Between 2018 and 2023, the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission reviewed the regulation of surrogacy.
From the outset, the Law Commissions thought that banning surrogacy – which has long been legal in the UK and supported by successive governments 'as a part of the range of assisted conception options' – was not a viable option (see Law Commission, 2019: paras 1.48–50). Instead, they ultimately took the view – largely based on empirical evidence and, crucially, through direct consultation with those with lived experience – that the introduction of a new surrogacy pathway, supported and overseen by state-regulated non-profit surrogacy organisations, was the most effective way to tackle the various problems with the current legal framework (see Law Commission, 2023: para 2.12).
Following extensive consultation across a spectrum of views, including those fully supportive of surrogacy and those campaigning for complete prohibition (see Law Commission, 2023: para 1.32), 681 responses were received. The majority opposing all or most of the reform proposals were based wholly or partly on a template produced by Nordic Model Now! (a group that mainly campaigns for the decriminalisation of sex workers and to make the buying of sex a crime) that was widely circulated on X (then known as Twitter).
The Law Commissions published their Final Report and draft Surrogacy Bill on 29 March 2023 (see BioNews 1185). In a letter from the (then) Department of Health and Social Care Minister Maria Caulfield MP, the previous government stated that it was working to review the recommendations, with a full response to be published in due course. That response has yet to be published, though it is known that the new (Labour) government minister responsible, Baroness Merron, has met with the Law Commissions to discuss the recommendations. Canvassing public support for new and existing policies is crucial, but what has been seen while we wait for the government's response is various self-appointed 'moral entrepreneurs' who have taken to X, actively aiming to shape public discourse through social media and undermine the legitimacy of surrogacy, its regulation, and the process of regulatory reform.
The most active of these accounts right now is an anonymous account, @SurrogConcern ('Surrogacy Concern'). Launched a month after the Law Commissions' Final Report, the account is self-described as aiming to raise 'awareness of the negative consequences of surrogacy for women and children'. This account deliberately conflates regulated and unregulated surrogacy when discussing potential risks and issues, selectively circulating (mis)information to maximise engagement. This is particularly so when surrogacy is deemed to coincide with another 'threat' to traditional values, including same-sex parenting or single fathers. Often, unfounded claims or assertions about surrogacy or the proposed legal reforms are posted, and when asked for examples, the answer is 'we know someone who this happened to'. Some claims are substantiated with reference to a legal case heard by the Court of Appeal, though this isn't true of all their claims. The account frequently posts cropped screenshots from X and other social media sites with inflammatory descriptions and, when asked to provide sources, the response is to claim (unconvincingly) personal knowledge of the parties.
With over 12,000 tweets, their content reveals a preoccupation with maintaining a high level of moral panic surrounding surrogacy, even where there is blatant manipulation of the truth. Worryingly, their reactionary anti-surrogacy content has been mainstreamed and portrayed as a legitimate stance in a polarised debate. However, it seems driven by personal repugnance and evidences a particular disdain for rigorous, peer-reviewed research on how surrogacy can (and does) actually work in the UK.
At the end of 2024, @SurrogConcern launched a letter-writing campaign, urging followers and X users more widely to send a template letter to MPs, opposing 'the plans with the Government', and asking them 'to vote against these proposals, should a bill on surrogacy reform be forthcoming'. The letter – as with many of the daily tweets accompanying the call to arms – makes sweeping and unsupported statements about surrogacy and regulatory reform, presented as fact. As just some of many examples:
- 'Many people believe surrogacy in the UK to be a practice which largely takes place between friends and family for altruistic reasons, but this is overwhelmingly no longer the case, as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and others have found.' This directly contradicts the Nuffield briefing presumably cited, and is also not suggested by the HFEA website's information on surrogacy.
- 'Many British surrogate mothers do not go on to sustain long term relationships with the children they give birth to.' This is unsupported by peer-reviewed research, which shows the opposite is true in most domestic surrogacy arrangements.
- The proposed reforms are 'legitimising paying significant sums to women who undertake surrogacy.' Actually, the proposed reforms attempt to clarify the rules on what expenses are recoverable by surrogates, by specifying acceptable payments to surrogates, and prohibiting any payment not explicitly permitted (including payment for gestational services, compensatory payments, payment for general living expenses, and payments for unspecified costs) (See Law Commission, 2023: paras 12.82-111) .
As, perhaps, we near a government response, hopefully leading to parliamentary and public debate, there has also been a recent increase in the number of podcasts and articles discussing surrogacy. In the first two weeks of 2025, one article appeared in The Times and another in the Guardian, and there were two BBC podcasts on surrogacy. These media outlets are trusted and a key source of information for the public, yet none of the discussions were grounded in peer-reviewed research, nor did they provide an informed, unbiased (or always accurate) view of surrogacy in the UK.
The first podcast prominently features Surrogacy Concern to support its view that the Law Commissions' recommendations merely aim to strengthen intended parents' rights. The second claims that gestational surrogacy is 'easier legally and emotionally,' whereas in traditional surrogacy, the surrogate 'has to give up parental rights' such that this is 'legally really tricky' and 'emotionally very complicated'. In the UK, there is no legal difference between the two types of surrogacy, as the surrogate is always the legal mother. Later, it incorrectly states the UK has a 'partial ban' on surrogacy, repeating the persistent widespread misconception that British surrogates may only receive reasonable expenses.
It is truly unfortunate that some are preoccupied with manufacturing moral panic over surrogacy, with a clear agenda of tying the practice to perceived threats to societal stability posed by non-traditional families, as a means of reaffirming the hegemony of the nuclear family and the heteronormative social order. By constantly drip-feeding misinformation and a view of surrogacy based on what appears to be gut feeling (especially the essentialist and reductionist view of woman- and motherhood that this rests on), the debate risks being skewed.
Crucially, that may also mean that the proposed legal reforms – which are designed to protect the best interests of all concerned, not least children and surrogates – are delayed or derailed. We guess that's exactly what the anti-surrogacy campaigners are after – but hope that people aren't taken in and approach the debates with an open mind. Better still, we hope people who see misinformation start calling it out and countering it with facts.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Have Your Say
As a UK surrogate who gave birth three weeks ago and is fed up on misinformation (and enraged by Surrogacy Concern), THANK YOU for this article! - trainee genetic & genomic counsellor