How online surrogacy communities negotiate third-party reproduction agreements
When Facebook plays matchmaker: Interactions within an online community dedicated to surrogacy and egg donation. (Lavoie, 2023)
Lavoie, K., & Côté, I. (2023). When Facebook plays matchmaker: Interactions within an online community dedicated to surrogacy and egg donation. Family Relations, 72(2), 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12829
Geographic Region: Canada, specifically Quebec
Research Question: How do people involved in surrogacy and egg donation use online communities, specifically Facebook groups, to interact, negotiate agreements, and establish arrangements for third-party reproduction outside formal medical clinics and private agencies?
Editor’s Note: At the time of this study, Quebec had no specific legislation regulating surrogacy. A person who gave birth was legally presumed to be the mother. To establish filiation with the non-birthing parent required adoption by special consent, creating legal uncertainty. Ontario had a more developed legal framework recognizing surrogacy arrangements and allowing broader legal recognition of intended parents. Online group participants discussed Ontario as the location of choice for surrogacy births, given that its legal framework is perceived by participants as simpler and more protective than Quebec's.
Design: Qualitative study combined nonparticipant online ethnography and semi-structured individual interviews, conducted from 2015 to 2021. Ethnographic observation of a French-speaking Facebook group (2,800+ members) was conducted continuously with data documented in logbooks and memos. Researchers obtained permission from group administrators and identified themselves transparently as conducting ethical research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 47 Canadian women involved in surrogacy or egg donation; 22 of these discussed their Facebook group use during interviews and were included in this analysis. Interviews lasted approximately 2 hours and took place in person, by Skype, by Zoom, or in person. This research is part of the MATRICES study (Maternités assistées par tierces reproductrices), a larger research project documenting experiences of people involved in surrogacy and egg donation in Canada.
Sample: 22 participants (6 intended mothers, 12 surrogates, 4 egg donors). Intended mothers ranged in age 39–58 (M=46), all in relationships with men; five were White, one of Latin American descent; all lived in urban areas; all had pursued surrogacy/egg donation as a last resort after failed fertility treatments and adoption attempts. The 12 surrogates were all White women, ages 23–42 (M=35); 11 heterosexual, one queer; most in relationships approximately 9 years with three or more children; most completed surrogacy once, three multiple times; half experienced gestational surrogacy and half genetic. The four egg donors were ages 30–33; two had no children at first donation; three had university degrees. Recruitment occurred primarily through the Facebook group and snowball sampling.
Key Findings
Ethnographic Findings (from Facebook group observation)
Intended parents presented carefully written testimonials on Facebook using narrative strategies reminiscent of dating sites, emphasizing relationship stability and describing surrogates/donors as “angels,” “good fairies,” or “rare pearls.”
The group engaged in extensive debate about legal practices. Members posted questions about filiation procedures, contract enforceability, and whether Ontario births offer better legal protection than Quebec.
Financial discussions revealed ideological divisions: some members argued that asking for financial compensation commodifies women and children and is ethically wrong; others argued that surrogacy is meaningful work deserving financial recognition and that gift framing minimizes the bodily risk and disruption involved in pregnancy.
Through these group interactions, members collectively constructed informal norms about what constitutes “right” or “wrong” practice in surrogacy, rather than being governed by agency contractual frameworks.
Interview Findings (from 22 participants: 6 intended mothers, 12 surrogates, 4 egg donors)
Surrogates and egg donors exercised active criteria-based selection of intended parents, evaluating partner age, relationship length, presence of existing children, and alignment on values about legal and financial arrangements. The relational fit was essential: women reported listening to their “instincts” during initial online conversations and described an “adjustment period” in which they assessed whether chemistry existed. Positive chemistry led to continued negotiation while disagreement or discomfort ended dialogue.
Surrogates and egg donors report heightened sense of control and autonomy through social networks compared to agency-mediated arrangements. Women recognize themselves as scarce and in high demand, enhancing negotiating power and ability to decide whom they work for and how.
Some prefer agreements based on mutual trust rather than pre-drafted agency contracts, viewing autonomy as enhancing dignity; however, others prefer formal oversight, citing preference for couple vetting and financial security.
The Facebook group serves multiple functions: information sharing, emotional support, knowledge construction about surrogacy and egg donation, social networking, and cost savings compared to private agencies charging $60,000–$120,000 CAD.
Limitations: The study is limited to a single French-speaking online community in Quebec whose findings reflect local concerns and may not generalize to other jurisdictions with different regulatory contexts. The interviewees are predominantly White with minimal representation of people of color, solo parents, or LGBTQ+ participants beyond gay men, limiting understanding of how identity shapes surrogacy experiences. Study documents interactions at a point in time but provides minimal information about outcomes of agreements or how families integrated experiences over time. Interview accounts are subject to recall bias, social desirability bias, and post-hoc rationalization of reproductive choices.
Applications: Practitioners could assess whether clients/patients participate in online forums, recognizing these communities as mediators of information and support and deploy education initiatives on digital platforms to reach people where they seek support
Funding Source: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), Réseau québécois en études féministes (RéQEF), and the Faculty of Social Sciences at Université Laval.
Lead Author: Kévin Lavoie is an assistant professor in the School of Social Work and Criminology at Université Laval and scientific director of the Centre de recherche Jeunes, familles et réponses sociales (JEFAR). His research focuses on family diversity, assisted reproduction, and sexual and gender diversity. No personal connection to donor conception was disclosed.
Regulatory Context
In 2004, Canada passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA), one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation in the world concerning reproductive technologies and related research. However, in 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down major sections, ruling that they overstepped into provincial constitutional jurisdiction over health care. The Court upheld the right of provinces to regulate health care delivery, including fertility clinics and the use of gametes and embryos in clinical settings. The federal government retained jurisdiction only over criminal prohibitions (e.g., banning payment for surrogacy and gamete donation) and over determining allowable reimbursable expenses for these services. Since 2010, neither Health Canada nor most provinces have enacted comprehensive legislation related to assisted reproduction.
There is federal legislation ensuring DCP access to identifiable information about donors. Quebec became the first province to recognize the right to know one’s origins when donor anonymity ended in June 2025. Anyone conceived in the province from donated sperm or eggs from June 6, 2025, onward will have the right to know the identity of the donor when they turn 14, or even younger with parental consent.
There is no limit on the number of families per donor. Industry guidelines suggest a limit of 25 people per population of 800,000.
Health Canada adopted a revised directive removing restrictions on gay and bisexual sperm donors, effective May 2024.
Commercial payment to donors is prohibited. Donations must be altruistic; donors may receive reimbursement for legitimate expenses, but not payment for gametes themselves.
Single people, same-sex couples, and heterosexual couples all have equal legal rights to access assisted reproduction treatments.
More than 90 percent of the sperm used in Canadian inseminations is imported, mostly from the United States and Europe.
Related Posts
Canadian finds participants more satisfied with directed embryo donation than anonymous programs (Fuchs Weizman, 2023)
"Queer tax" creates extra fertility barriers for 2SLGBTQ+ BIPOC families in Canada (Tam, 2025)
Online sperm donation creates new family-building pathways while presenting unique challenges (Cote, 2025)