Gay fathers' openness about kids' origins focuses on "who carried" rather than "who contributed genetically"
The transition to parenthood among gay fathers via surrogacy: Thoughts, feelings, and ambiguous loss. (D'Amore, 2025)
D’Amore, S., Gubello, A., Cash, C., & Carone, N. (2025). The transition to parenthood among gay fathers via surrogacy: Thoughts, feelings, and ambiguous loss. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-025-01211-7
Geographic Region: Belgium and France (participants’ countries of residence); USA, Canada, Ukraine, UK, and Thailand (where surrogacy procedures occurred)
Research Question: How do gay fathers experience the transition to parenthood via cross-border surrogacy?
Design: Qualitative study used reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted between 2018 and 2021. Researchers conducted joint couple interviews in participants’ homes to enhance comfort and rapport. Interview questions addressed planning for parenthood, alternative routes considered, experiences of the surrogacy pathway, challenges encountered and coping strategies, family reactions, and relationships with surrogates and donors. Interviews lasted 40-60 minutes, were audio-recorded and transcribed.
Sample: Fifteen gay couples (30 fathers total; age range: 34-46 years) who had 22 children (11 boys, 11 girls; age range: 2-8 years at time of study) through cross-border gestational surrogacy. All participants were cisgender gay men in same-gender male couples residing in Belgium or France. Most couples had mixed nationalities, including combinations of American, Belgian, British, Chinese, French, Italian, Polish, Spanish, and Swiss backgrounds. Cross-border surrogacy occurred in the USA (n=7 couples), Canada (n=3), Ukraine (n=3), UK (n=1), and Thailand (n=1). Egg donor types: open-identity (n=7 couples), semi-anonymous (n=5), and anonymous (n=3). Recruitment used snowball sampling through LGBTQ+ associations, social media, Facebook groups for sexual minority parents, and fertility clinics.
Key Findings
All participants described a deep-seated desire for parenthood, often present since childhood, but many initially believed being gay was incompatible with becoming a parent. Most fathers experienced a mourning process, facing the dilemma of choosing between a “heteronormative” life (marrying a woman and having children while suppressing their identity) or accepting their homosexuality and abandoning parenthood dreams. Hope for parenthood was rekindled through legal changes allowing equal access to assisted reproduction and witnessing other same-gender couples successfully having children.
For some fathers, genetic connection to their child supported their choice of surrogacy, though others felt genetic relatedness was less important than simply having a baby.
Cross-border surrogacy created practical difficulties including legal, administrative, financial, and organizational challenges, alongside ethical dilemmas. Fathers described a mix of emotions ranging from excitement and joy to emotional and physical fatigue, stress, uncertainty, sense of injustice, loneliness, and loss of hope—characterizing surrogacy as an “emotional rollercoaster.”
Geographic distance created feelings of disconnection, with fathers experiencing ambiguous loss: the fetus and surrogate were psychologically present but physically absent, making the pregnancy feel “incomplete and virtual.” When fathers could not maintain regular contact with surrogates or attend medical appointments, they felt frustrated, excluded, and “robbed of the first few months” of their child’s life. Some fathers, when affordable, actively participated by moving to the surrogate’s city and attending appointments, which helped them feel psychologically part of the pregnancy and allowed relationship-building with the surrogate and her family.
Distance created various degrees of distrust toward surrogates, ranging from concerns about health behaviors during pregnancy to extreme fears of scams or the surrogate changing her mind.
Uncertainty made some fathers reluctant to share their experiences with others or “project themselves as future parents” until after birth, partly from superstition and fear of disappointment.
All parents expressed strong commitment to transparency and honesty about their child’s conception story. Thirteen of 15 couples had already begun sharing aspects of the story, most commonly the surrogate’s role and the broader surrogacy process. The genetic aspect (egg donor’s role and genetic father’s identity) was often not explained or mentioned, as children were considered too young to understand, though fathers expressed desire to share the complete story in the future.
Parents used various resources to facilitate disclosure: children’s books about diverse family structures, birth books, and photos (such as pictures of the surrogate with her pregnant belly displayed on the refrigerator). Fathers and children spoke freely and spontaneously about their conception and family structure.
Most fathers maintained contact with surrogates or chose semi-anonymous or open-identity donors to provide children future access to their origins if desired. Some fathers developed relationships with surrogates that extended to considering her a family member and building connections with her partner and children.
Fathers’ descriptions of surrogates were rich and detailed, while references to egg donors were notably brief, medicalized, or oriented toward fulfilling legal requirements.
Several fathers noted that donor anonymity laws in France and Belgium made donors “feel abstract” compared to surrogates, whose pregnancy created an immediate relational bond.
Some fathers anticipated that widespread consumer DNA testing would eventually render anonymity impossible but felt unprepared for the psychosocial consequences of that eventual disclosure.
Fathers repeatedly highlighted the importance of both partners receiving recognition as parents from legal and psychological perspectives.
Limitations: Individuals who experienced distressing or unsatisfactory surrogacy journeys may have been less inclined to participate. Significant legal and societal changes have occurred in both Belgium and France since data were collected. Questions did not systematically probe the couple’s decision-making around genetic parenthood.
Applications: Clinicians working with gay fathers considering or pursuing surrogacy should be attuned to the heightened vulnerability, uncertainty, and loss of control experienced during cross-border arrangements. Provide guidance on early, developmentally attuned disclosure conversations that include age-appropriate information about both surrogates and egg donors, as well as which father has genetic connection. Policies must ensure inclusive, harmonized legal frameworks that recognize both intended fathers as legal parents from birth, irrespective of genetic connection and regardless of where the surrogacy occurred, eliminating the current patchwork of inconsistent recognition across jurisdictions.
Funding Source: Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Lead Author: Salvatore D’Amore is a researcher in the DéFaSy (Family Dynamics and Systemic Practices) research unit at the Faculty of Psychology, Educational Sciences and Logopedy, Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium. He specializes in LGBTQ+ family formation, boundary ambiguity in diverse family structures, and the psychosocial experiences of sexual and gender minority parents. No personal link to donor conception indicated.
Regulatory Context
Belgium
Governed by “Law on Medically Assisted Reproduction and the Destination of Surplus Embryos and Gametes”
Belgium offers IVF to heterosexual couples, single women, and same-sex couples.
Belgium allows only anonymous and directed (known) oocyte donation.
From January 1, 2024, Belgium has a national database where donors and recipients must be registered, and once a donor has enabled six families to have a child, they will be blocked.
Donation for commercial reasons is strictly forbidden.
France
Surrogacy is prohibited for everyone under French law.
In 2021, France expanded its comprehensive national health insurance coverage for fertility treatments to lesbians and single women.
In 2021, France also created laws to end anonymous donation. In 2025, the country ended the use of anonymous gametes in third-party reproduction. Moving forward, donor-conceived individuals can request access to identifying donor information when they turn 18.
All fertility treatments, including donor insemination, must occur at government-authorized fertility clinics with mandatory counseling for all parties.
Donors can receive compensation for expenses and inconvenience but not payment for gametes themselves, and there are restrictions on the number of families that can be created from one donor’s gametes, though specific limits vary between clinics.
Related Posts
How gay fathers’ attachment style shapes children’s curiosity (Carone, 2024)
A look at key priorities in family building for gay men (Hanson, 2022)
LGBTQ+ Couples Want Genetic Counseling Support in Family Planning Journey (Bunkelman, 2025)