"Wealthy Gay Couples Buying Babies Produced in India by Poor Womb Woman
"Wealthy Gay Couples Buying Babies Produced in India by Poor Womb Woman
"Wealthy Gay Couples Buying Babies Produced in India by Poor Womb Woman
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Surrogacy is beginning to generate public debate, and the way Surrogacy; gay parenting;
the media approach it may have negative effects on social women’s commodification;
attitudes toward gay parenting. The news media play a key outsourcing pregnancy;
role in informing society, especially about topics such as sur- media audience; framing
effects; attitudes formation
rogacy, of which most audiences have no direct experience.
The aim of our research is to explore opinion formation of
surrogacy and gay parenting by analyzing the audience inter-
pretation of a TV news story in Spain. To do this we conducted
four focus groups that were analyzed using a qualitative con-
tent analysis based on the discourse produced by the partici-
pants. The results show that the framing strategies used in the
news story contribute to advocating an attitude of repudiation
toward surrogacy, with an adverse sentiment also extending to
homosexual couples who wish to become parents. This leads
us to discuss the role of media in shaping public opinion and
the resulting potential consequences in the case of surrogacy
and gay parenting.
(1) In general, the experience of surrogacy was important and very posi-
tive for most surrogates, who were well motivated and rarely had
difficulty separating from the child. They did not express regrets
about their involvement in surrogacy, nor did they appear to experi-
ence any major psychological problems as a result of the surrogacy
612 R. VENTURA ET AL.
product that may be bought and sold. Women’s rights activists have argued
that surrogacy is a paradigm of oppression of women, as their bodies are
reduced to mere baby-producing machines (DasGupta & Dasgupta, 2014). In
fact, this argument holds that commercial surrogacy commodifies both the
reproductive capacity of the surrogate and the rights of the newborn child,
declaring it unethical to treat human beings as resources to satisfy another
person’s own interests or ends (Orlov & Orlov, 2007). For them, wombs for
hire pose a real risk of people trafficking, similar to sexual exploitation or
organ trafficking (Pande, 2010a; Wilkinson, 2003). From this perspective,
they also have warned that this practice is laced with the eugenic notions of
genetic belonging and the genetic selection of the perfect offspring (Pande,
2016; Qadeer, 2009). In this regard, it might be understood that the commo-
dification argument is rooted in the debate about the reasons behind surro-
gacy. The commodification argument centers on whether the surrogacy is
governed by a single motivation: that of the intended parent(s) who want a
baby. Furthermore, greater emphasis is placed on the fact that it is a desire,
not a right. Under this dialectic, the surrogacy process becomes an end for
satisfying the desires and motivations of the intended parent(s) (empowered
subjects), which turns the surrogate into a vehicle at the service of others
(non-empowered, reified subject), her womb into a baby factory (commodi-
fied body), and the baby into a transaction product (commodity).
However, some authors believe the commodification argument against
surrogacy is deontological in principle (Orlov & Orlov, 2007), that is, under-
standing surrogacy as a phenomenon within the labor arena and analyzing it
from the hypothesis that its nature is grounded in duty and obligation. Thus
this scenario places surrogates as passive victims of the surrogacy process
(DasGupta & Dasgupta, 2014; Pande, 2010b; Scott, 2009). Those who argue
against, however, consider the possibility of recognizing the surrogate as an
empowered subject. Many women who have been surrogates reject the
feminist arguments, which detract agency from them as women, and instead
argue in favor of their capacity to make personal choices, to have their own
valid and legitimate motivations, and, in particular, of asserting their right to
make decisions regarding their own bodies (AGSE, 2015; Bromfield, 2016).
On this last point, the commodification argument questions whether women
are being given control over their bodies, or whether they are being exploited
for their individual body parts (Banerjee, 2010). Furthermore, feminist scho-
lars wonder whether surrogates feel freely motivated or obligated due to their
feminized poverty conditions and social status (DasGupta & Dasgupta, 2014;
De Miguel & Nuño, 2016; Deonandan, Green, & Van Beinum, 2012), and, if
freely motivated, whether this is selfless love or money (Anleu, 1992; Pande,
2011). This argument refers directly to cases of transnational commercial
surrogacy in poor countries such as India, where there is no consensus about
whether a financial incentive may be a legitimate motive or not. Nevertheless,
614 R. VENTURA ET AL.
research carried out in Western contexts has shown that the main reasons
that lead women to become surrogates are altruistic: the wish to help a
childless couple, selflessness, personal satisfaction, and enjoyment of preg-
nancy (Imrie & Jadva, 2014; Jadva et al., 2014; Kleinpeter & Hohman, 2000;
Markens, 2012; van den Akker, 2003). However, financial reasons were also
noted (Söderström-Anttila et al., 2016), especially in commercial surrogacy.
poorer countries (the Global South) in order to cut costs (Kedia & Lahiri,
2007). This complex situation heightens the controversy surrounding
inequalities between the Global North and the Global South within the
arguments used against surrogacy: infant trafficking, commodification,
women’s oppression and exploitation, wealthy Westerners’ consumption
supplied by poor countries, and so on. Of special note are the deplorable
conditions for women in surrogacy clinics in India, described as “baby
factories” or “baby farms” where they live in overcrowded conditions with
the sole function of eating and of producing babies (Kroløkke & Pant, 2012;
Kumar et al., 2013; Riggs & Due, 2010).
However, a prohibitionist movement is now originating from Asia.
Countries such as India, Thailand, and Nepal, which have allowed this
technique for years, are starting to limit access to surrogacy in order to
protect women from exploitation. In India, for instance, the government
has recently approved a bill that bans and penalizes commercial surrogacy
services. The “Surrogacy Bill” bans gay people, foreigners, single parents, and
unmarried couples from having children through surrogacy. Some have
criticized the law, saying it takes away the rights of women, discriminates
against gay people, and could lead to an illegal industry (BBC, 2016; The
Indian Express, 2016). Meanwhile, it should be noted that commercial
surrogacy is still legal in other places, such as Ukraine or California.
RQ1. What are the values transmitted in the news story about surrogacy?
RQ2. How does “surrogacy” intersect with “gay parenting” in the audience
interpretation?
Method
Research design and sampling
Four focus groups were constituted with between 6 and 10 participants of
Spanish nationality and of both genders (17 females and 16 males). The
groups were divided according to an age variable, since the literature
review indicated generational differences concerning the acceptance of
homosexuality and same-sex parenting (Baiocco, Nardelli, Pezzuti, &
Lingiardi, 2013; Pew Research Center, 2017). Thus two groups of adults
(40–60 years) were put together, and two of young people (20–30 years).
The focus groups were held in the two largest Spanish cities, two in
Madrid (17 participants) and two more in Barcelona (16 participants),
to provide discursive diversity based on the reference territory of the
participants. (Figure 1).
Several sociodemographic aspects were taken into account when recruiting
participants. A strong balance was maintained between the occupational
status variables (students, employed people, retired, and unemployed), and
a decision was made to prioritize a profile of secondary and university
educational level, reducing the diversity of occupations to facilitate dialogue
among participants. It was decided to split the groups into young people and
adults to detect potential differences, in accordance with previous studies that
GENDER
GROUP AGE LOCATION
Male Female
indicated that age has an impact on attitudes toward homosexuality and gay
parenting, with elders having a stronger prejudice than those younger
(Baiocco et al., 2013; Gerhards, 2010).
Materials
In a previous study, Olga van den Akker et al. (2016) detected three
main focuses in the media framing of transnational surrogacy: gay par-
enting, legal complications, and buying babies (affordable only to wealthy
people). Susan Markens (2012) also pointed out the media fascination
with surrogacy focuses in particular on news stories about the Indian
surrogacy industry. To study the participants’ attitude formation, we
used a Spanish news story about surrogacy that included all these key
topics. The selected news story was broadcast at prime time on the
Spanish public television channel (La 1), which is the television news
program with the largest audience in Spain (Kantar Media, 2016). The
news story explained that surrogacy is illegal in Spain, and therefore
there are more and more Spanish couples traveling to other countries,
such as India, to have a child. The news anchor assures that most are
homosexual couples, and, as such, the news story is illustrated through
the case of a Spanish gay couple from Barcelona who traveled to India to
have their children in a clinic that works with Indian surrogates. In the
story, the main argument revolves around the desire of homosexual
couples to be parents and the objectifying consequences that the techni-
que of surrogacy may have on the women, who are perceived as mere
wombs for hire.
This unit of analysis, “selected on the basis of typicality, uniqueness,
success, and so forth” (Merriam, 2009, p. 41), was the perfect basis for
generating discussion about surrogacy and gay parenting. The relevance is
also evident if we consider Yin’s definition (2013, p. 18): “a case study is an
empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its
real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and
context are not clearly evident.” In fact, the case study enables a holistic
description and explanation of the phenomenon and its contextual interpre-
tation (Creswell, 2012).
Results: Analysis
Initially, both groups of participants (adults and young people) indicated
there was a lack of data and contextual information that prevented them
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 621
Even so, overall both groups agreed on rejecting surrogacy after seeing the news
program. The reason that created most repudiation was the situation of the
Indian women portrayed in the news whereby participants related to an unjust
exploitation of women in situations of poverty. However, as they made a more
detailed analysis of the news they saw a negative message about the homosexual
collective that they had not detected initially—negative, because the message the
news conveys, according to the participants, is that gays are taking advantage of
the women’s poverty in countries such as India and are behaving carelessly,
with little consideration for the conditions in which these women live and
concerned only with achieving their goal of having a baby:
You might start to think the homosexual is bad because he’s doing this.
(Female, FG2)
It’s like saying, look what gays do to become parents. (Male, FG3)
Yes, it’s true that La 1 (TV channel) is putting out the news programme with the
homosexual issue, as if to say: look what homosexuals do. . . (Male, FG2)
Meanwhile, aside from the exploitation situation, the group of young people
said that they understood the desire of homosexual couples to have a child
and the huge obstacles involved. This also occurred with a part of the group
of adults. However, unlike the group of young people, another part of the
group of adults stated that they are against the idea that homosexual couples
should have children, either by surrogacy or otherwise.
That they have kids. . . mmm the same sex, well, I’m not going to give an opinion
on that because I don’t know to what extent the child might be damaged, this is a
very, very . . .complex issue in my opinion. (Female, FG3)
Two men, I don’t think it’s natural, at least to me it’s weird, that they want to
adopt a child. (Male, FG3)
shifted as the focus group developed, with more critical attitudes transpiring
as the debate flourished.
When discussing the news story content, participants shared the sentiment
that a partial and fragmented vision is put forward, which they interpreted as
a lack of important information. They noted that the deficit of data and
contextual information prevented them from forming a balanced opinion on
what was being explained in the news story. They blamed a lack of data that
would enable a framing of the volume of births achieved through this
method:
They don’t talk about the number of transactions every year in the embassies, or
the adoption rate in Spain or abroad, or what they think is legal or illegal, or
adoption and wombs for hire (Male, FG4)
They were also surprised by the fact that there was no reflection of the
viewpoint of the women taking part in this process, which—according to
the participants—means it is impossible to interpret properly the news story
or form an opinion about it:
What I think’s missing from this news story is what makes a woman from these
countries sell her womb, or rather her baby, I mean, there must be a story behind
this that makes her do it. (Female, FG4)
The young people in the groups also pointed out the stereotypical image of
homosexuals:
They’ve chosen them deliberately; they’re the classic case (Female, FG4).
During the discussion a change was noted in the young people’s opinion.
First of all, they evaluated the different situations that appear in the news
story: that of the homosexual parents who are adopting and that of the
mothers who are hiring out their wombs. On the one hand, they expressed
certain sympathy toward the difficulty of couples who wish to have a child
and are unable to do so due to legal obstacles, but most of all they stressed
the resulting injustice for the Indian women who chose to hire out their
wombs. They also stressed the cost of this situation for these women, both
emotionally and in terms of health.
And I think it’s a bit sad that some people who want to have a child and don’t want
to adopt have to exploit the poverty of other people in the third world, for peanuts.
Because they’re also risking the lives of these women in unhealthy conditions, all
because they want to have a child and if they can’t have one they could always
adopt. There are children who don’t have parents. . . (Male, FG2)
Whether it’s gay or non-gay, wombs for hire I think is a business, and in the end
it’s a degradation of what it means to have a baby (Female, FG4).
Some participants also called the attitude of parents who decide to adopt
through this route frivolous and unnatural:
I think a womb for hire is a whim. You’ve got a partner and we all know that a
male and a female have offspring and two males don’t, you have to accept the rules
that nature enforces on you. So wanting your offspring to have part of your genes,
that’s a whim. (Male, FG4)
They could have shown a heterosexual couple, not just mentioning them; they
could have put the example of a heterosexual couple that does these things too like
gays. It’s like saying, look what gays do to become parents. (Female, FG3)
Meanwhile, the image portrayed of the gay community was also based on a
series of stereotypes, such as how much money they have and how well they
live:
And they’re wealthy gays, because two unemployed gays for sure couldn’t pay that
(Male, FG3).
A diversity of opinions was detected among the adults. One part of the
participants stated they sympathize with a couple who wishes to have a baby
and the need to do so through surrogacy. However, another part was totally
against this kind of practice, because they consider it an abuse. Furthermore,
a number of participants were also against the fact that homosexual couples
should have children.
Those who were in favor of surrogacy had an understanding of people
who wish to adopt. Some said they knew of similar experiences to those
shown in the news program, and that when they ended up at this option, it
was because they tried all other alternatives unsuccessfully:
The thing is that the need to adopt is much stronger that what it’s going to cost
you. There are people who have taken out second mortgages to have a child
(Male, FG1).
than the rest of the population. Furthermore, they said, you should consider
the future of the child adopted, who would grow up in a developed country:
The sad thing about all this is that there’s money involved, isn’t there? But then
you think about the welfare of the children, don’t you? How well they’ll be looked
after and how lucky they’ll be. (Female, FG1)
Most participants were against this practice. One of the issues that generated
the most repudiation was the situation of the Indian women portrayed in the
news.
Living in unhealthy conditions, in a state of abandonment. . . I find it hard to
accept that you want to have a child and you see how they have them all piled up
and overcrowded and then you go off with the baby and don’t think about them
any more. (Male, FG3)
The vast inequality between the conditions of the Indian women who hire
out their wombs and parents who decide to produce a child through surro-
gacy was condemned by many participants. These inequalities were perceived
as a demonstration of how developed countries abuse poor countries, which
participants described as hypocritical. Money talks, they said, even for
bypassing legislation:
You get the feeling that. . . for people with money, nothing’s a problem
(Male, FG1).
Lastly, one part was unconvinced about homosexual couples having children,
whether through surrogacy or not.
That they have kids. . . mmm the same sex, well, I’m not going to give an opinion
on that because I don’t know to what extent the child might be damaged, this is a
very, very . . . complex issue in my opinion. (Female, FG3)
issue, thus forcing a need to analyze attitudes formed by audiences. This is the
purpose of this article, and its results indicate new discourse strategies that
question the practices of homosexual people and may have negative repercus-
sions on the forming of social attitudes toward them.
When examining the news stories in the focus groups, the participants
(audience) situated their positions between the dialectics of subjects who
wish to be parents but cannot (gay couples) and other subjects who have the
capacity to help them become parents but, by doing so, may be placed in a
vulnerable situation (women as surrogates). This fact could be connected to
the agenda setting and the gatekeeper theories, as we will see next.
Both groups of participants (young people and adults) spotlighted evi-
dence that made them believe the information presented was biased. That is,
at first they detected the gatekeeper function of journalists. Even so, this did
not prevent them from forming an opinion and positioning themselves
according to their interpretation of the news story, which would be related
to the agenda setting of attributes (McCombs & Evatt, 1995).
In accordance with previous studies (Baiocco et al., 2013; Gerhards, 2010),
differences between generational groups are confirmed, indicating age as an
influential variable on attitudes toward gay parenting, with elders having a
stronger prejudice than those younger. However, no significant differences
were found between the age groups on their attitudes toward surrogacy.
After watching the news, most participants were against the practice of
surrogacy. This could be related to the theories of media (and framing)
effects. Not all actual cases of surrogacy are exploitative, but the way in
which the media frames surrogacy as an exploitative practice may affect
participants’ attitudes toward surrogacy. This conclusion is also related to
one of the issues that arose from the study by Markens (2012) of media
discourse on transnational surrogacy: “Why do the media focus on India?”
This question is particularly relevant, given that surrogacy also takes place in
many other countries where the situation of surrogates is totally different,
such as Canada. The recurring selection of images of women in dreadful
conditions (not because they are Indian, but because they live in poor
conditions) to represent surrogacy leads us to consider that the media
discourse is seeking to construct a certain positioning within the audience
through attributes related to exploitation.
By representing the situation of surrogates with examples of Indian
women in vulnerable conditions, participants automatically attributed the
responsibility of this situation to the people using the technique (“I blame the
consumer” —Male, FG3). In this regard, the fact that news on surrogacy
focuses on cases of gay families (van den Akker et al., 2016) highlights a clear
connection with the contributions of Iyengar (1990, 1994)), who found that
one of the most effective ways of guiding the attribution of responsibilities
was through episode framing. Likewise, our results also suggest that this
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 627
Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
(Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) for the research project “Analysis of Audiovisual
Narratives on Civilizations and Cultures: Representations and Interpretations of Television
News Narratives” (grant number CSO2011-23786).
ORCID
Rafael Ventura http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1219-9956
Xosé Ramón Rodríguez-Polo, PhD http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5637-1236
Carles Roca-Cuberes, PhD http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3604-8722
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 629
References
Agnafors, M. (2014). The harm argument against surrogacy revisited: Two versions not to
forget. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 17, 357–363. doi:10.1007/s11019-014-9557-x
AGSE. (2015, June 24). Comunicado de las mujeres de la Asociación por la Gestación
Subrogada con capacidad de gestar y de decidir hacerlo, en contestación al manifiesto
publicado en nosomosvasijas.eu. Asociación por la Gestación Subrogada en España
[Statement by the women of the Association for the Surrogate Gestation with the capacity
to gestate and to decide to do so, in response to the manifesto published on nosomosva-
sijas.eu]. Retrieved from http://xn–gestacionsubrogadaenespaa-woc.es/index.php/2013-10-
17-13-37-28/noticias-asociacion/68-comunicado-de-las-mujeres-de-la-asociacion-por-la-
gestacion-subrogada-con-capacidad-de-gestar-y-de-decidir-hacerlo-en-contestacion-al-
manifiesto-publicado-en-nosomosvasijas-eu
Altheide, D. L. (1997). The news media, the problem frame, and the production of fear.
Sociological Quarterly, 38, 647–668. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00758.x
Anleu, S. R. (1992). Surrogacy: For love but not for money? Gender & Society, 6, 30–48.
doi:10.1177/089124392006001003
Bailey, A. (2011). Reconceiving surrogacy: Toward a reproductive justice account of Indian
surrogacy. Hypatia, 26, 715–741. doi:10.1111/hypa.2011.26.issue-4
Baiocco, R., Nardelli, N., Pezzuti, L., & Lingiardi, V. (2013). Attitudes of Italian heterosexual
older adults towards lesbian and gay parenting. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10,
285–292. doi:10.1007/s13178-013-0129-2
Banerjee, A. (2010). Reorienting the ethics of transnational surrogacy as a feminist pragma-
tist. The Pluralist, 5, 107–127. doi:10.1353/plu.2010.0014
BBC. (2016, August 25). India unveils plans to ban surrogacy. BBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37182197
Becker, L. B., & Vlad, T. (2009). News organizations and routines. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T.
Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 59–72). London, UK: Routledge.
Best, R. (2010). Situation or social problem: The influence of events on media coverage of
homelessness. Social Problems, 57, 74–91. doi:10.1525/sp.2010.57.1.74
Blake, L., Carone, N., Slutsky, J., Raffanello, E., Ehrhardt, A. A., & Golombok, S. (2016). Gay
father surrogacy families: Relationships with surrogates and egg donors and parental
disclosure of children’s origins. Fertility and Sterility, 106, 1503–1509. doi:10.1016/j.
fertnstert.2016.08.013
Bos, H., & van Balen, F. (2010). Children of the new reproductive technologies: Social and
genetic parenthood. Patient Education and Counseling, 81, 429–435. doi:10.1016/j.
pec.2010.09.012
Brinsden, P. R. (2003). Gestational surrogacy. Human Reproduction Update, 9, 483–491.
doi:10.1093/humupd/dmg033
Bromfield, N. F. (2016). “Surrogacy has been one of the most rewarding experiences in my
life”: A content analysis of blogs by U.S. commercial gestational surrogates. IJFAB:
International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 9, 192–217.
Bryant, J., & Oliver, M. B. (Eds.). (2009). Media effects: Advances in theory and research.
London, UK: Routledge.
Carratalá, A. (2011). La representación eufemística de la relación gay en el periodismo serio
[The euphemistic representation of the gay relationship in serious journalism]. Miguel
Hernandez Communication Journal, 2, 155–172.
CIS. (2016). Estudio 3126. Enero-marzo 2016. Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas [Study
3126. January-March 2016. Center for Sociological Research]. Retrieved from http://www.
cis.es/cis/export/sites/default/-Archivos/Marginales/3120_3139/3126/es3126mar.pdf
630 R. VENTURA ET AL.
Constantinidis, D., & Cook, R. (2012). Australian perspectives on surrogacy: The influence of
cognitions, psychological and demographic characteristics. Human Reproduction, 27,
1080–1087. doi:10.1093/humrep/der470
Costa, P. A., Pereira, H., & Leal, I. (2015). “The contact hypothesis” and attitudes toward
same-sex parenting. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12, 125–136. doi:10.1007/s13178-
014-0171-8
Crawshaw, M., Blyth, E., & van den Akker, O. (2012). The changing profile of surrogacy in
the UK: Implications for national and international policy and practice. Journal of Social
Welfare and Family Law, 34, 267–277. doi:10.1080/09649069.2012.750478
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. London, UK: Sage.
DasGupta, S., & Dasgupta, S. D. (Eds.). (2014). Globalization and transnational surrogacy in
India: Outsourcing life. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
De Miguel, A., & Nuño, L. (2016, June 1). Vientres de alquiler: Pensar antes de actuar
[Wombs for hire: Think before acting]. El Diario. Retrieved from http://www.eldiario.es/
tribunaabierta/Vientres-alquiler-Pensar-actuar_6_522207786.html
Deomampo, D. (2013). Gendered geographies of reproductive tourism. Gender & Society, 27,
514–537. doi:10.1177/0891243213486832
Deonandan, R., Green, S., & Van Beinum, A. (2012). Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy
and reproductive tourism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38, 742–745. doi:10.1136/medethics-
2012-100551
Desai, K. (2012, June 5). India’s surrogate mothers are risking their lives. They urgently need
protection. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/
2012/jun/05/india-surrogates-impoverished-die
Domínguez, L., & Montalbán, F. M. (2014). Estrategias discursivas de normalización en la
producción audiovisual sobre la homoparentalidad [Discursive strategies of normalization
in audiovisual production on same-sex parenting]. Arbor, 190(769), a166. doi:10.3989/
arbor.2014.i769
Dowler, K. (2003). Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice: The
relationship between fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and perceived police effectiveness.
Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10, 109–126.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
EOS Gallup Europe. (2003). Homosexual marriage, child adoption by homosexual couples: Is the
public ready? Brussels, Belgium: Gallup Organization. Retrieved from http://old.ilga-europe.
org/home/issues/families/recognition_of_relationships/public_opinion_and_surveys/public_
opinion_and_same_sex_unions_2003/full_text_of_eos_gallup_europe_report_in_english
Frias-Navarro, D., Monterde-i-Bort, H., Pascual-Soler, M., & Badenes-Ribera, L. (2015).
Etiology of homosexuality and attitudes toward same-sex parenting: A randomized
study. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 151–161. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.802757
Gato, J., & Fontaine, A. M. (2016). Attitudes toward adoption by same-sex couples: Effects of
gender of the participant, sexual orientation of the couple, and gender of the child. Journal
of GLBT Family Studies, 12, 46–67. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2015.1049771
Gerhards, J. (2010). Non-discrimination towards homosexuality: The European Union’s
policy and citizens’ attitudes towards homosexuality in 27 European countries.
International Sociology, 25, 5–28. doi:10.1177/0268580909346704
Golombok, S., Murray, C., Jadva, V., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., & Rust, J. (2006). Non-genetic
and non-gestational parenthood: Consequences for parent–Child relationships and the
psychological well-being of mothers, fathers, and children at age 3. Human
Reproduction, 21, 1918–1924. doi:10.1093/humrep/del039
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 631
Golombok, S., Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., Marks, A., & Jadva, V. (2011). Families
created through surrogacy: Mother–child relationships and children’s psychological adjust-
ment at age 7. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1579–1588. doi:10.1037/a0025292
Goslinga-Roy, G. M. (2000). Body boundaries, fiction of the female self: An ethnographic
perspective on power, feminism, and the reproductive technologies. Feminist Studies, 26,
113–140. doi:10.2307/3178595
Griffin, E. A. (2011). A first look at communication theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Guasch, O. (2011). Social stereotypes and masculine homosexualities: The Spanish case.
Sexualities, 14, 526–543. doi:10.1177/1363460711415216
Hamilton, J. (2004). All the news that’s fit to sell: How the market transforms information into
news. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Happer, C., & Philo, G. (2013). The role of the media in the construction of public belief and
social change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1, 321–336. doi:10.5964/jspp.
v1i1.96
Hennink, M. (2014). Focus group discussions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hester, J. B., & Gibson, R. (2007). The agenda-setting function of national versus local media:
A time-series analysis for the issue of same-sex marriage. Mass Communication & Society,
10, 299–317. doi:10.1080/15205430701407272
Hooghe, M., & Meeusen, C. (2013). Is same-sex marriage legislation related to attitudes
toward homosexuality? Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10, 258–268. doi:10.1007/
s13178-013-0125-6
Humbyrd, C. (2009). Fair trade international surrogacy. Developing World Bioethics, 9, 111–
118. doi:10.1111/dewb.2009.9.issue-3
Imrie, S., & Jadva, V. (2014). The long-term experiences of surrogates: Relationships and
contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements.
Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 29, 424–435. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.004
Indian Express. (2016, September 19). For the mother and child: The proposed surrogacy bill
addresses major ethical concerns. Indian Express. Retrieved from http://indianexpress.com/
article/opinion/columns/surrogacy-bill-india-ban-on-commercial-surrogacy-3037937/
Ioverno, S., Carone, N., Lingiardi, V., Nardelli, N., Pagone, P., Pistella, J., . . . Baiocco, R.
(2017). Assessing prejudice toward two-father parenting and two-mother parenting: The
beliefs on same-sex parenting scale. Journal of Sex Research, 1–12. doi:10.1080/
00224499.2017.1348460
Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political
Behavior, 12, 19–40. doi:10.1007/BF00992330
Iyengar, S. (1994). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Jadva, V., Blake, L., Casey, P., & Golombok, S. (2012). Surrogacy families 10 years on:
Relationship with the surrogate, decisions over disclosure and children’s understanding
of their surrogacy origins. Human Reproduction, 27, 3008–3014. doi:10.1093/humrep/
des273
Jadva, V., & Imrie, S. (2014). Children of surrogate mothers: Psychological well-being, family
relationships, and experiences of surrogacy. Human Reproduction, 29, 90–96. doi:10.1093/
humrep/det410
Jadva, V., Imrie, S., & Golombok, S. (2014). Surrogate mothers 10 years on: A longitudinal
study of psychological well-being and relationships with the parents and child. Human
Reproduction, 30, 373–379. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu339
Jadva, V., Murray, C., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., & Golombok, S. (2003). Surrogacy: The
experiences of surrogate mothers. Human Reproduction, 18, 2196–2204. doi:10.1093/hum-
rep/deg397
632 R. VENTURA ET AL.
Kantar Media. (2016). Anuario de audiencia TV [TV audience yearbook]. Madrid, Spain:
Author.
Kedia, B. L., & Lahiri, S. (2007). International outsourcing of services: A partnership model.
Journal of International Management, 13, 22–37. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2006.09.006
Kirby, J. (2014). Transnational gestational surrogacy: Does it have to be exploitative?
American Journal of Bioethics, 14(5), 24–32. doi:10.1080/15265161.2014.892169
Kite, M. E., & Bryant-Lees, K. B. (2016). Historical and contemporary attitudes toward
homosexuality. Teaching of Psychology, 43, 164–170. doi:10.1177/0098628316636297
Kleinpeter, C. H., & Hohman, M. M. (2000). Surrogate motherhood: Personality traits and
satisfaction with service providers. Psychological Reports, 87, 957–970. doi:10.2466/
pr0.2000.87.3.957
Kroløkke, C. H., & Pant, S. (2012). “I only need her uterus”: Neo-liberal discourses on
transnational surrogacy. NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 20,
233–248. doi:10.1080/08038740.2012.729535
Kumar, P., Inder, D., & Sharma, N. (2013). Surrogacy and women’s right to health in India:
Issues and perspective. Indian Journal of Public Health, 57, 65–70. doi:10.4103/0019-
557X.114984
Lamm, E. (2012). Gestación por sustitución. Ni maternidad subrogada ni alquiler de vientres
[Pregnancy by substitution. Neither surrogacy nor rent of wombs]. Barcelona, Spain:
Universitat de Barcelona.
Larrañeta, A. (2016, May 19). Gestación subrogada en España: ¿regularla o prohibirla?
[Surrogacy in Spain: regulate or prohibit it?] 20 Minutos. Retrieved from http://www.
20minutos.es/noticia/2741309/0/gestacion-subrogada-espana-debate-legalizar-prohibir/
#xtor=AD-15&xts=467263
León, P. (2015, January 24). Papá, mamá y la tía Samantha [Dad, mom and aunt Samantha].
El País. Retrieved from http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2015/01/24/actualidad/
1422116335_391939.html#comentarios
MacCallum, F., Lycett, E., Murray, C., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. (2003). Surrogacy: The
experience of commissioning couples. Human Reproduction, 18, 1334–1342. doi:10.1093/
humrep/deg253
Madriz, E. (2003). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 363–388). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Markens, S. (2012). The global reproductive health market: U.S. media framings and public
discourses about transnational surrogacy. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 1745–1753.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.013
McCombs, M., & Evatt, D. (1995). Los temas y los aspectos: Explorando una nueva
dimensión de la agenda setting [The themes and aspects: Exploring a new dimension of
the agenda setting]. Comunicación y Sociedad, 8, 7–32.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187. doi:10.1086/267990
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. London, UK: Sage.
Ng, E. (2013). A “post gay” era?: Media gaystreaming, homonormativity, and the politics of
LGBT integration. Communication, Culture, & Critique, 6, 258–283. doi:10.1111/
cccr.12013
Norton, W., Crawshaw, M., Hudson, N., Culley, L., & Law, C. (2015). A survey of UK fertility
clinics’ approach to surrogacy arrangements. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 31, 327–
338. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.06.009
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 633
Norton, W., Hudson, N., & Culley, L. (2013). Gay men seeking surrogacy to achieve
parenthood. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 27, 271–279. doi:10.1016/j.
rbmo.2013.03.016
Orlov, S., & Orlov, D. (2007). Commercial surrogacy: Commodification or choice? University
of Toronto Medical Journal, 84, 177–179.
Pande, A. (2010a). Commercial surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a perfect mother worker.
Signs, 35, 969–992. doi:10.1086/651043
Pande, A. (2010b). “At least I am not sleeping with anyone”: Resisting the stigma of
commercial surrogacy in India. Feminist Studies, 36, 292–312.
Pande, A. (2011). Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: Gifts for global sisters?
Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23, 618–625. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.07.007
Pande, A. (2014). Wombs in labor: Transnational commercial surrogacy in India. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Pande, A. (2015). Blood, sweat, and dummy tummies: Kin labour and transnational surrogacy
in India. Anthropologica, 57, 53–62.
Pande, A. (2016). Global reproductive inequalities, neo-eugenics, and commercial surrogacy
in India. Current Sociology, 64, 244–258. doi:10.1177/0011392115614786
Panitch, V. (2013). Global surrogacy: Exploitation to empowerment. Journal of Global Ethics,
9, 329–343. doi:10.1080/17449626.2013.818390
Pew Research Center. (2013). The global divide on homosexuality: Greater acceptance in more
secular and affluent countries. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-
global-divide-on-homosexuality
Pew Research Center. (2017). Support for same-sex marriage grows, even among groups that
had been skeptical. Retrieved from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/
5/2017/06/23153542/06-26-17-Same-sex-marriage-release.pdf
Qadeer, I. (2009). Social and ethical basis of legislation on surrogacy: Need for debate. Indian
Journal of Medical Ethics, 6, 28–31.
Ratzinger, J. (1987). Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of
procreation. Vatican City: Editrice Vaticana. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/roman_
curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-
life_en.html
Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. (2011). Secrecy, disclosure and
everything in-between: Decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination,
egg donation, and surrogacy. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 22, 485–495. doi:10.1016/j.
rbmo.2011.01.014
Riggs, D. W. (2012). “Paradoxes of visibility”: Lesbian and gay parents in the Australian print
media. Jindal Global Law Review, 4, 201–218.
Riggs, D. W., & Due, C. (2010). Gay men, race privilege, and surrogacy in India. Outskirts, 22.
Retrieved from http://www.outskirts.arts.uwa.edu.au/volumes/volume-22/riggs
Riggs, D. W., & Due, C. (2013). Representations of reproductive citizenship and vulnerability
in media reports of offshore surrogacy. Citizenship Studies, 17, 956–969. doi:10.1080/
13621025.2013.851145
Rudrappa, S. (2010). Making India the “mother destination”: Outsourcing labor to Indian
surrogates. Research in the Sociology of Work, 20, 253–285.
Rudrappa, S., & Collins, C. (2015). Altruistic agencies and compassionate consumers: Moral
framing of transnational surrogacy. Gender & Society, 29, 937–959. doi:10.1177/
0891243215602922
Ruiz-Robledillo, N., & Moya-Albiol, L. (2016). Gestational surrogacy: Psychosocial aspects.
Psychosocial Intervention, 25, 187–193. doi:10.1016/j.psi.2016.05.001
634 R. VENTURA ET AL.
Sádaba, T. (2006). Framing: Una teoría para los medios de comunicación [Framing: A theory
for the media]. Pamplona, Spain: Ulzama Digital.
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The
evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9–20.
Scott, E. S. (2009). Surrogacy and the politics of commodification. Law and Contemporary
Problems, 72, 109–146.
Shelton, K. H., Boivin, J., Hay, D., van den Bree, M. B., Rice, F. J., Harold, G. T., & Thapar, A.
(2009). Examining differences in psychological adjustment problems among children
conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 33, 385–392. doi:10.1177/0165025409338444
Shetty, P. (2012). India’s unregulated surrogacy industry. Lancet, 380(9854), 1633–1634.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61933-3
Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
Smerdon, U. R. (2008). Crossing bodies, crossing borders: International surrogacy between
the United States and India. Cumberland Law Review, 39, 15.
Söderström-Anttila, V., Wennerholm, U. B., Loft, A., Pinborg, A., Aittomäki, K., Romundstad,
L. B., & Bergh, C. (2016). Surrogacy: Outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the
resulting families—a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update, 22, 260–276.
Stake, R. E. (2011). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tieu, M. M. (2009). Altruistic surrogacy: The necessary objectification of surrogate mothers.
Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 171–175. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.024679
Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2016). Changes in American adults’ reported
same-sex sexual experiences and attitudes, 1973–2014. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45,
1713–1730. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0769-4
Twine, F. W. (2015). Outsourcing the womb: Race, class, and gestational surrogacy in a global
market. New York, NY: Routledge.
van den Akker, O. (2003). Genetic and gestational surrogate mothers’ experience of surro-
gacy. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 21, 145–161. doi:10.1080/
0264683031000124091
van den Akker, O., Fronek, P., Blyth, E., & Frith, L. (2016). “This neo-natal ménage à trois”:
British media framing of transnational surrogacy. Journal of Reproductive and Infant
Psychology, 34, 15–27. doi:10.1080/02646838.2015.1106454
Vora, K. (2013). Potential, risk, and return in transnational Indian gestational surrogacy.
Current Anthropology, 54(S7), S97–S106. doi:10.1086/671018
Webb, S. N., Chonody, J. M., & Kavanagh, P. S. (2017). Do we think children need a mom
and dad?: Understanding how gender ideology impact attitudes toward same-gender
parent family rights. Journal of Homosexuality. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/
00918369.2017.1374071
Wennberg, A. L., Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. A., Milsom, I., & Brännström, M. (2016). Attitudes
towards new assisted reproductive technologies in Sweden: A survey in women 30–39 years
of age. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 95, 38–44. doi:10.1111/aogs.12781
Wilkinson, S. (2003). The exploitation argument against commercial surrogacy. Bioethics, 17,
169–187. doi:10.1111/biot.2003.17.issue-2
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. London, UK: Sage.
Copyright of Journal of Homosexuality is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.