RETHINKING CROSS-BORDER SURROGACY: HOW LEGAL FRAGMENTATION EXACERBATES THE INFRINGEMENT OF CHILDREN’S AND SURROGATE MOTHERS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.5981Palavras-chave:
Cross-Border Surrogacy, Human Rights Law, Best Interests of the Child, Socio-Legal Analysis, Reproductive JusticeResumo
Cross-border surrogacy is a sensitive issue that raises significant human rights concerns, particularly for children, who are often the most affected. Based on an analysis of national legislation, case law, international legal instruments, and institutional reports, the findings show that fragmented legal frameworks frequently undermine the fundamental rights of both children and surrogate mothers. Divergent national approaches create legal gaps that lead to lengthy and complex proceedings, exposing children to risks such as statelessness and violations of their rights to identity, nationality, and family life. Surrogacy arrangements may also marginalize surrogate mothers by limiting their access to long-term healthcare and support, and by restricting relationships with the children they carry. A comparative analysis of prohibitive, altruistic, and commercially permissive systems reveals that regulatory inconsistencies contribute to prolonged legal uncertainty, ultimately harming children. The study highlights that surrogacy raises broader ethical and human rights concerns, including the potential commodification of children and exploitation of women. These risks are intensified by legal fragmentation, which weakens protections and increases uncertainty. The core issue lies in the interaction between contested ethical foundations and inconsistent legal responses. A more coherent, child-centered legal framework is therefore needed to safeguard children’s rights while respecting the dignity of surrogate mothers.
Referências
Arkadas-Thibert, A., & Lansdown, G. (2022). Article 7: The right to a name, nationality, and to know and be cared for by parents. In Monitoring state compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (p. 51).
Ashraful, D. M. (2025, December 3). Conflict of laws issues arising from international surrogacy agreements: A study on South Asian countries. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=5340383
Bhat, P. I. (2019). Idea and methods of legal research. Oxford University Press.
Blitzman, J. D. (2024). Cheating the evidence to get to best interest and the presumption of unfitness. Family Court Review, 62(4), 818–832.
Buchstatter, E., & Roth, M. (2024). Legal controversies in cross-border surrogacy: A central European perspective on the recognition of legal parenthood through surrogacy established abroad. Access to Justice in Europe, 177.
Ćorac, S. (2022). Cross-border surrogacy and the right to respect for family life. Foreign Legal Life, 66(4), 505–518.
Curtin, R. (2022). Suspension of citizenship: Ethical concerns in international commercial surrogacy and the legal possibility of stateless children. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 55, 805.
Doljak, S. A. (2022). Biomedically assisted fertilization in the Republic of Slovenia. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, 41(2), 32600–32604.
Dutcher, J. M., Lederman, J., Jain, M., Price, S., Kumar, A., Villalba, D. K., Tumminia, M. J., et al. (2022). Lack of belonging predicts depressive symptomatology in college students. Psychological Science, 33(7), 1048–1067.
Dzholos, S. V., & Koshulko, O. (2022). Surrogate motherhood in Ukraine and around the world: Legal regulation & management practice. MEST Journal, 10(2), 46–56.
Eggum, B. (2024). Global legal challenges of cross-border surrogacy: A comparative analysis of surrogacy tourism. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384458007
Ekman, K. E. (2025). Being and being bought: Prostitution, surrogacy and the split self. Spinifex Press.
European Court of Human Rights. (2014, June 26). Mennesson v. France — 65192/11. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-9781%22]}
European Court of Human Rights. (2014). Labassee v. France — 65941/11. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-9780%22]}
European Court of Human Rights. (2017, January 24). Case of Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy, no. 25358/12. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-170359%22]}
Fife, S. T., & Gossner, J. D. (2024). Deductive qualitative analysis: Evaluating, expanding, and refining theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, Article 16094069241244856.
Garayova, L. (2025). Parenthood without borders — Judicial cooperation for cross-border family security in the EU. ECLIC, 9, 326.
Government of Slovenia. (n.d.). Citizenship. https://www.gov.si/en/topics/citizenship
Horsey, K. (2022). The history and potential future of UK surrogacy laws. In International Colloquium: What future for surrogacy in Portugal (pp. 11–24). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kirsty-Horsey-2/publication/364444268
Horsey, K., Arian-Schad, M., Macklon, N., & Ahuja, K. (2022). UK surrogates' characteristics, experiences, and views on surrogacy law reform. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 36(1), Article ebac030.
Horsey, K., & Jackson, E. (2023). The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and non-traditional families. Modern Law Review, 1472–1488.
Horsey, K., Mahmoud, Z., & Wade, K. (2025). Introduction: Future directions in surrogacy law — Law and policy reform in the UK and beyond. In K. Horsey, Z. Mahmoud, & K. Wade (Eds.), Future directions in surrogacy law (pp. 1–22). Bristol University Press.
Jacobson, H., & Rozée, V. (2022). Inequalities in (trans)national surrogacy: A call for examining complex lived realities with an empirical lens. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 63(5–6), 285–303.
Keaney, J. (2022). The racializing womb: Surrogacy and epigenetic kinship. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47(6), 1157–1179.
Kerr, A. (2025). A mother of a job: The control and commodification of women's reproduction. In Women, power and autonomy: Rights, respect and representation in law and society (pp. 31–62). Springer Nature Switzerland.
Kilkelly, U. (2024). The child and the European Convention on Human Rights. Routledge.
Krutzinna, J. (2022). Who is "the child"? Best interests and individuality of children in discretionary decision-making. The International Journal of Children's Rights, 30(1), 120–145.
Littlechild, B., & Housman, C. (2023). Applying universal principles of "best interest": Practice challenges across transnational jurisdictions, cultural norms, and values. Children, 10(3), Article 537.
Luo, Y. (2024). Regulating surrogacy intermediaries: A comparative analysis of regulatory approaches and implications in the Chinese context. International Journal of Law in Context, 20(4), 514–528.
Marinelli, S., Negro, F., Varone, M. C., De Paola, L., Napoletano, G., Lopez, A., Zaami, S., & Basile, G. (2024). The legally charged issue of cross-border surrogacy: Current regulatory challenges and future prospects. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 300, 41–48.
März, J. W. (2022). What does the best interests principle of the Convention on the Rights of the Child mean for paediatric healthcare? European Journal of Pediatrics, 181(11), 3805–3816.
Mutavdzic, T. P. (2024). Legal challenges across state lines: A look into surrogacy law in the United States. Journal of Civil Law Studies, 16, 265.
Nagy, Z. (2025). Surrogacy and its legal circumstances in the legislation and case law of selected states and ECHR [Doctoral dissertation, University of Miskolc].
Olaye-Felix, B., Allen, D. E., & Metcalfe, N. H. (2023). Surrogacy and the law in the UK. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 99(1170), 358–362.
Piersanti, V., Consalvo, F., Signore, F., Del Rio, A., & Zaami, S. (2021). Surrogacy and "procreative tourism": What does the future hold from the ethical and legal perspectives? Medicina, 57(1), Article 47.
Raj, A. (2025). Global perspectives on altruistic surrogacy: Analyzing the prohibition in selected countries and recommendations for legalization. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research, 3, 261.
Rial-Sebbag, E. (2025). The human body and the body elements — Conditions for their use in genetics under the French bioethics law and beyond. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 33, Article 101026.
Ruggiero, R. (2022). Article 3: The best interest of the child. In Monitoring state compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: An analysis of attributes. Children's well-being: Indicators and research (Vol. 25, pp. 21–30).
Salamon, K. (n.d.). Slovenia: Full recognition as a continuous challenge. Mirovni Inštitut. https://www.mirovni-institut.si/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Grid-for-survey_Slovenia_WEB-PUBLICATION.pdf
Santamaría-Gutiez, R., González-Albors, E. M., González-Sala, F., & Lacomba-Trejo, L. (2025). Exploring attachment dynamics in surrogacy: A systematic review. Psychiatry International, 6(4), Article 145.
Sarnacka, E., & Demchenko, I. (2024). Legal regulation of surrogacy in Poland and Ukraine: A comparative analysis. Review of European and Comparative Law, 57(2), 223.
Smith, M., Hewitt, J., & Fronek, P. (2024). Surrogacy and bioethics. In Research handbook on surrogacy and the law (pp. 263–280). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Storgaard, A., Johansson, S., & Åström, K. (2023). Introduction: Access to justice from a multi-disciplinary and socio-legal perspective: Barriers and facilitators. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 13(4), 1198–1208.
Suryanarayanan, S. (2023). Poverty and commercial surrogacy in India: An intersectional analytical approach. Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence, 8(2), Article 4.
Tesfaye, M. G. (2022). What makes a parent? Challenging the importance of a genetic link for legal parenthood in international surrogacy arrangements. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 36(1), Article ebac010.
Thomann, E., Ege, J., & Paustyan, E. (2022). Approaches to qualitative comparative analysis and good practices: A systematic review. Swiss Political Science Review, 28(3), 557–580.
Tobin, B. (2024). Surrogacy and consent under Irish law: A problematic copy and paste from the UK. Friend of the Court, 6, 260.
United Nations. (2025, October 10). UN expert calls for recognition of surrogacy as a system of violence, exploitation and abuse, urges abolition. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-calls-recognition-surrogacy-system-violence-exploitation-and-abuse
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). Slovenia. [Documento disponível sem URL identificável — recomenda-se completar]
Valc, J. (2025). Towards an international consensus on cross-border surrogacy: The role of the European Court of Human Rights? Medical Law Review, 33(3), 1–18.
Vertommen, S., & Barbagallo, C. (2022). The in/visible wombs of the market: The dialectics of waged and unwaged reproductive labour in the global surrogacy industry. Review of International Political Economy, 29(6), 1945–1966.
Walsham, A. (2023). Generations: Age, ancestry, and memory in the English reformations. Oxford University Press.
Wells-Greco, M. (2024). Nationality and immigration obstacles in cross-border surrogacy arrangements. In Research handbook on surrogacy and the law (pp. 319–337). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wojtan, P. A. (2025). The legal vacuum of surrogacy and its implications for childhood statelessness. Polish Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 47–64.
Zhao, Y. (2023). Protection of rights and legal remedies for surrogate mothers in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–12.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Submeto (emos) o presente trabalho, texto original e inédito, de minha (nossa) autoria, à avaliação de Veredas do Direito - Revista de Direito, e concordo (amos) que os direitos autorais a ele referentes se tornem propriedade exclusiva da Revista Veredas, sendo vedada qualquer reprodução total ou parcial, em qualquer outra parte ou outro meio de divulgação impresso ou eletrônico, dissociado de Veredas do Direito, sem que a necessária e prévia autorização seja solicitada por escrito e obtida junto ao Editor-gerente. Declaro (amos) ainda que não existe conflito de interesse entre o tema abordado, o (s) autor (es) e empresas, instituições ou indivíduos.
Reconheço (Reconhecemos) ainda que Veredas está licenciada sob uma LICENÇA CREATIVE COMMONS:
Licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
