Dutch research reveals diverse "kinning" strategies in lesbian family building
Making a Family: Kinning and Conception in Lesbian Families (Geerts, 2025)
Geerts, A. (2025). Making a Family: Kinning and Conception in Lesbian Families. Journal of Homosexuality. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2025.2469579
Geographic Region: The Netherlands
Research Question: How do lesbian couples in the Netherlands shape conception practices, and how does this relate to existing kinship discourses, particularly regarding motherhood and sperm donor roles?
Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews conducted between February 2019 and April 2020. The researcher employed thematic and abductive analysis to identify patterns of meaning in how couples described their conception decisions. Part of a larger multi-country comparative project (GENPARENT) on the transition to parenthood in same-sex and different-sex couples.
Sample: 24 lesbian couples expecting their first child through pregnancy (48 participants). Most were White, financially well-off, highly educated, homeowners, and married or in registered partnerships. Fifteen couples conceived through clinical insemination (five with contact donors) and nine through non-clinical insemination (all contact donors). The researchers use the term contact donor to refer to directed donors or known donors, or arrangements where the donor’s identity is known to the recipient parents prior to conception.
Key Findings
Two central concerns guided the conception decisions of lesbian couples in the Netherlands: affirming the lesbian relationship as the foundation of the family and managing the relationship with the sperm donor.
Non-birth mothers emphasized active involvement in conception to establish a connection to the future child, sometimes making significant sacrifices to participate in the process.
None of the couples aimed to completely exclude donors from their children's lives, showing a shift from earlier practices that emphasized donor anonymity.
Desired donor involvement varied widely, from minimal contact to arrangements where donors would have regular roles in children's lives.
Couples navigated competing ideas about biological connection, recognizing the donor's genetic contribution while affirming the essential role of the non-birth mother.
Motivations for choosing contact (e.g., known or directed) donors:
To avoid long waiting times at sperm banks.
To provide donor information access to their children before the age of 16-18.
To allow the donor to have an active role in the child's life.
To establish genetic connections to both mothers (e.g., using the non-birth mother's brother).
Motivations for choosing sperm bank donors:
To protect the family unit from potential donor interference.
To create clearer family boundaries.
To avoid the donor becoming "too close" to the family.
To maintain the mothers' exclusive parental authority.
Contact donor users had diverse expectations about future involvement. Some maintained minimal planned contact despite knowing the donor. Some arranged occasional updates about the child. Some planned regular contact between donor and child. Some created multi-parent arrangements. Sperm bank donor users generally expected no contact until the child reached maturity under Dutch law.
Contact donor users might refer to the donor as "donor," "donor father," or even "father" depending on their vision of his role. Sperm bank donor users typically used only the term "donor"
Limitations: The sample consisted primarily of privileged White, higher-income, and highly educated couples, limiting applicability to more marginalized LGBTQ groups. The study didn't explore how socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender identity, and race might influence conception choices. Only the perspectives of lesbian couples were included, not those of donors.
Applications: The study further illustrates how parents' conception choices often reflect intentional family-building strategies rather than arbitrary decisions. Mental health and healthcare providers can recognize that conception method choices might carry symbolic meaning for family identity formation.
Funding Source: European Research Council (Horizon 2020, Grant No. 771770) and Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare.
Lead Author: Allison Geerts is a PhD candidate in Sociology at the Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI) at Stockholm University, where she focuses on family formation, work-care division, and the transition to parenthood in same-sex couples. She holds an M.Sc. in Sociology and Social Research from Utrecht University and participated in the European Doctoral School of Demography (2016-2017). Geerts is a researcher on the ERC-funded GENPARENT project, which investigates the division of care and work following the transition to parenthood among same-gender couples from a comparative perspective. Her research specifically examines work, care, and family formation among lesbian couples in the Netherlands. No evidence of a personal connection to donor conception was noted.
.
Regulatory Context
The Dutch legal system's strong protection of lesbian parental rights allowed couples to include donors in family life without fearing loss of parental authority.
Artificial Fertilisation Donor Information Act (2004) abolished donor anonymity and defines how access to donor information is regulated.
A government-funded national register manages and makes donor information accessible.
There are age limits for accessing donor information. At birth, parents can request physical and social data from the donor in a "donor passport". At age 12, donor-conceived individuals can request the donor passport themselves. At 16, Donor-conceived individuals can request personally identifiable donor information (name, date of birth, residence).
Donors who donated before 2004 had the option to change their status to anonymous. For deceased donors who donated before 2004, next of kin are approached for consent to share information.
Post-2004 donations: Anonymous donation is prohibited. All donors must be identifiable.
Counselling is provided to both donor-conceived individuals and donors during the information exchange process
In most cases, identifiable donor information is shared with the donor-conceived individual by a counsellor. Often involves a meeting between the donor-conceived person and donor. If requested, a third party (e.g., parent or partner) can join at the end of the meeting