BACKGROUND: Fertility centre websites are a key sources of information on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) for both infertile people and the general public. As part of a global fertility market, they are also a window to attract potential future patients. They give formal and practical information but in the way the information is displayed, they also convey social representations, and in particular, gender representation in its intersectional dimension. The objective is to analyse the sex, class and race representations regarding reproduction and parenthood that are embedded in the content of fertility centre websites in eight European countries. METHODS: The 5 most visible fertility centres that appeared in the first places on Internet search were selected for each country under study, except for one country which has only three fertility centres. In total, 38 fertility centre websites were considered for a thematic analysis using an iterative approach and a comprehensive perspective. RESULTS: Each centre details its services and techniques according to the legal provisions in force in its country. However, on all the websites studied, the fertility centres demonstrate a strong gendered representation. The logos generally depict women or parts of their bodies, as do the photos, which mainly show white women with light eyes. The description of the causes of infertility and the techniques offered by the centres also highlights gender differences. Sperm donation, where MAR is reserved for heterosexual couples, is included among the techniques for women with the comment that it will enable them to fulfil their dream of becoming mothers. CONCLUSIONS: MAR, and through it the project of having a child and procreative work, is presented as a matter for white, cisgender and heterosexual women, thus fueling stratified reproduction and limiting reproductive justice. The research team formulated guidelines for fertility centres to encourage them to adopt a more inclusive approach in terms of sex, social class and race, so that the diversity of infertile people feel involved and welcome in these centres, to avoid misperceptions about infertility in the general population and to reinforce autonomy and justice in reproductive matters.

Fertility centre websites are a key sources of information on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) for both people undergoing MAR and the general public. As part of a global fertility market, they may also be a window to attract potential future patients. In this context, they convey formal and practical information but also, through their content, narratives and visuals, social representations. The objective is here to analyse the gender representations of reproduction and parenthood that the 38 European fertility centres under study convey through the texts and images they display on their websites. Each centre details its services and techniques according to the social and legal provisions in force in its country. However, on all the websites studied, the fertility centres demonstrate a strong gendered representation, including in terms of social class and race. MAR, and through it the project of having a child and procreative work, is presented as a matter for white, cisgender and heterosexual women, thus fueling stratified reproduction and limiting reproductive justice.

APLICA Investigación y Traslación Soc Coop Mad Madrid Spain

Department of Philosophy University of Antwerpen Antwerp Belgium

Hospital Universitario de Móstoles Servicio de Medicina Preventiva Madrid Spain

INED Research Unit on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Campus Condorcet cours des Humanités CS 50004 93322 Aubervilliers France

Institute for Culture and Society ICS University of Navarra Mind Brain Group Pamplona Spain

Institute for Medical Humanities 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Medistella Mediversvm s r o Management Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):393–406. PubMed

Adamson GD, Zegers-Hochschild F, Dyer S. Global fertility care with assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2023;120(3, Part 1):473–82. PubMed

Adamson GD, Dyer S, Zegers-Hochschild F, Chambers GM, De Mouzon J, Ishihara O, et al. O-154ICMART preliminary world report 2019. Human Reprod. 2023;38(1): dead093187.

Malmanche H, Rozée V. Usages et pratiques de la digitalisation des soins et des relations : ce que les outils numériques font à la PMA transfrontière. Anthropologie & Santé. 2024;28. 10.4000/w5iw.

Salama M, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Mallmann P, Westphal LM, et al. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1277–88. PubMed PMC

The Competition and Markets Authority, BritainThinks. Patients’ experiences of buying fertility treatment. Qualitative research report. 2022. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/632c2fefe90e073721b08402/Consumer_research_report_160922.pdf.

Weissman A, Gotlieb L, Ward S, Greenblatt E, Casper RF. Use of the Internet by infertile couples. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(6):1179–82. PubMed

Patrizio P, Albertini DF, Gleicher N, Caplan A. The changing world of IVF: the pros and cons of new business models offering assisted reproductive technologies. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(2):305–13. PubMed PMC

Perler L, Schurr C. Intimate lives in the global bioeconomy: reproductive biographies of Mexican egg donors. Body Soc. 2021;27(3):3–27.

Schurr C. From biopolitics to bioeconomies: the ART of (re-)producing white futures in Mexico’s surrogacy market. Environ Plan D Soc Space. 2017;35(2):241–62.

Vertommen S, Pavone V, Nahman M. Global fertility chains: an integrative political economy approach to understanding the reproductive bioeconomy. Sci Technol Human Values. 2022;47(1):112–45.

Johnson KM. Excluding lesbian and single women? An analysis of U.S. fertility clinic websites. Women’s Stud Int Forum. 2012;35(5):394–402.

Mohammadi L, Aranda D, Martínez-Martínez S. The narratives of fertility clinic’s websites in Spain. Profesional de la información Inf Prof. 2019. 10.3145/epi.2019.mar.19.

Abusief ME, Hornstein MD, Jain T. Assessment of United States fertility clinic websites according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) guidelines. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(1):88–92. PubMed

Avraham S, Machtinger R, Cahan T, Sokolov A, Racowsky C, Seidman DS. What is the quality of information on social oocyte cryopreservation provided by websites of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology member fertility clinics? Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):222–6. PubMed

Galiano V, Orvieto R, Machtinger R, Nahum R, Garzia E, Sulpizio P, et al. “Add-ons” for assisted reproductive technology: do patients get honest information from fertility clinics’ websites? Reprod Sci. 2021;28(12):3466–72. PubMed

Coveney C, Hudson N, Funes SL, Jacxsens L, Provoost V. From scarcity to sisterhood: The framing of egg donation on fertility clinic websites in the UK, Belgium and Spain. Soc Sci Med. 2022;296: 114785. PubMed

Gürtin ZB, Tiemann E. The marketing of elective egg freezing: a content, cost and quality analysis of UK fertility clinic websites. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2021;12:56–68. PubMed PMC

Ginsburg F, Rapp R. The politics of reproduction. Annu Rev Anthropol. 1991;20:311–43. PubMed

Löwy I, Rozée V, Tain L. Nouvelles techniques reproductives, nouvelle production du genre (Introduction). Cahiers du Genre. 2014;56:5–18.

Nadimpally S, Marwah V. The gendered nature of infertility and ARTs. In: Rozée V, Unisa S, editors. Assisted reproductive technologies in the global South and North: issues, challenges and the future. London: Routledge; 2016. p. 40–52.

Brun S, Cosquer C. Sociologie de la race. Paris: Armand Colin; 2022.

Rapp R. Race & reproduction: an enduring conversation. Med Anthropol. 2019;38(8):725–32. PubMed

Roberts D. Killing the black body. Race, reproduction and the meaning of liberty. New York: Vintage Books; 2017 (1997). PubMed

Rozée V, de La Rochebrochard É. La PMA en France: une reproduction des inégalités de genre ? Travail, genre et sociétés. 2023;50(2):43–60.

Mamo L. Queering reproduction in transnational bio-economies. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2018;7:24–32. PubMed PMC

Colen S. ‘Like a mother to them’: stratified reproduction and West Indian child care workers and employers in New York. In: Ginsburg FD, Rapp R, editors. Conceiving the new world order: the global politics of reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1995. p. 78–102.

Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter Ch, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries: the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Human Reprod Open. 2020;2020(1):2399–3529. PubMed PMC

Alon I, Pinilla J. Assisted reproduction in Spain, outcome and socioeconomic determinants of access. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20(1):156. PubMed PMC

Rozée V, de La Rochebrochard E. Travelling from France for CBRC: an internet survey as a first step to measure this phenomenon. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(Suppl. 1): i14.

Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Giannelou P, Pierouli A, Rapani A, Maziotis E, et al. Treating infertility: current affairs of cross-border reproductive care. Open Med (Wars). 2019;14:292–9. PubMed PMC

Shenfield F, de Mouzon J, Scaravelli G, Kupka M, Ferraretti AP, Prados FJ, et al. Oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in European countries: statutory background, practice, storage and use. Human Reprod Open. 2017;2017(1):1–9. PubMed PMC

Mukamurera J, Lacourse F, Couturier Y. Des avancées en analyse qualitative : pour une transparence et une systématisation des pratiques. Recherches qualitatives. 2006;26(1):110–38.

Weber M. Economie et Société 1. Les catégories de la sociologie. Paris: Pocket; 1995 [1956].

de La Rochebrochard E, McElreavey K, Thonneau P. Paternal age over 40 years: the “amber light” in the reproductive life of men? J Androl. 2003;24(4):459–65. PubMed

Hertzog I-L, Mathieu M. Toward a comprehensive, international and interdisciplinary analysis of procreative work. Enfances Familles Générations. 2021;38. https://journals.openedition.org/efg/12363.

Culley L, Hudson N, Rapport F, Blyth E, Norton W, Pacey AA. Crossing borders for fertility treatment: motivations, destinations and outcomes of UK fertility travellers. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(9):2373–81. PubMed

Hertzog I-L. Les coûts de l’assistance médicale à la procréation pour les femmes salariées. Cahiers du genre. 2014;56:87–104.

Rozée V, Mazuy M. L’infertilité dans les couples hétérosexuels: genre et “gestion” de l’échec. Sciences sociales et santé. 2012;30(4):5–29.

Letherby G. Childless and Bereft? Stereotypes and realities in relation to “voluntary” and “involuntary” childlessness and womanhood. Sociol Inq. 2002;72(1):7–20.

Maher J, Saugeres L. To be or not to be a mother? Women negotiating cultural representations of mothering. J Sociol. 2007;43(1):5–21.

Ulrich M, Weatherall A. Motherhood and infertility: viewing motherhood through the lens of infertility. Fem Pscychol. 2000;10(3):323–36.

Merkison JM, Chada AR, Marsidi AM, Spencer JB. Racial and ethnic disparities in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. 2023;119(3):341–7. PubMed

Tam MW. Queering reproductive access: reproductive justice in assisted reproductive technologies. Reprod Health. 2021;18(1):164. PubMed PMC

Inhorn MC, Fakih MH. Arab Americans, African Americans, and infertility: barriers to reproduction and medical care. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(4):844–52. PubMed

Ceballo R, Graham ET, Hart J. Silent and infertile: an intersectional analysis of the experiences of socioeconomically diverse african american women with infertility. Psychol Women Q. 2015;39(4):497–511.

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Disparities in access to effective treatment for infertility in the United States: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(1):54–63. PubMed

Jain T. Socioeconomic and racial disparities among infertility patients seeking care. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(4):876–81. PubMed

Bell AV. Beyond (financial) accessibility: inequalities within the medicalisation of infertility. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32(4):631–46. PubMed

Rozée V, Malmanche H. Pour être « seule aux manettes » : parcours solo de la PMA en France. Enfances Familles Générations [Online]. 2023; 44. http://journals.openedition.org/efg/19186.