Surrogacy
Almost every confusion about surrogacy comes from people comparing countries without noticing they are running four different legal systems. The European Parliament’s research service and the UK’s parliamentary briefing both use the same taxonomy and it is the right one:
Prohibitionist: Banned entirely. France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Austria and Norway, among others. Italy has criminalized it, with jail terms and fines.
Altruistic: Legal only without payment beyond reasonable expenses, usually with court or medical-body approval. The UK, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus and Portugal sit here, though several of those frameworks are new and not fully in force.
Commercial: Both permitted and regulated. Within Europe, only Ukraine and Belarus allow it on that basis. Several US states do, which is why the US remains the largest destination for cross-border arrangements.
Unregulated or grey: No specific law either way. That is not the same as permitted, and it is where most of the bad outcomes happen.
Two distinctions underneath that matter more than people expect.
Gestational versus traditional: Gestational means the surrogate has no genetic link to the child, using donor eggs or the intended mother’s. Traditional means the surrogate’s own egg is used. Almost all regulated markets now work only with gestational.
Legal parentage at birth: This is the thing that actually determines your risk. In the UK the surrogate is the legal mother at birth, full stop, and parenthood transfers later by parental order. In some jurisdictions the intended parents are recognized at birth. A birth certificate from a country that recognizes you does not bind a country that does not. Lawyers call the mismatch a limping legal relationship, and it is the single most common way intended parents end up stuck.
The map has been narrowing for a decade, and the narrowing accelerated this year.
Kazakhstan signed an amendment in July 2026 restricting commercial surrogacy to legally married Kazakh citizens, effectively barring foreigners. That follows Thailand, India, Nepal, Cambodia, Russia, Greece and Argentina tightening or closing their routes to foreign intended parents.
Get Rhi Gladney’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The reason given is consistent across them: exploitation. Kazakhstan’s own government enquiry in December 2025 found exploitation of women and children and illegal donor networks. Whether or not you think the response is proportionate, that is the finding that drove the policy.
The EU is also moving. The recast anti-trafficking directive, which member states must transpose by 15 July 2026, explicitly lists surrogacy as a form of exploitation. Note the nuance, because it matters: organizations working on this argue trafficking and surrogacy should not be conflated and that altruistic, regulated surrogacy remains lawful. But the direction is clear, and it will change how cross-border arrangements are scrutinised inside the EU.
What that leaves is a shrinking set of destinations, mostly Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and parts of the US. Georgia is notable in the UK data: among parental order applications involving cross-border arrangements, the most commonly recorded countries were the UK, the US, Georgia, Nigeria and Ukraine. Georgia’s position is widely expected to be revisited.
Two honest observations. First, the countries that stay open tend to be the ones with the weakest oversight, which is not a coincidence and is not good news for anyone in the arrangement. Second, rules change faster than anyone plans for. A route that is legal when you start can be closed before the birth, and the people most exposed when that happens are the surrogate and the child.
If you strip out the moral argument, which is real but not resolvable here, the practical questions are these.
Who is the legal parent the moment the child is born, in the country of birth. Everything follows from that answer.
Will your home country recognize the arrangement. The UK position is explicit: only UK law determines who the parents are, so neither a foreign birth certificate nor a foreign court order has direct effect. Intended parents must apply for a parental order in the UK. If the child is already here and that order cannot be made, adoption may be the only route, and it is slower and less certain.
Was the surrogate’s consent genuinely free and informed. This is where the ethics and the law meet, and it is where coercion hides. Regulated markets require counseling, independent legal advice for the surrogate, a cooling-off period, and no payment above expenses. Those requirements exist because the alternative has been documented.
Medical complications, a change of mind, a country closing, a child born with a disability, a surrogate left without payment. In commercial arrangements the answer is usually contractual and usually asymmetric. In altruistic ones it depends on the relationship, which is why the UK guidance leans so hard on independent legal advice for everyone.
What data exists, and what to do about the fact that it doesn’t. The UK parliamentary briefing is blunt: there is no comprehensive dataset on surrogacy activity, and what exists may not represent all of it. Around 500 parental orders are granted annually in recent years, and in 2024–25 cross-border applications, which are often commercial, exceeded domestic ones. So the direction is toward more people going abroad, into arrangements their own legal system is least equipped to protect.
Where I would land: the ethical argument is genuinely contested and this piece should not pretend otherwise. But the practical advice is not contested at all. Whoever you are in this, get independent legal advice in both countries, in writing, before anything begins. The failures are not usually moral failures. They are people discovering after a birth that they are not, in law, the parent.
