From genetic to social relatedness: How grandparents adapt to donor conception
Reproductive pragmatism and open families: (re)imagining Kinship narratives (Shaw, 2025)
Shaw, R. M. (2025). Reproductive pragmatism and open families: (re)imagining Kinship narratives. Journal of Family Studies, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2025.2479017
Note: This was a particularly exciting find for me! My parents are very eager to learn more about how other grandparents experience and navigate donor conception. Three of their five grandchildren (across 3 families) are donor-conceived.
Geographic Region: Aotearoa, New Zealand
Research Question; How do grandparents of individuals and couples who have used formal clinic-assisted and informal 'at home' reproductive techniques and services imagine and practice family building, and how do they narrate kinship across a range of different family configurations?
Design: This qualitative study, conducted between 2020 and 2023, employed a two-stage approach. The first stage involved interviews with individuals who accessed egg, embryo, or sperm donation. The second stage (focus of this article) involved in-depth semi-structured interviews with relatives of the first cohort. Interviews were conducted in person or online via Zoom. Questions focused on perceptions of fertility treatment, the significance of genetics and social relatedness for family building, information sharing, care and support for family members, and social acceptance of new family forms. Data was analyzed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis
Sample: 15 individuals who were related to interviewees from the first participant cohort, representing nine families. 12 participants identified as grandparents or step-grandparents (the focus of this article). Two participants were siblings, and one was a sperm donor (not included in the article's findings). All participants identified as Pākehā (New Zealand European) or of European descent. Age breakdown: eight Interwar Generation (born before 1945), four Baby Boomers (1946-1965), two Gen X (1965-1995), and one Millennial (1981-1995)
Key Findings
Grandparents approached assisted reproduction pragmatically – they saw it as a practical solution for family creation rather than something radically new or different.
Many grandparents initially valued genetic connections highly, but their views often changed after seeing their family members use donor conception.
Grandparents strongly believed donor-conceived children should know their genetic origins, mostly for identity development and medical history reasons.
Several grandparents worried about families without father figures, particularly for single mothers by choice and same-sex couples using sperm donation.
To address this perceived gap, some grandparents (especially grandfathers) took on expanded roles as "de facto fathers" or helped find male role models for their grandchildren.
For many grandparents, their role expanded far beyond traditional grandparenting to become more like co-parents, especially for single parents using donor conception.
Initial concerns about not bonding with non-genetically related grandchildren disappeared quickly after birth, with statements like "love comes with the child."
Family secrets about donation created tension in some families, with concerns about when and how children should learn about their origins.
Several grandparents had relationships with donors or donor families, creating new types of extended family connections through gift exchanges and visits.
Participants preferred the term "open families" over "new families," suggesting these arrangements expand traditional family concepts rather than replace them.
Religious or traditional grandparents described navigating internal conflicts between their ideals about family structure and their desire to support their children unconditionally.
Most grandparents eventually concluded that while genetics might matter initially, the daily practice of "doing family" through care, support, and emotional connections is what truly defines kinship.
Limitations: The study might have self-selection bias, as relatives who found their family members' reproductive choices problematic may have declined to participate. Also, there was a significant time gap (over two years) between interviewing the original cohort and their relatives, which may have limited recruitment options. The sample is homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, with all participants identifying as Pākehā or of European descent, which limits the study's ability to represent diverse cultural perspectives on kinship.
Applications: Offers insights into how extended family members adapt to and support their reproductive decisions, potentially encouraging open communication about donor conception with family members. Suggests the need to consider the relational aspects of reproductive donation beyond just donors and recipients, recognizing that extended family networks are integral to these new family formations.
Funding Source: Royal Society (NZ) Marsden Fund (VUW1826).
Lead Author: Rhonda M. Shaw is a researcher at the School of Social and Cultural Studies, Te Herenga Waka–Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, specializing in reproductive citizenship and family formation through assisted reproduction.
Regulatory Context
New Zealand operates under the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act (2004), which specifies procedures for reproductive assistance and promotes an ethic of openness regarding donor information.
Open-identity (identity-release) donors' details are recorded on the HART register and made available to donor-conceived offspring at age 18 or earlier upon application by parents.
The law prohibits commercialization of gamete donation and surrogacy arrangements, though altruistic procurement is permitted.
Access to publicly funded fertility treatment is based on Clinical Priority Assessment Criteria (CPAC), which requires a medical diagnosis of infertility. These criteria limit who can access government-funded treatment, creating challenges for individuals and couples embarking on family-building projects, particularly those experiencing social rather than medical infertility.