Lesbian and queer non‐birthing mothers in France, Switzerland, and Québec: Differentiated access to reproductive rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The last few decades have seen legal, social, and scientific discourses on lesbian‐parent families change dramatically. Although they had been subject to complete exclusion, these families are increasingly being included in several countries. However, this inclusion varies depending on the national context, which is particularly significant in terms of legal recognition. This article reports on the results of research that looked at the experiences of motherhood in lesbian‐parent families, specifically the experiences of lesbian/queer and/or trans non‐birthing parents in three different national contexts, namely, Québec, France, and Switzerland. As mothers in Switzerland and France do not necessarily benefit from legal recognition of their parental status from the birth of their child (ren), this article will highlight the different strategies they put in place to articulate their motherhood. It will present the ways in which certain legal and social contexts reinforce biological motherhood to the detriment of the mother who has not given birth. In some cases, particularly during a separation of the couple, the mother who has not benefited from legal recognition of her parental status is restricted in her ability to claim her maternity because of a legislative framework that prioritizes the biological mother. This comparative study allows us to better understand how lesbian non‐birthing mothers living in different legal and social contexts think about and articulate their maternity as well as the possibilities they have (or have not) to create their family and develop their maternal identity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".