Governing Parental Desires and Vulnerabilities:

Open access


In the early 2010s, transnational surrogacy was a hotly debated topic in Norway following Norwegian citizens’ repro-migration. One of the oft-repeated policy proposals in the debate was to criminalise transnational surrogacy in the same fashion as the purchase of sex. However, instead of introducing a prohibition, the Parliament, in 2013, voted in favour of an addition to the Biotechnology Act, clarifying that private individuals could not be punished for participating in surrogacy abroad. Of concern to me in this paper is how transnational surrogacy came to be handled in a manner that facilitated, rather than stopped, this type of repro-migration. I examine the legislative process that led to the current regulation of transnational surrogacy, with particular attention to the affective biopolitics of repro-migration. I find that reproductive vulnerability and desire circulated in the debate, which finally resulted in an exemption of the Norwegian repro-migrants from punishment.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ahmed S 2004 ‘Affective economies’ Social Text vol. 22 no. 2 pp. 117-139.

  • Ahmed S 2010 The promise of happiness Duke University Press Durham and London.

  • Allan S 2017 ‘Governing transnational surrogacy practices: what role can national and international regulation play?’ in Babies for sale? Transnational surrogacy human rights and the politics of reproduction ed. M Davies Zed Books London pp. 344-375.

  • Andersen UC 2013 ‘Offerposisjonens paradoks–Offentlig debatt om surrogati’ Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning vol. 54 no. 1 pp. 31-62.

  • Bhabha J 2014 Child migration and human rights in a global age Princeton University Press Princeton NJ.

  • Bioteknologinemnda 2013 Høringssvar - Endringer i bioteknologiloven - straffebestemmelsen [Hearing submission - Changes in the Biotechnology Act - the penal provision]. Available from:

  • Bissenbakker Frederiksen M 2012 ‘Styr dine følelser!’ Varia vol. 9 pp. 4-18.

  • Bissenbakker M & Myong L 2019 ‘The Affective Biopolitics of Migration’ Nordic Journal of Migration Research vol. 9 no. 4 DOI:10.2478/njmr-2019-0043.

  • Briggs L 2017 How all politics became reproductive politics. From welfare reform to foreclosure to Trump University of California Press Oakland CA.

  • Browner CH & Sargent CF 2011 Reproduction globalization and the state: new theoretical and ethnographic perspectives Duke University Press Durham & London.

  • Bufdir 2013 Høring - forslag til endringer i bioteknologiloven - straffebestemmelsen. Available from:

  • Butler J 2004 Precarious life: the powers of mourning and violence Verso London & New York.

  • Castles S Miller MJ & Ammendola G 2014 The age of migration: international population movements in the modern world 5 ed. Palgrave Macmillan Hampshire.

  • Church of Norway 2013 Bioteknologiloven - Straffebstemmelsen. Available from:ådet,_Mellomkirkelig_råd,_Samisk_kirkeråd.

  • Darling MT 2017 ‘What about the children? Citizenship nationality and the perils of statelessness’ in Babies for sale? Transnational surrogacy human rights and the politics of reproduction ed. M Davies Zed Books London pp. 185-203.

  • DasGupta S & Dasgupta SD 2014 ‘Business as usual? The violence of reproductive trafficking in the Indian context’ in Globalization and transnational surrogacy in India: outsourcing life eds. S DasGupta & SD Dasgupta Lexington Books Lanham Boulder New York Toronto Plymouth.

  • Deomampo D 2013 ‘Gendered geographies of reproductive tourism’ Gender & Society vol. 27 no. 4 pp. 514-537 DOI:10.1177%2F0891243213486832.

  • Derrida J 2016 Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak Trans.) John Hopkins University Press Baltimore.

  • Fassin D 2011 ‘Policing borders producing boundaries. The governmentality of immigration in dark times’ Annual Review of Anthropology vol. 40 no. 1 pp. 213-226 DOI:10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145847.

  • Førde KE 2017 Intimate distance. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India doctorate University of Oslo Oslo.

  • Foucault M 1990 The history of sexuality volume I (R. Hurley Trans.) Pantheon Books New York.

  • Franklin S 2013 Biological relatives: IVF stem cells and the future of kinship Duke University Press Durham.

  • Gammeltoft TM & Wahlberg A 2014 ‘Selective reproductive technologies’ Annual Review of Anthropology vol. 43 no. 1 pp. 201-216 DOI:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102313-030424.

  • Ginsburg F & Rapp R 1991 ‘The politics of reproduction’ Annual Review of Anthropology vol. 20 pp. 311-343.

  • Gondouin J 2014 ‘Gay fathers surrogate mothers and the question of the human. A postcolonial feminist analysis of emotions in Barn till varje pris?’ Lambda Nordice vol. 19 no. 3-4 pp. 109-139.

  • Gürtin Z 2011 ‘Banning reproductive travel: Turkey’s ART legislation and third-party assisted reproduction’ Reproductive Biomedicine Online vol. 23 no. 5 pp. 555-564 DOI:10.1177%2F0891243213486832.

  • Hernes HM 1987 Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism A Scandinavian University Press Publication Oslo.

  • Inhorn MC & Gürtin Z 2011 ‘Cross-border reproductive care: a future research agenda’ Reproductive Biomedicine Online vol. 23 no. 5 pp. 665-676 DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.08.002.

  • Inhorn MC & Patrizio P 2009 ‘Rethinking reproductive “tourism” as reproductive “exile”‘ Fertility and Sterility vol. 92 no. 3 pp. 904-906 DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.055.

  • Jupp E Pykett J & Smith FM (eds.) 2017 Emotional states. Sites and spaces of affective governance Routledge London and New York.

  • Kroløkke C 2012 ‘From India with love: troublesome citizens of fertility travel’ Cultural Politics vol. 8 no. 2 pp. 307-325.

  • Kroløkke C 2016 ‘ART in the sun: assembling fertility tourism in the Caribbean’ in Critical kinship studies eds. C Kroløkke L Myong SW Adrian & T Tjørnhøj-Thomsen Rowman & Littlefield International London & New York pp. 149-166.

  • Kroløkke C Myong L Adrian SW & Tjørnhøj-Thomsen T 2016 ‘Critical kinship studies: kinship (Trans)formed’ in Critical kinship studies eds. C Kroløkke L Myong SW Adrian & T. Tjørnhøj-Thomsen Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd. London pp. 1-12.

  • Lozanski K 2015 ‘Transnational surrogacy: Canada’s contradictions’ Social Science & Medicine vol. 124 pp. 383-390 DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.003.

  • McKenzie M 2017 ‘Affect theory and policy mobility: challenges and possibilities for critical policy research’ Critical Studies of Education vol. 58 no. 2 pp. 187-204.

  • Melhuus M 2012 Problems of conception: issues of law biotechnology individuals and kinship Berghahn Books New York and Oxford.

  • Ministry of Health and Care Services 2012 Høringsnotat. Endringer i bioteknologiloven - straffebestemmelsen [Consultative paper. Changes in the Biotechnology Act - the penal provision]. Available from:

  • Nahman M 2011 ‘Reverse traffic: intersecting inequalities in human egg donation’ Reproductive Biomedicine Online vol. 23 no. 5 pp. 626-633.

  • Prop. 95 L (2012-2013) 2013 Endringer i bioteknologiloven (straffebestemmelsen og assistert befruktning til personer med seksuelt overførbare sykdommer) (2012-2013) Available from:

  • Radin MJ 1996 Contested commodities: the trouble with trade in sex children body parts and other things Cambridge University Press London.

  • Raymond JG 1989 ‘The international traffic in women: women used in systems of surrogacy and reproduction’ Reproductive and Genetic Engineering vol. 2 no. 3 pp. 51-57.

  • Riggs DW & Due C 2013 ‘Representations of reproductive citizenship and vulnerability in media reports of offshore surrogacy’ Citizenship Studies vol. 17 no. 8 pp. 956-969 DO I:10.1080/13621025.2013.851145.

  • Schurr C 2018 ‘The baby business booms: economic geographies of assisted reproduction’ Geography Compass vol. 12 no. 8 pp. e12395 DOI:10.1111/gec3.12395.

  • Skilbrei M-L 2012 ‘The development of Norwegian prostitution policies: a marriage of convenience between pragmatism and principles’ Sexuality Research and Social Policy vol. 9 no. 3 pp. 244-257.

  • Solinger R 2013 Reproductive politics. What everyone needs to know Oxford University Press New York.

  • Strathern M 1991 ‘Partners and consumers: making relations visible’ New Literary History vol. 22 no. 3 pp. 581-601.

  • Strathern M 1992 Reproducing the future: essays on anthropology kinship and the new reproductive technologies Manchester University Press Manchester.

  • Stuvøy I 2016 ‘Surrogati: Reproduksjon i globalt farvann’ in Reproduksjon kjønn og likestilling i dagens Norge eds. MN Ravn GK Kristensen & SØ Sørensen Fagbokforlaget Oslo. Pp. 195-221.

  • Stuvøy I 2018 Parenthood at a price: accounting for the viability of transnational surrogacy Ph.D. Monograph NTNU Trondheim.

  • the Standing Committee on Health and Care 2013 Recommendations from the standing committee on health and care regarding changes in the biotechnology act [Innstilling fra helse- og omsorgskomiteen om endringer i bioteknologiloven (straffebestemmelsen og assistert befruktning til personer med seksuelt overførbare sykdommer)]. (Innst. 313 L (2012-2013)). Available from:

  • the Storting 21.november 2012a Question 1 question time November 21 2012 [Spørsmål 1 Muntlig spørretime 21.november 2012]. Available from:

  • the Storting 21.november 2012b Question 4 question time November 21 2012 [Spørsmål 4 Muntlig spørretime i Stortinget 21.november 2012]. Available from:

  • the Storting. 2013 Case nr. 2 Meeting Monday May 27 2013 12 pm [Sak nr. 2 Møte mandag den 27.mai 2013 kl. 12]. Available from:

  • Thompson C 2005 Making parents: the ontological choreography of reproductive technologies MIT Press Cambridge and London.

  • Thompson C 2018 On separation: reproduction in migra-political times Annual lecture at Reprosoc University of Cambridge.

  • Van Hoof W & Pennings G 2011 ‘Extraterritoriality for cross-border reproductive care: should states act against citizens travelling abroad for illegal infertility treatment?’ Reproductive Biomedicine Online vol. 23 no. 5 pp. 546-554 DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.07.015.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 47 47 13
PDF Downloads 51 51 17