Insight on how queer adults navigate competing values and constraints
“Are we as queer people not the pioneers of found family?”: Preferences and tensions in deciding how to become parents (Bornstein et al, 2026)
Bornstein, M., Masterson, K., & Norris, A. H. (2026). “Are we as queer people not the pioneers of found family?”: Preferences and tensions in deciding how to become parents. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-026-01346-1
Geographic Region: United States
Research Question: How do queer people form preferences and make decisions about becoming parents, and how does queer identity shape those decisions?
Editor’s Note: The study identifies two forces shaping participants' preferences that are easy to conflate: alignment between chosen pathways and values, and the elimination of options through discrimination. A preference that reflects values is a different kind of finding from one that reflects a constrained option set.
Design: A qualitative interview study guided by the queer reproductive justice framework. The researchers conducted 24 in-depth, one-hour interviews on Zoom. The interview guide included prompts about family of origin, defining family, defining fertility, and family building desires, the process of having children and parenting, how they considered building their families (e.g., fertility treatment, adoption, informal parenting roles), and challenges that they faced or anticipated they might face. They monitored for thematic saturation (i.e., no longer hearing any new themes) separately within cisgender and trans/nonbinary subgroups.
Sample: 24 sexual and gender minority adults assigned female at birth, ranging in age from 18 to 35 years (mean age 28.5). About half identified as transgender (n=11). Just under a third identified with more than one gender (n=7), and about half identified with more than one sexual orientation (n=11). Sexual orientations represented included lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and queer; gender identities included woman, nonbinary, genderqueer/gender fluid, two-spirit, agender, demiboy, and man. Most participants were not yet parents but either wanted to be or were unsure (n=18); a few were already parents (n=3) or certain they did not want children (n=3). Participants were recruited via Facebook ads in July–August 2023. Participants received a $40 gift card. No information is provided about race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.
Key Findings
Theme 1: Aligning Preferences and Decisions with Values
Most participants preferred at-home insemination with a known sperm donor as their first-choice pathway to parenthood, framing this as consistent with queer values around chosen family and community.
Using a known donor was seen as a way to expand the child’s family network, giving the child a connection to the donor as a kind of uncle, family friend, or chosen family member.
Some participants described how informal parenting roles (stepping into care for children in their community who needed support) also aligned with queer values, even for those who did not actively want to pursue parenthood.
Many participants, even those who would not choose assisted reproductive technologies (ART) themselves, framed access to ART as part of a broader vision of reproductive and bodily autonomy for queer people.
Theme 2: Desire for and Discomfort With the Pursuit of Biological Relatedness
Many participants wanted biologically related children, and some described reciprocal IVF (where one partner provides eggs and the other carries the pregnancy) as an appealing option for giving two partners a “biological” connection.
At the same time, many participants expressed discomfort with this desire, feeling that wanting a biologically related child was in tension with queer values around chosen and non-biological family.
Several participants articulated that cultural fixation on biological relatedness seemed inconsistent with queerness, and questioned why genetics should matter so much.
Theme 3: Managing Invasiveness (or the level of vulnerability to third parties and systems)
Participants defined “invasiveness” broadly, including medical procedures and exposure to scrutiny, surveillance, and potential discrimination by third parties, including healthcare providers, adoption agencies, and state child welfare systems.
Many participants viewed at-home insemination as the least invasive option because it minimized medical intervention and avoided engagement with institutions that might discriminate against them.
Fostering and adoption were experienced as more invasive than ART by many participants, primarily because of anticipated scrutiny of their family structure, gender identity, or relationship configuration by state actors.
Several participants, particularly those with transgender or nonbinary partners, described specific concerns that their family would be scrutinized or that their partner would be outed during adoption or fostering processes.
Cross-cutting Themes: Discrimination and Ethics
Anticipated and experienced discrimination shaped every family-building option participants considered, with no pathway free from concern. Adoption agencies, especially those affiliated with religious institutions, were seen as particularly unwelcoming. Some participants chose ART over adoption specifically because they perceived it as exposing them to less discrimination risk, even if they had ethical reservations about ART.
Nearly all participants raised ethical concerns about some or all pathways to parenthood. DIY/at-home insemination was generally seen as more ethical than IVF; IVF was associated with concerns about eugenics and a “designer baby” industry. Surrogacy was seen as ethically complicated due to questions about whether it’s possible to ethically compensate someone for carrying a pregnancy. Adoption and fostering were seen as ethically complex for reasons including the potential trauma adoption involves, the predatory dynamics some participants perceived in the adoption system, and specific concerns about transracial and international adoption. Participants with minoritized racial identities were more attuned to these ethical issues.
Limitations: Participants did not always make precise distinctions between different types of adoption (open vs. closed) or between adoption and fostering, and interviewers did not uniformly probe for these distinctions. Many participants inaccurately named the fertility interventions they described (e.g., calling at-home insemination “IVF”), though interviewers deliberately did not correct them to avoid undermining participant expertise on their own experience. Cost was discussed but not deeply explored. The sample has no reported race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic data, which raises a question of if the study can adequately represent queer reproductive justice concerns (the theory is rooted in Black feminist thought). The sample is limited to people assigned female at birth, which influences what the study can and cannot say about trans reproductive experience.
Applications: Family-building counseling could support queer clients in clarifying their values rather than steering them toward any particular pathway. Clinics could audit their environments, intake procedures, and staff training for hetero- and cis-normative assumptions. Gamete banks, clinics, and matching programs could consider how to better support known donor arrangements, with the caveat that informal arrangements often lack reliable legal frameworks in many jurisdictions. The perspectives of people who become parents using known donors are underrepresented in donor conception research, as are the experiences of people born to sexual and gender minority parents via known donation. Future research could follow up with children conceived through known donor arrangements to learn more about their relationship to genetic identity, the durability of informal agreements, and how their experiences align with parental intentions.
Funding Source: NICHD K99/R00 grant
Lead Author: Marta Bornstein is an assistant professor of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior at the Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, where her research focuses on sexual and reproductive health, including fertility, infertility, and reproductive decision-making among LGBTQ+ individuals. No personal connection to donor conception was disclosed.
Regulatory Context
There is no comprehensive federal regulatory framework governing gamete donation or donor conception.
The FDA provides limited oversight related to infectious disease screening of donors.
ASRM guidelines are voluntary and not legally binding.
Compensation for donors is unrestricted.
Insurance coverage for fertility treatment varies by state and often excludes people who do not meet medical infertility criteria, a barrier disproportionately affecting queer people experiencing social infertility.
Related Posts