influences of marriage, motherhood, and other life events on Australian women’s employment aspirations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310388502

23.

Kapolnik

Raphael Ashouri

(2019). From healing to reconnecting: Family-system therapy for loss and bereavement. Hebrew Psychology. https://www.hebpsy.net/articles.asp?id=3815

24.

Kehnt

L. N.

(2018). Perceived child regard, parenting stress, and depressive symptoms of nonresidential and residential stepmothers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/6050

25.

Lahad

Sabar

Sabar Ben Yehoshua

(2018). Doing and displaying gendered boundary work among blended families in Israel. Sociology, 52(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516677220

26.

Lavee

Fogiel-Bijaoui

Benjamin

(2018). Current motherhood in Israel: Critical perspectives in a changing institutional environment [Editorial introduction, Spesial issue]. Social Security, 103, 5–25. [Hebrew].

27.

Lavy

(2015). Step-mothers and step-daughters relationship [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University]. [Hebrew].

28.

Lytje

Dyregrov

(2019). The price of loss–a literature review of the psychosocial and health consequences of childhood bereavement. Bereavement Care, 38(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02682621.2019.1580854

29.

McInerney

Creaner

Nixon

(2021). The motherhood experiences of non-birth mothers in same-sex parent families. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(3), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211003072

30.

McKennon Brody

Frey

(2017). Mis(sed) conceptions: Motherhood through the lens of involuntary childlessness. Women's Reproductive Health, 4(3), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/23293691.2017.1388722

31.

Miller

Cartwright

Gibson

(2018). Stepmothers’ perceptions and experiences of the wicked stepmother stereotype. Journal of Family Issues, 39(7), 1984–2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X17739049

32.

Nelson

(2009). In the other room: Entering the culture of motherhood. Fernwood Publishing.

33.

Nixon

Hadfield

(2016). Blended families. In The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of family studies (pp. 1–5). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs207

34.

Noy

(2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305

35.

O’Brien Hallstein

D. L.

O’Reilly

(2012). Academic motherhood in a post-second wave context: Framing the conversation. In O’Brien Hallstein

D. L.

O’Reilly

(Eds.), Academic motherhood in a post-second wave context: Challenges, strategies, and possibilities (pp. 1–48). Demeter Press.

36.

O'Reilly

(2010). Outlaw(ing) motherhood: A theory and politic of maternal empowerment for the twenty-first century. Hecate, 36(1), 17–29, 230. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/outlaw-ing-motherhood-theory-politic-maternal/docview/821605693/se-2

37.

O’Reilly

(2016). Matricentric feminism: Theory, activism, and practice. Demeter Press.

38.

O'Reilly

(2017). Mothering against motherhood: The legacy of Adrienne Rich’s of woman born. Women’s Studies, 46(7), 728–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/00497878.2017.1363604

39.

Park

S. M.

(2013). Mothering Queerly, Queering Motherhood: Resisting Monomaternalism in Adoptive, Lesbian, Blended, and Polygamous Families. SUNY Press.

40.

Parker

(2012). Shame and maternal ambivalence. In Mariotti

(Ed.), The maternal lineage: Identification, desire, and transgenerational issues (pp. 85–112). Routledge.

41.

Peichich-Aizen

Segal-Engelchin

(2022). “Is there room for both loves?”: The experience of couplehood among women living with a widower with young children. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 860467. http//doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.860467

42.

Penor Ceglian

C. P.

Gardner

(2001). Attachment style and the “wicked stepmother” spiral. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 34(1–2), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v34n01_07

43.

Prikhidko

Swank

J. M.

(2018). Motherhood experiences and expectations: A qualitative exploration of mothers of toddlers. The Family Journal, 26(3), 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480718795116

44.

Pritchard

(2023). Unclear motherhood: Ambiguity and role conflict among double mothers. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 64(2–4), 130–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2023.2211181

45.

Rich

(1976). Of woman born: Motherhood as experience and institution. Norton.

46.

Rothenberg

R. E.

(2017). The orphan archetype. Psychological Perspectives, 60(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332925.2017.1282265

47.

Sanner

Coleman

(2017). (Re)constructing family images: Stepmotherhood before biological motherhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(5), 1462–1477. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12428

48.

Shaw

(2010). Embedding reflexivity within experiential qualitative psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(3), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478088808269092

49.

Shenkman, G., Segal-Engelchin, D., & Taubman-Ben-Ari, O. (2022). What we know and what remains to be explored about LGBTQ parent families in Israel: A sociocultural perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 4355. http//doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074355

50.

Slobodin

(2019). Between the eye and the gaze: Maternal shame in the novel We need to talk about Kevin. Feminism & Psychology, 29(2), 214–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353518783785

51.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.

52.

Takševa

(2017). Mother love, maternal ambivalence, and the possibility of –empowered mothering. Hypatia, 32(1), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12310

53.

Tichelman

Westerneng

Witteveen

A. B.

van Baar

A. L.

van der Horst

H. E.

de Jonge

Berger

M. Y.

Schellevis

F. G.

Burger

Peters

L. L.

(2019). Correlates of prenatal and postnatal mother-to-infant bonding quality: A systematic review. PLoS One, 14(9), e0222998. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222998

54.

Visser

A. V.

(2015). Constructing new relationships: a thematic analysis of stepmother and stepchild co-construction of close and enduring bonds [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Guelph]. http://hdl.handle.net/10214/9172

55.

Waterman

(2003). Birth of an adoptive, foster or stepmother: Beyond biological mothering attachments. Jessica Kingsley.

56.

Whitehead

(2016). Motherhood as a gendered entitlement: Intentionality, “othering,” and homosociality in the online infertility community. Canadian Review of Sociology, 53(1), 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12093

Motherhood and Mothering: The Experience of Israeli Non-Biological Mothers in Blended Families Formed After Loss of the Biological Mother

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Non-biological Mothers in Blended Families

Non-biological Mothers in Blended Families Formed Following Loss of the Biological Mother

Method

Participants

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Ethical Considerations

Findings

Adopting Traditional Gender Roles Attributed to Mothers

Negotiating Their Motherhood Status in Relation to Their non-biological Children

“But I am not their mother”

“I feel that I am their mother in every aspect…”

Ongoing Introspection of Their Feelings Toward Their non-biological Children

Discussion

Conclusion

Implications for practice

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

Consent to Participate

Data Availability Statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Ethical Considerations

Funding

ORCID iD

References