Donor-conceived adolescents show varied preferences for donor information
Donor-conceived adolescents’ interest in obtaining information about their identity-release oocyte or sperm donor--results from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation. (Groundstroem, 2026)
Groundstroem, H., Paulin, J., Thorup, E., Sydsjo, G., & Lampic, C. (2026). Donor-conceived adolescents’ interest in obtaining information about their identity-release oocyte or sperm donor--results from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation. Human Reproduction, 00(00), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deag088
Geographic Region: Sweden
Research Questions: Do donor-conceived adolescents in lesbian-couple and heterosexual-couple families intend to request identifying or non-identifying information about their identity-release oocyte or sperm donor? What factors--including family type, donation type, family functioning, and perceived parent-child relationships--are associated with adolescents’ interest in seeking donor information?
Design: A cross-sectional survey study conducted during the fifth wave of data collection (2022 to 2023) from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation (SSGD), a longitudinal multicenter cohort study that began recruiting heterosexual and lesbian couples undergoing identity-release gamete donation in 2005 to 2008. The survey assessed adolescent awareness of and feelings about donor conception, interest in requesting donor information, motivations for seeking information, types of donor information desired (background/non-identifying versus identity and contact), desire for contact with the donor and same-donor peers, and parent-child relationships. Family functioning was measured using the FAD GF6+, a validated six-item instrument assessing communication, problem-solving, emotional climate, and closeness among family members. Emotional closeness to each parent and perceived resemblance (physical and non-physical characteristics) were assessed with single-item measures rated on four-point Likert scales.
Sample: 96 donor-conceived adolescents (ages 13 to 16, mean 14.7 years) whose parents had disclosed their donor conception status: 47 from lesbian-couple sperm donation families (49%), 27 from heterosexual-couple sperm donation families (28%), and 22 from heterosexual-couple oocyte donation families (23%). Gender distribution was approximately even (49% girls, 51% boys). About 60% had married or cohabiting parents, though adolescents from lesbian-couple families were more likely to have separated parents (57% vs. 15% of hetero-sperm and 32% of hetero-egg). A majority (58%) had donor-conceived siblings in their homes; hetero-egg families were significantly less likely to have siblings than other families. Most adolescents (68%) learned about donor conception before age 8, with highest rates in lesbian-couple families (79%). Regarding knowledge outside the family, 92% of adolescents from lesbian-couple families reported that both family members and others knew, compared to 52% of hetero-sperm and 50% of hetero-egg families. Of 128 adolescents approached, 100 completed surveys (78% response rate). Of the 42 families not providing contact, 9 had not disclosed donor conception to the child, and 22 had not discussed information access.
Key Findings
58% of adolescents intended to request donor information (28% ‘as soon as possible’; 30% ‘sometime in the future’). 32% were uncertain. 9% had no intention to request information. Adolescents who reported better family functioning were about 5 times more likely to report uncertainty than clear intention. This finding was statistically significant.
Among heterosexual-couple families, those conceived with donor eggs were significantly more likely to intend to request information than those conceived with sperm. Sperm-donation adolescents from heterosexual-couple families were about 6 times more likely to be uncertain rather than clearly intending to request information. The authors proposed that sperm-donation adolescents may worry that searching for the donor could negatively impact their relationship with their non-genetic father. For oocyte-donation families, they cite research showing oocyte-donation mothers pursue active strategies to cope with their feelings about the donation, which helps them feel secure as mothers, contributing to a mother-child bond less likely to be threatened by the DCP's interest in the donor They also note that in sperm-donation heterosexual families, mothers tend to be more open about donor issues than fathers, perhaps due to the stigma associated with male infertility.
Family form (lesbian vs. heterosexual-couple) did not significantly predict intention to request donor information. Gender also did not significantly predict intention, contrary to earlier studies showing girls were more interested than boys.
Among the 87 adolescents indicating some interest (including those who selected uncertain)
Motivations for seeking information included: Determine physical resemblance to donor (71%), Learn about heritage (64%), Explore resemblance of non-physical characteristics (53%), Obtain medical/genetic history (45%), Relevance to own identity (24%), To contact the donor (22%). There were no significant differences between donation groups.
Types of information desired included: Background information (78%), Donor’s name and identity number (61%), Donor’s openness to contact (52%), Donor contact information (36%). There were no significant differences between donation groups.
73% of adolescents from lesbian couples discussed seeking information with both parents, compared to 50% of hetero-sperm and 37% of hetero-egg families. Among hetero-egg families, one-third discussed with mother only, suggesting more open maternal communication about donor issues.
Among all respondents, 31% expressed interest in contact with same-donor peers, 44% were uncertain, and 25% were not interested. There were no significant differences between groups or between adolescents with and without donor-conceived siblings in their families.
Editor’s Note: The authors tested whether having donor-conceived siblings in the home predicted interest in contacting same-donor peers, but they did not appear to test whether sibling status predicts intention to request donor information. This feels like a missed opportunity, particularly given the findings that adolescents from hetero-egg families (who show the highest intention to request donor information) are significantly less likely to have donor-conceived siblings in their family. Qualitative research on donor-conceived adults reveals a potential pattern: some DCP express reluctance to search for or contact donors and donor siblings without the consent and cooperation of the siblings they grew up with. By this logic, adolescents without donor-conceived siblings in the home may face fewer relational constraints on their information-seeking. Conversely, adolescents sharing a home with one or more donor-conceived siblings may experience their search interest as more complicated, requiring negotiation and alignment with siblings’ wishes.
Limitations: Longitudinal attrition bias likely selected for stable families. Small subgroup sizes (especially n=9 ‘no intention’ group) limit the ability of some analyses to detect differences. Selection bias from requiring disclosure for participation means non-disclosed adolescents are entirely absent. Lack of demographic disaggregation by race, ethnicity, SES, or immigration status. The FAD GF6+ measures family functioning but not openness about sensitive topics.
Applications: The wide variation in what adolescents want (some want only background, others want identity, some want contact information) suggests that flexible, tailored approaches to ID disclosure may be warranted.
Funding Source: Swedish Research Council (grant 2021-03174) and Umea University.
Lead Author: Henrik Groundstroem is a licensed psychologist and doctoral student in clinical psychology at the Department of Psychology, Umea University, Sweden, whose research focuses on long-term psychosocial outcomes and identity integration among families with identity-release donor-conceived children. No personal connection to donor conception was disclosed.
Regulatory Context:
Sweden was one of the first countries to implement identity-release donation, passing legislation in 1984 that went into effect in 1985. Donor-conceived individuals have the legal right to obtain identifying information about their donor when they reach “sufficient maturity,” typically interpreted as age 18, though no specific age is mandated by law. Donor information is recorded in medical records that the child can access as an adult.
Only altruistic gamete donation is allowed. Donors can receive compensation for expenses and inconvenience, but not payment for the gametes themselves. Donors must be 18 years or older.
Legislation allowed donor insemination through the public healthcare system for heterosexual couples in 1985, and IVF treatment with donor eggs or sperm were also permitted to heterosexual couples in 2003. Sperm donation treatment became accessible to lesbian couples in 2005. In 2016, legislation was passed to allow access to assisted reproductive treatments, including procedures with donor eggs and donor sperm, for single women and lesbian couples. A separate change occurred in 2019, allowing both private and public clinics to perform treatments with donated eggs, and a double donation (using both a donated egg and donated sperm) became legal.
In Sweden, a donor can contribute to a maximum of six families. A central register of all donor treatments is maintained by the National Board of Health and Welfare. This register helps to connect donor-conceived individuals, donors, and their relatives.
Related Posts