The practice of surrogacy has always generated significant theoretical and practical debate, and it is a widely divisive topic in legal, political and moral arenas.
To approach the topic, I would like to propose a two-part analysis. First, here, I will undertake a brief a conceptual analysis of the object of the debate and offer a comparative analysis of different legal frameworks on surrogacy that exemplify. Second, and in a later place, I will explore critical perspectives on surrogacy by exploring the content of sociological and feminist debates on the topic.
What is surrogacy?
Surrogacy is a complex reproductive practice where a woman, referred to as the ‘surrogate’ or ‘gestational carrier’, carries and delivers a baby on behalf of another person or couple, known as the ‘intended parents’ (from now on, IPs) (Brandao, Garrido, 2022; Barać, 2023).
There are two primary types of surrogacy: traditional (genetic) and gestational (non-genetic). In traditional surrogacy, the surrogate not only carries the child but also provides her egg, making her the genetic mother of the baby. Gestational surrogacy, in contrast, involves the use of gametes from other individuals, so the surrogate has no genetic connection to the child. Gestational surrogates can be chosen from relatives, friends, or individuals selected through surrogacy agencies or in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics.
What are surrogacy arrangements?
Surrogacy arrangements can be categorized as altruistic or commercial (Brandao, Garrido, 2022; Barać, 2023).
In altruistic surrogacy, the surrogate provides her services without financial compensation beyond covering her pregnancy-related expenses. Commercial surrogacy involves payment to the surrogate as a form of reward or compensation.
Both types of arrangements create specific contractual relationships between the surrogate and the IPs, with varying levels of legal recognition and regulation depending on the jurisdiction.
Legal regulations of surrogacy: a comparative analysis
Globally, surrogacy laws differ significantly. Some countries completely ban the practice, while others permit it under specific conditions (Piersanti et al., 2021). Even where surrogacy is allowed, the distinction between altruistic and commercial surrogacy is often blurred. For example, jurisdictions permitting only altruistic surrogacy may still allow financial reimbursement for medical costs, loss of earnings, and other pregnancy-related expenses, which can be informally used to compensate the surrogate.
Take Europe as an example. European countries exhibit a wide spectrum of approaches to surrogacy, ranging from complete prohibition to partial or full legalization (Piersanti et al., 2021). Surrogacy is entirely banned in nations such as Austria, Germany, France, and Sweden. In contrast, countries such as the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Portugal only allow altruistic surrogacy, while others, such as Georgia and Ukraine, authorise commercial surrogacy, often attracting international clients seeking lower costs and fewer restrictions. The distinctions between altruistic and commercial surrogacy often hinge on compensation rules and the level of regulatory oversight, with some countries finding it increasingly difficult to maintain a clear divide between the two categories.
Let us briefly explore surrogacy regulations in three countries – Serbia, Denmark, and Georgia – and offer critical insights into restrictive, altruistic, and commercial approaches.
An example of restricted approach: Serbia
In Serbia, surrogacy is currently prohibited under the Law on Medically Assisted Reproduction (LMAR). This act explicitly bans any form of surrogacy, including both altruistic and commercial arrangements. Women are not allowed to carry children with the intention of relinquishing them to third parties, regardless of compensation (LMAR, art. 49, para. 1, item 18). Additionally, providing or advertising surrogacy services is criminalized. According to Serbian law, the woman who gives birth to a child is legally recognized as the mother, and egg donors have no maternity rights (Serbian Family Act, art. 57, para. 2).
Despite the existing ban, legislative reforms have been proposed. The Preliminary Draft of the Civil Code introduces provisions for legalizing surrogacy under specific conditions. Surrogacy would be allowed in cases where natural conception is impossible, other reproductive technologies have failed, or there is a high risk of genetic disease transmission. Single parents are also included as eligible IPs, provided they can fulfil parental responsibilities and act in the child’s best interest.
Under the draft, surrogacy contracts would restrict surrogates from using their own reproductive cells. Contracts could be formed between relatives or unrelated individuals, with moderate financial remuneration permitted. Compensation could range from €8,000 to €15,000, covering expenses such as medical services, lost earnings, and transportation (Petrović, 2019). However, the draft lacks comprehensive protections for surrogate mothers, leaving their rights largely dependent on contractual terms. Additionally, surrogate mothers would be legally obligated to transfer custody of the child to the IPs, except in cases where the child has severe physical or mental disabilities, potentially creating ethical dilemmas.
The draft also introduces requirements for surrogates, such as maintaining a healthy lifestyle during pregnancy, abstaining from harmful substances, and undergoing regular medical check-ups. However, the absence of detailed regulations to protect surrogate mothers or children highlights the need for more robust legal frameworks to prevent abuse and exploitation.
An example of altruistic approach: Denmark
Denmark represents a middle-ground approach, allowing altruistic surrogacy while strictly prohibiting commercial arrangements (Kroløkke, Pant, 2012; Mohr, Koch, 2016). Surrogates must use their own eggs, and no financial compensation is permitted beyond minor expense reimbursements. The surrogate retains the right to keep the child, as Danish law recognizes the woman who gives birth as the legal mother, irrespective of genetic ties (Mohr, Koch, 2016). This creates uncertainty for IPs, who must rely on the surrogate’s willingness to relinquish parental rights.
Danish law also criminalizes acting as an intermediary in surrogacy agreements. Assisted insemination for women known to be surrogates is prohibited, and there are no legal guarantees that IPs will gain custody of the child after birth (Kroløkke, Pant, 2012). However, Denmark has made efforts to address international surrogacy cases. Following a landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in K.K. and Others v. Denmark, the government revised its policies to allow IPs to adopt children born through surrogacy abroad. This decision ensures that children born via international surrogacy have equal rights to citizenship and family life, aligning Danish laws with broader European human rights standards (Wróblewski, Nyborg, Rørdam, 2023).
Denmark’s restrictive approach reflects concerns about exploitation and commodification of women’s reproductive labour. By emphasizing altruistic motives and limiting financial incentives, Danish law seeks to balance ethical considerations with reproductive freedoms. However, critics argue that these restrictions may drive citizens to seek surrogacy services in countries with more lenient regulations, potentially exacerbating global inequalities in surrogacy practices.
An example of commercial approach: Georgia
Georgia is one of the most prominent destinations for commercial surrogacy, offering a cost-effective and legally permissive framework. Surrogacy has been legal in Georgia since 1997, with intended parents registered as the legal parents at birth. Surrogates and egg donors have no parental rights, and contracts are minimally regulated, leaving significant discretion to the parties involved (Kukunashvili, Bjalava, 2016: 140).
Surrogacy in Georgia is accessible to both domestic and international clients, with packages ranging from $30,000 to $60,000. Surrogate mothers typically receive payments of $10,000 to $15,000, depending on the specifics of the arrangement. These women are often from low-income backgrounds, choosing surrogacy as a temporary means of financial stability (Badaiki, 2021; Boróka, 2017). However, they face intense scrutiny from agencies monitoring their pregnancies and significant social stigma, sometimes forcing them to conceal their role as surrogates (Tarkhnishvili, 2022).
Despite its popularity, the Georgian surrogacy industry has raised concerns over ethical and legal issues. There are no provisions to protect surrogate mothers or children in cases where contracts are breached, or if children are rejected by Ips (Kariauli, 2016: 220-221). Furthermore, class disparities are evident, with wealthier foreign clients relying on economically disadvantaged local women to bear their children (Badaiki, 2021; Boróka, 2017; Tarkhnishvili, 2022).
In response to growing concerns, the Georgian government announced plans to restrict surrogacy to Georgian citizens (Gabritchidze, 2023). This move aims to address potential human trafficking, protect surrogate mothers and children, and align with conservative societal values. If approved, the new regulations will also prohibit advertising surrogacy services and prevent same-sex couples from becoming IPs, reflecting the country’s broader political and cultural context.
The content of this blogpost is based on a presentation given at the International Conference “Law, Society, and Digital Pasts, Presents, and Futures” (coauthored with Milica Vlajić) at Lund University, organised by the Law and Society Organization (30 August-1st September, 2023). The panel that was chaired by Marta Bucholc from Abortion Figurations in Poland.
My work on this blogpost results from research conducted within the Horizon Twinning project “Advancing Cooperation on The Foundations of Law – ALF” (project no. 101079177). This project is financed by the European Union.
I thank Julieta Rabanos for her suggestions in the structuring of this blogpost.
SUGGESTED CITATION: Đorđević, Mila: “Surrogacy (I): ‘The Gift of Life’ or Monetary Transaction?“, FOLBlog, 2025/7/10, https://fol.ius.bg.ac.rs/2025/07/10/surrogacy-the-gift-of-life-or-monetary-transaction/