Research Article
Women in Lesbian Relations: Construing
Equal or Unequal Parental Roles?
Psychology of Women Quarterly
2015, Vol. 39(2) 256-267
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0361684314537225
pwq.sagepub.com
Anna Malmquist1
Abstract
When a lesbian couple conceives through donor insemination, the partners transform their relations to each other. In this
article, I explore how women in lesbian relations depict their parental roles in relation to the notion of equality. Drawing on
critical discursive psychology, I conducted and analyzed interviews with 96 Swedish lesbian parents. Findings show how the
interviewees draw on three different interpretative repertoires when they talk about their parental roles. In one repertoire,
parents describe themselves as being spontaneously equal in relation to the child. In a second repertoire, equality is depicted as
a potential result of struggling, where some parents claim to have achieved equality, whereas others describe being frustrated
about their unequal situation. Finally, in a third repertoire, inequality is depicted as a given starting point, drawing on a biologistic rhetoric. Although most parents present equality as idealized, most also refer to biology as a reality that sets the
benchmark. Findings in the present study could be useful for clinicians working with lesbian couples; rather than assuming that
a lesbian couple is more or less equal, it is important to consider the specific couple and their descriptions.
Keywords
parental role, mothers, relationship quality, lesbianism, homosexual parents, birth mother, equality, discursive psychology
Lesbian couples are often said to strongly emphasize relationship equality as well as joint high levels of involvement with
their children (Bos & van Balen, 2010; Bos, van Balen, & van
den Boom, 2007; Chan, Brooks, Raboy, & Patterson, 1998;
Ciano-Boyce & Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Goldberg, Smith, &
Perry-Jenkins, 2012; Patterson, Sutfin, & Fulcher, 2004;
Perlesz et al., 2010; Tasker & Golombok, 1998). Along with
other Western countries, Sweden is often claimed to be at the
forefront of women’s rights and gender equality politics
(Ahrne, Roman, & Franzén, 2003; Holli, Magnusson, &
Rönnblom, 2005; Magnusson, 2008; Ryan-Flood, 2009).
Although both these general claims could (and should) be
nuanced, lesbian parenting couples in Sweden are of particular interest for researching discourses on parenting roles in a
context where strong egalitarian values could be expected.
The present article draws on interviews with 96 Swedish lesbian parents. Specifically, in the present article, I aim to
explore how these interviewees depict their own and their
partners’ roles as parents in relation to notions of equality.
(Chabot & Ames, 2004). This choice could be crucial in
many respects. First, after insemination, only one partner will
have a biological bond to the child. Pregnancy, giving birth,
and breastfeeding are often described as giving the birth
mother an advantage in developing a close bond with her
baby (Ciano-Boyce & Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Downing &
Goldberg, 2011). Indeed, several studies have focused on differences between birth mothers and non-birth mothers, showing that birth mothers generally spend more time with their
children than non-birth mothers do (Bos et al., 2007;
Ciano-Boyce & Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Downing & Goldberg,
2011, Goldberg & Perry-Jenkins, 2007; Patterson, 1995).
Besides spending more time with children, birth mothers
more often engage in nurturing activities, such as feeding the
child, putting her or him to sleep, or providing comfort when
the child is cranky, tired, or hurt, whereas non-birth mothers
more often engage in rough-and-tumble play (Ciano-Boyce
& Shelley-Sireci, 2002). Moreover, birth mothers who agree
that biology is important spend even more time in childcare
tasks (Goldberg & Perry-Jenkins, 2007).
Relationship Equality Among Lesbian Couples
When a lesbian couple desires to become parents, several
pathways might be under consideration. A common route to
parenthood is donor insemination, where one partner is inseminated and the child is brought up by the couple together
(Malmquist & Zetterqvist Nelson, 2013). If both partners are
fertile, the first choice to make is who will carry the baby
1
Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University,
Linköping, Sweden
Corresponding Author:
Anna Malmquist, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning,
Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
Malmquist
257
Second, many (however not all) infants show a preference
for their birth mother over their non-birth mother (Goldberg,
Downing, & Sauck, 2008; Pelka, 2009). Such preferences
often change over time, and many couples develop more
equal relations as the child grows (Goldberg et al., 2008).
Some non-birth mothers have strategies to minimize the
impact of biological differences, such as compensating for
not breastfeeding through greater involvement in other nurturing tasks (Goldberg & Perry-Jenkins, 2007). When a child
continues to show strong preferences for the birth mother, this
is often explained by the parents with reference to the bonds
developed during breastfeeding (Goldberg et al., 2008). For
many couples, a child’s preference for one parent over the
other is a source of tension and maternal jealousy, particularly in cases where both partners have had a desire to give
birth (Goldberg et al., 2008; Pelka, 2009).
Third, and depending on local legislation, legal responsibilities and rights as a parent are sometimes only available
to birth mothers, leaving non-birth mothers outside the
social welfare benefits granted to other parents (Malmquist
& Zetterqvist Nelson, 2013). For instance, non-birth mothers
might not be able to take parental leave or make legal decisions for their children. Also, if the parents separate, nonbirth mothers with no legal custody are less likely to continue
to live with their children (Gartrell, Bos, Peyser, Deck, &
Rodas, 2011). Undoubtedly, donor insemination gives the
partners different statuses as birth mother and non-birth
mother, which then must be negotiated in everyday life.
When compared to heterosexual couples, however, a number of studies have shown that partners in lesbian couples
contribute more equally to housework and parenting duties
(Bos et al., 2007; Bos & van Balen, 2010; Chan et al.,
1998; Ciano-Boyce & Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Goldberg et al.,
2012; Patterson et al., 2004; Perlesz et al., 2010; Tasker &
Golombok, 1998). Patterson, Sutfin, and Fulcher (2004)
addressed these issues by asking what causes equal or
unequal distribution of work and childcare. For their lesbian
participants, the best predictor of equality was egalitarian
ideals, whereas differences in income or level of education
contributed less to explaining how housework and childcare
were divided. Goldberg, Smith, and Perry-Jenkins (2012)
show that inequality in lesbian couple’s income or education
is more likely to affect which partner engages more in
feminine-coded housework than who engages more in childcare. Although housework is more likely to be done by the
‘‘weaker’’ partner, they argue that childcare is a more valued
type of labor and thus not as affected by power resources.
Parental and Gender Equality in Sweden
In Sweden, women have a long tradition of participating in
paid employment (Ahrne et al., 2003). A discourse on gender
equality grew strong in the 1960s and 1970s, and huge political interventions were carried out to increase women’s paid
employment. In 1974, the Swedish government was first to
give fathers the right to paid parental leave (Johansson &
Klinth, 2008). Recent statistics show that a vast majority of
Swedish fathers take parental leave; however, mothers
remain on parental leave for longer periods
(Försäkringskassan, 2012). Similarly, a vast majority (77%)
of Swedish women are employed and full-time housewives
are few (2%), but women still do more hours of housework
and childcare than men do (Sverige Statistiska centralbyrån,
2012).
When a child is born or adopted in Sweden, each legal
guardian is granted 240 days of compensated parental leave
(Swedish Social Insurance Agency, 2012a). Each member of
the couple thereby has a fully equal opportunity to divide their
time between paid employment and childcare. However,
although 60 days are reserved for each parent, the remaining
180 days can be transferred from one parent to the other,
enabling a more uneven division of parental leave if the parents
desire it. Since 2003, a same-sex couple may share legal parenthood of the same child (SFS [Svensk författningssamling,
a Swedish law text], 1994, p. 1117). Just like other parents,
both partners in a lesbian parenting couple have access to compensated parental leave. Furthermore, parents with employment, regardless of gender, have the legal right to reduce
their working hours to part-time until the child is 8 years old
(Gustafsson, 1994). When children are between 3 and 5 years
of age, 42% of Swedish mothers and 9% of Swedish fathers
work part-time (Sverige Statistiska centralbyrån, 2012).
Although parents are allowed to stay home with economic
compensation whenever a child is sick (Swedish Social Insurance Agency, 2012b), mothers utilize this opportunity more
often than fathers (with women staying home on 64% of children’s sick days; men, 36%; Sverige Statistiska centralbyrån,
2012).
Theoretical Framework
In a Western context, childbirth and child rearing are strongly
associated with the nuclear heterosexual family (Ahrne et al.,
2003; Morgan, 1996, 2011; Weston, 1991). Mothers and
fathers are expected to jointly contribute to the well-being
and upbringing of their children. However, several empirical
studies have shown that partners’ relative contributions usually differ: Mothers engage more in childcare and housekeeping, whereas fathers spend more hours in paid employment
(Craig & Powell, 2012; Magnusson, 2008; Schober, 2013;
Weisfeld et al., 2011; Wielers & Raven, 2013). Likewise, caregiving mothers and breadwinning fathers are traditionally
described as forming a cultural ideal—that is, as representing
the heteronormative way of ‘‘doing’’ family (Ryan-Flood,
2009; Sainsbury, 1996). In Western hegemonic culture, heterosexuality is privileged and construed as natural (Kitzinger,
2005; Land & Kitzinger, 2005; also see Archakis & Lampropoulou, 2009; Berland & Warner, 1998; Cameron & Kulick,
2003). At the same time, contemporary families show great
variation. Single-parent families, divorced families, same-
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
258
Psychology of Women Quarterly 39(2)
sex families, and voluntarily childless families are some
examples of the plethora of modern family life, causing modern family theorists to speak of ‘‘family practices’’ rather than
‘‘the Family’’ (Morgan, 1996, 2011).
Lesbian mothers are described in the feminist literature
both as reproducing and as challenging family norms (Clarke,
2005; Kawash, 2011). On one hand, it could be argued that a
lesbian woman becoming a mother reinforces or obeys the
gendered cultural expectancies on women to parent and nurture. Thus, it is interesting to understand lesbian women’s
motherhood in relation to heteronormativity and cultural
ideals of motherhood. On the other hand, lesbian women’s
parenting could also be portrayed as showing the resilience
of family ideals because parenthood is performed outside heterosexuality. Because more and more lesbians are becoming
mothers, and lesbian motherhood is becoming more visible, it
is reasonable to believe that specific norms on parenting are
developing among lesbians. For example, and as mentioned
earlier, several studies have shown that lesbian couples tend
to value equality and shared parenting responsibilities to an
extent not seen in different-sex families (Bos & van Balen,
2010; Bos et al., 2007; Chan et al., 1998, Ciano-Boyce &
Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Goldberg et al., 2012; Patterson et al.,
2004; Perlesz et al., 2010; Tasker & Golombok, 1998). The
concept homonormativity is typically used to describe tendencies among non-heterosexuals to assimilate to heteronormative standards (Ahmed, 2006; Duggan, 2004; Robinson,
2012). In this article, however, I will use the concept somewhat differently, that is, to describe the specific norms formed
and conveyed among non-heterosexuals, in this case how parenthood is performed among lesbian mothers.
Neither hetero- nor homonormativity can be expected to
be identical in all Western cultures (Brown, 2012). British
sociologist Ryan-Flood (2005) describes how the diversity
in heteronormativity across different contexts gives rise to
different heteronormativities. Heteronormativity in Sweden
must be understood in a context in which women and men
do not contribute equally to parental and housekeeping duties
(Magnusson, 2008). Still, heteronormativity in Sweden is
characterized by stronger gender equality ideals than it is in
most other Western countries (Ahrne et al., 2003; Holli
et al., 2005; Magnusson, 2008; Ryan-Flood, 2009). Homonormativity in Sweden is currently understudied. There are
no known previous studies focusing specifically on Swedish
lesbian mothers’ ideals or norms concerning equality. In the
present study, such norms and ideals are in focus by addressing how lesbian mothers, in the specific social and cultural
context of Sweden, negotiate equality in their parenting roles.
In order to address hetero- and homonormativity in Sweden
in the present work, I adopt a social constructionist epistemology where knowledge is considered to be situated in
time and context (Burr, 2003; Kitzinger, 1987). I analyzed
interview data in a discourse analytical framework inspired
by Wetherell’s (1998, 2007) and Edley’s (2001) critical discursive social psychology. A discourse analysis focuses on
language as being central to the construction of social reality
and treats language as action. Dominant discourses, such as
the heteronormative notion of ‘‘natural’’ heterosexuality,
become incorporated into the cultural understanding of ‘‘common sense’’ and serve to maintain existing power structures.
Simultaneously, counter-discourses may form and offer resistance. Within discursive psychology, close attention is paid to
how accounts are construed in a specific context. In order to
capture the locality and flexibility in ‘‘ways of talking,’’ discursive psychologists often prefer talking about interpretative
repertoires rather than discourses. An interpretative repertoire
provides a ‘‘relatively coherent way of talking about objects
and events in the world’’ (Edley, 2001, p. 198) and serves
speakers with arguments to account for their interests. Another
central concept in discursive psychology is subject positions
(Edley, 2001). Subject positions are located in interpretative
repertoires in terms of the ‘‘I,’’ ‘‘you,’’ ‘‘we,’’ or ‘‘they’’
depicted and located in the accounts. In the present article,
I set out to identify the interpretative repertoires and subject
positions on which interviewees draw in their talk about
equality in parenthood.
Methods
The present article reports on a research project on Swedish
lesbian parent families in which the two women share legal
parenthood with one another after donor insemination or
donor in vitro fertilization. The project covers a range of
topics, such as encounters with fertility clinics (Rozental &
Malmquist, in press), encounters with maternity care (Malmquist & Zetterqvist Nelson, 2014), and the children’s images
of donors and fathers (Malmquist, Möllerstrand, Wikström,
& Zetterqvist Nelson, 2014). Shared legal parenthood has
been available to same-sex couples in Sweden since 2003
(SFS, 1994:1117), when second-parent adoption was enabled
for same-sex partners (i.e., when one spouse adopts the biological or previously adopted child of the partner).
In order to establish contact with lesbian couples, I initially collected second-parent adoption decisions from all
district courts in Sweden. Applications for second-parent
adoptions in female same-sex families dated within a
6-year period after the new law were included if the adoptee
was born in 2003 or later. A total of 185 unique families
were identified, with second-parent adoptions for 1–3 children in each family. Four families with whom I had personal
relations were excluded, but parents in 181 families
received an invitation to participate in the study. This invitation included information about the research project, and it
stressed that participation was voluntary and that participants could withdraw from the study at any time. The procedure of inviting potential participants through their personal
data in adoption decisions was approved by the Regional
Ethics Board at Linköping University. In total, 109 (60%)
families expressed an interest in participating.
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
Malmquist
259
During 2009–2010, I conducted interviews with 96 parents in 51 of these families, selected to ensure a geographical spread among them. In 45 interviews, both partners
participated and were interviewed together. In the remaining
six interviews, only one parent participated either due to
conflicting schedules or because the parents had separated.
According to the interviewees’ desires, most interviews
were conducted in their homes. A few interviews took place
in public locations, such as cafés or at the participants’ workplace. The interviews followed a semistructured interview
guide, where participants were asked to provide their family narrative, which followed a chronology from when the
couple first met until the time of the interview. The parents were asked to talk about how they met, how they
decided to parent, what path to parenthood they chose, and
how they experienced pregnancy, birth giving, and living
with a child. The parents were also asked about how they,
as a lesbian family, experienced their encounters with others. Relationship equality, division of labor, and parental
roles were discussed in all interviews. In some interviews,
the interviewees spontaneously discussed equality and
engaged extensively with this topic. In most interviews,
however, this topic was initiated when I asked how the
couple had arranged their parental leave.
Of the 51 couples, 25 had one child together and 26 had
two children together. Three families also included children
from a previous relationship, resulting in a total of 29 families with more than one child. In 19 of these 29 families,
both parents had given birth, whereas in 10 families, one
parent had given birth to all children. Families with two
birth mothers usually described the switching of birth
mother as a joint desire. In most families where one mother
had given birth to all children, the non-birth mother claimed
that she did not have any desire to become pregnant. A few
families, however, had only one birth mother owing to the
non-birth mother’s fertility problems or age. A majority of
the families with one child planned for a second child, and
this second child was usually planned to be the biological
child of the non-birth mother of the older child. All of the
lesbian couples shared custody and legal parenthood of the
children conceived together (except for a few cases in which
second-parent adoption of the babies had not yet been legally granted). Second-parent adoption is only available for
married couples or registered partners; hence, all parents
had been married/registered partners at the time of the
adoptions.
The mean age of the interviewees was 36 years (age
range 24–58 years). Most of the interviewees were employed
(n ¼ 84), whereas a minority was currently on parental leave,
studying, running their own company, unemployed, or on
long-term sick leave. One third (n ¼ 32) had an upper
secondary-level education, whereas two thirds had
university-level degrees. Most of the interviewees were born
in Sweden (n ¼ 86), but a few had migrated from other European countries.
Each interview lasted between 41 and 101 minutes and
was audio recorded. All recordings were transcribed verbatim, including both the interviewees’ and my own voices.
Some non-verbal expressions (such as laugher or sighs)
were included in the transcriptions, although more detailed
information (such as overlapping speech and length of
pauses) was not. Names of parents and children have been
replaced with pseudonyms. In the excerpts presented below,
clarifications have been inserted within square brackets.
When a sequence of the interview text has been omitted, this
is marked with / . . . /.
Before conducting any detailed analysis, I read through
the entire material and made an index of the content of each
interview. Sequences of specific interest for the present article (i.e., where interviewees discuss their internal relations
in the family) were sorted into a separate document for more
detailed analysis. This initial sorting was broad and inclusive. I included talk about division of labor, parental leave,
and other parental duties as well as descriptions of emotional closeness to the child(ren) and the labeling of the parents. I decided to narrow my analytical focus to specifically
engage with the interview sequences in which the interviewees discussed their parental roles and organization of
everyday parenting duties because particularly interesting
negotiations of equality were found in these sequences,
especially in relation to the meaning of being a birth mother
or a non-birth mother. With this narrowed focus, I searched
for patterns in the interview talk. I paid attention to terms
and metaphors that were utilized in each document (i.e., I
identified interpretative repertoires). Furthermore, I paid
close attention to how the interviewees positioned themselves and their partners in their accounts (i.e., I identified
subject positions). The work on the present study has continually been discussed and developed in a dialogue with two
senior researchers who have been independently involved in
discussions of how different interview sequences exemplify
different interpretative repertoires. Preliminary analysis and
article drafts have also been presented during research seminars where other researchers provide input. This input has
improved the analysis.
Results
The analysis resulted in identification of three main interpretative repertoires on which the interviewees drew. The first
interpretative repertoire construes as a given that both partners have similar parental roles. Joint motherhood is depicted
as being spontaneously equal and performed in unison. I
therefore labeled this interpretative repertoire the ‘‘unison
repertoire.’’ In a second interpretative repertoire, equal parental roles are depicted as something for which one should
strive and that one might achieve through hard work and
struggling. I call this the ‘‘struggling repertoire.’’ Finally, I
identified a third interpretative repertoire in which having different parental roles as birth mother and non-birth mother are
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
260
Psychology of Women Quarterly 39(2)
construed as a given, drawing on biological metaphors—in
other words, a ‘‘biologistic repertoire.’’ The term ‘‘biologistic’’ refers to the use of biological ‘‘explanations’’ in the analysis of social situations. I use the concept to frame the
rhetoric as discursive rather than factual.
When analyzing interpretative repertoires, we expect the
speaker to fluctuate between different repertoires that ‘‘suit
the needs at hand’’ (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 156) at any
given moment. In the interviews studied here, some parents
drew on different repertoires in different parts of the interview when different topics were raised. However, and surprisingly, most interviewees adhered quite strongly to one
and the same repertoire on parental roles throughout the interview. Each of the three interpretative repertoires was drawn
on in about one third of the interviews, and all repertoires
were common in families with one birth mother as well as
in families with two birth mothers. In the following, the
results of the analysis are presented by focusing on each of
the interpretative repertoires.
The Unison Interpretative Repertoire
A common way of talking about joint parenthood is to
emphasize a spontaneously achieved mutual similarity. Routines and duties, such as putting kids to sleep or picking them
up at preschool, are described as shared in agreements
phrased as ‘‘every other time,’’ ‘‘take turns,’’ and ‘‘share
alike.’’ This way of talking exemplifies an interpretative
repertoire where equality and similarity are both idealized
and self-evident. Here, same-sex parenthood is presented as
free from stereotypical gender roles and thereby spontaneously equal. This repertoire provides a space for the interviewees to claim their spontaneously achieved similarity as
mothers.
In the following excerpt, Jeanette and Ina, a couple, jointly
draw on the unison repertoire and position themselves and one
another as equal primary mothers when they describe how they
shared nighttime awake periods during their child’s infancy.
Jeanette: Hmm, I don’t know if we had discussed it so much
before, or how we,
Ina: no, it was just,
Jeanette: yeah, it was just so obvious.
Ina: obvious that it would be like that. Or, it wouldn’t occur to
either of us that the other should take all the nights or something, it,
Jeanette: No. It’s really an advantage when you don’t have set
roles to rely on, or, somehow. That’s how it feels.
Ina: Right. But we did decide that the one of us who worked,
Jeanette: Still we couldn’t say ‘‘well the woman should always
take the nights, so she,’’ we couldn’t say that.
Ina: No. But we decided that the one of us who worked would
take three nights and the other who was at home four nights
[Jeanette: yes]. Then we switched when we switched, so it was
the same really.
In this excerpt, Jeanette and Ina’s positions as equals are
both claimed and enacted. Their way of sharing nighttime
awake periods is construed as natural and self-evident
through claims such as ‘‘it was just so obvious’’ and not ‘‘discussed’’ much, whereas regarding a more unequal division, it
is claimed that ‘‘it wouldn’t occur to either of us.’’ The unison
repertoire is also conveyed in the partners’ way of completing
each other’s sentences and reinforcing each other’s statements. When Jeanette claims that ‘‘it was just so obvious,’’
Ina fills in ‘‘obvious that it would be like that.’’ Most turntakings in this short dialogue are initiated with a reinforcement of what the partner has just claimed. The interviewees
utilize words like ‘‘No,’’ ‘‘Right,’’ and ‘‘Yes’’ to state their
agreement on what they do and do not do. In this way, the dialogue flows smoothly and without friction, depicting the two
as a unit speaking with one voice. Their way of talking gives
the impression that joint primary motherhood is comfortable;
justifying how things are does not require any hard accounting work. Rather a space is provided where Jeanette contrasts
their own parenthood with a heteronormative understanding
of different-sex couples where ‘‘the woman should always
take the nights.’’ Their own parenting is depicted as free from
‘‘set roles’’ and claimed to give them an ‘‘advantage’’ over
other couples.
Presenting parental roles as spontaneously joint and shared
gives the impression of an absence of any power imbalance
and conflicts. When parental duties are described as fully
shared and mutual, no one could be claimed to be in control
of the partner or to set the agenda or standards. Another interviewee, Nina, expresses the importance of such similarity
when she says ‘‘We are like that for the most part, we’re very
similar. It’s important to have the same amount of time off,
for both of us to get to, just the same.’’ For most, within this
interpretative repertoire, everyday life sharing of maternal
practices is described without making any reference to biological parenthood. The status of birth mother or non-birth
mother is thereby mostly unspoken. When such statuses are
mentioned, this is merely done to stress their unimportance
or irrelevance when claiming that their own equal motherhood has been formed regardless of biological ties and childbearing experiences. Ida addresses this topic when stating
‘‘Some say there’s a very strong symbiosis between the birth
mom and the child, you know, but we don’t feel that way.’’
Unison primary motherhood is, in this sense, depicted as a
given starting point, adjacent to the normative images of difference experienced by others.
The Struggling Interpretative Repertoire
Unlike the interpretative repertoire described earlier wherein
similarity is depicted as spontaneously earned for same-sex
couples, another way of talking displays an imbalance at
birth, where the birth mother is depicted as primary and the
non-birth mother as secondary in relation to the child. In
some interview parts, such an imbalance is described as being
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
Malmquist
261
strongly combatted until both mothers have achieved similar
close, primary parental roles. This way of talking draws on an
interpretative repertoire where equality is construed as an
idealized result of struggling. In some interview parts, the
interviewees claim having been successful in relation to such
a struggle. Regarding such interview parts, striving for equality is commonly depicted as central to the family identity.
For example, Emmy claims that she and her partner are
‘‘fanatically into equality,’’ and Hanna addresses struggling
for equal parental roles as being part of ‘‘a feminist awareness.’’ Rather than being described as occurring spontaneously, equality must be fought for, and expressions like
‘‘struggle,’’ ‘‘work hard for,’’ and ‘‘counteract’’ are frequently employed within this repertoire. In two excerpts
from different parts of the interview, Hanna describes her
struggle to share the primary parental role in relation to her
oldest child, Klara, to whom her partner gave birth.
Hanna: I was surprised about, it was just that when Klara was
finally born, that there was such a big difference both in what
people thought, I mean how they related to me, but also in, that
because Klara was nursing, I couldn’t give her food, I couldn’t
give her what she needed, so then I was automatically number
two even though we shared all the parental leave. Er, I hadn’t
expected it, er, and I’ve worked hard at, at establishing an
equal role afterwards, both in front of others and for Klara.
Er. And that, that was the most difficult thing for me, to realize
that, that I have to struggle for this in a way I hadn’t expected.
Hanna: And, I would say that now, actually, for the past year,
that we’re equal for Klara. And that, then my entire level of
anxiety really dropped, like. And also, even though people
around you can still read things into it, I mean I know it happens when we’re at different places, it doesn’t matter as much
anymore because she chooses me just as often.
Hanna depicts being a non-birth mother as strenuous; she
has ‘‘worked hard’’ and ‘‘struggle[d]’’ against her status as
‘‘automatically number two.’’ An imbalance between the parents is construed as an enemy to be fought, which requires
Hanna to struggle. The struggle is, however, also depicted as
unexpected. Hanna claims she was ‘‘surprised’’ and repeats
that the inequality was something she had not ‘‘expected’’ but
had to ‘‘realize.’’ This rhetorical work uncovers an ideal where
equality and shared primary motherhood are expected to occur
without effort. Hanna claims to have learned from experience
that equal parental roles do not come without a struggle (e.g.,
in the first excerpt she positions herself as a secondary mother
striving for sharing equal parenthood with her partner). The
payoff for her efforts is claimed in the second excerpt, where
Hanna states that she and her partner finally are ‘‘equal’’ for
their daughter and that Klara ‘‘chooses me just as often.’’ She
positions herself as being successful and finally equal as having earned her position through struggle. The impression of
success is also strengthened by extreme case formulations
(Edwards & Potter, 1992), such as this being ‘‘the most difficult thing’’ forming her ‘‘entire level of anxiety.’’
Primary and secondary parenthood are often described in
gendered terms, drawing on a discourse of heteronormative
heterosexuality. Having a close relationship with the child
is construed as crucial to being a mother rather than a parent.
Emmy says that being a secondary parent means ‘‘that you’re
in some way sort of the daddy.’’ Within this repertoire, talking about different parental roles is related to an imbalance in
power, where the non-birth mother is described as the weaker
party, regardless of whether she is presented as ‘‘number
two’’ or as ‘‘sort of the daddy.’’
Although Hanna positions herself as successful and equal
to her partner, other interviewees draw on the struggling
interpretative repertoire but claim that they have been unsuccessful in achieving equality. That is, in these interview parts,
the interviewees position the birth mother as primary and
the non-birth mother as secondary, despite their efforts to
achieve shared primary parental roles. Some non-birth mothers describe how they struggle to achieve shared primary parenthood, but their partners are depicted as unwilling to step
back or let them in, and/or the children are described as
continually showing preferences for their birth mother, which
results in different parental roles. On the other hand, several
birth mothers express their frustration over a homebound situation associated with part-time work and having primary
responsibility for the child(ren). In either case, at least one
of the partners claims to be frustrated and describes how conflicts mark the struggle for equality, commonly using terms
like ‘‘complicated,’’ ‘‘disappointment,’’ and ‘‘discussions.’’
In the following excerpt, the non-birth mother Sandra and
her partner Nora reflect on their first 2 years of parenthood:
Sandra: Actually we were going to switch after one year. So that
we’d have one year each.
Nora: Yes, actually.
Sandra: Actually. But I liked my job so much and then you weren’t quite as enthusiastic [laughter], so it became like the classic vicious cycle for women.
/.../
Interviewer: A vicious cycle for women?
Sandra: Yes, well I’m more, [laughter], I’m not a nurse [Nora is
a nurse], I’m more, I’m an engineer, er, so it’s the classic situation, the one who earns, earns the most gets to keep, er like,
working, that’s the one who’s home the least, like. So it just
got to be so [inaudible].
Nora: Right, and then there were some conflicts too, because
you worked quite a bit in the beginning, and I thought,
Sandra: Yeah, I was, I was pretty useless there, [Nora: yes] I can
admit now afterwards.
Nora: And then you were, she was one of these, what’s it called?
Chair, I mean, lead . . .
Sandra: In the [XXX] association, [Nora: yeah] that was
really stupid. And I was the chairperson on top of everything else.
Nora: Right, chairperson. Sandra had a lot going on. So I felt a
little alone there in the beginning. The whole day was like nursing and diapers and that’s how it is, it’s quite . . .
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
262
Psychology of Women Quarterly 39(2)
This excerpt echoes the previous ones in that it starts from
the notion that equality is the ideal. The partners claim,
repeatedly, that an equal share of parental leave was their
‘‘actually’’ intended arrangement. Non-birth mother Sandra
thereafter describes that Nora stayed home more and positions herself as the main breadwinner. Because their practice
deviates from their claimed ideal, Sandra does some accounting work to justify how things turned out. When presenting
their different (notably gendered) careers, she repeatedly
calls the inequality ‘‘classical.’’ Thus, she leans on a discourse of structural inequality where she and her partner are
merely the victims of how it ‘‘just got to be.’’
However, birth mother Nora challenges this account by
highlighting that ‘‘there were some conflicts too.’’ Nora
redraws the picture and positions Sandra as an acting subject,
someone who chooses to work a great deal rather than as a
victim of rigid structures. Nora’s challenge not only sheds
light on the conflict but also means that the conflict is played
out in the interview. Sandra’s answer is, however, self-critical
as she ‘‘admit[s]’’ having been ‘‘pretty useless.’’ When
Sandra steps back, Nora moves forward by adding another
example of Sandra being preoccupied with something other
than the baby. Sandra keeps being self-critical, stating that
she had been ‘‘really stupid’’ and leaves the floor to Nora,
who claims that she, in her position as primary mother, was
left ‘‘alone’’ with the daily parenting duties: ‘‘The whole day
was like nursing and diapers.’’
Sandra labels their difference ‘‘the classic vicious cycle
for women,’’ thereby claiming that gendered stereotypes
affect them, despite the fact that both are women. Additionally, some interviewees reflected on gender stereotypes
within this interpretative repertoire; birth mother Kerstin
states that ‘‘maybe you think you’re immune to certain problems, but in the end it doesn’t matter that much that you’re
two women.’’ Another birth mother, Ingela, comes to a similar conclusion: ‘‘It’s not about gender, it’s about who is primarily responsible for him [the son], and that’s me.’’ In all
these quotes, a power imbalance is claimed, where birth
mothers are in a disadvantaged position as a consequence
of their primary responsibility for the children. However,
when equality is idealized, the idealization empowers the dissatisfied parent to challenge her partner. When drawing on
the struggling repertoire, parents in families with one birth
mother more often describe dissatisfaction with the outcome,
whereas families with two birth mothers mainly claim that
their struggle for equality has led them to a shared primary
parenting, like Hanna described earlier.
The Biologistic Interpretative Repertoire
Most parental couples discuss different parental roles without
referring to conflicts or dissatisfaction. Such differences are
often expressed in relation to specific interests, talents, or features. Differences, however, are also claimed to be a given,
formed by the statuses of birth and non-birth mother. This
way of talking draws on a biologistic interpretative repertoire,
where words like ‘‘natural,’’ ‘‘instinct,’’ and ‘‘hormones’’ are
common. This repertoire provides a space where the interviewees may position themselves as different depending on birth
status (i.e., they position the birth mother as the primary parent and the non-birth mother as the secondary parent).
In the excerpt below, Marie has given birth to their
younger daughter Astrid and her partner Eva has given birth
to their older child Tilde.
Marie: Then I’ve discovered with Astrid, that biology makes a
difference. Er, you don’t have the same intuition.
Interviewer: Okay?
Marie: Like the same, this, animal instinct, or shit it’s an
instinct, intuition. Like when Tilde woke up at night screaming and wanting some boob, then I didn’t wake up but Eva did,
and now exactly the same thing with Astrid, I wake up but Eva
doesn’t.
Interviewer: Is this because of the nursing?
Marie: Yeah, but not only.
Interviewer: Not only the nursing?
Eva: There are primitive forces that kick in in you.
Marie: A whimper, like a little whimper from her and I wake up.
And maybe she’s even cried and you don’t wake up. And the
same with Tilde.
Eva: What I think is that the love is the same, I love both kids the
same, but I have an instinct, and a like force in me that’s different with my biological child, it feels like.
Marie and Eva lean heavily on an image of the unique
function of the birth mother. ‘‘Intuition,’’ ‘‘animal instinct,’’
and ‘‘primitive forces’’ are drawn on as explanations for birth
mothers waking up at night while non-birth mothers remain
asleep. Within this repertoire, the close bond between birth
mother and child is often exemplified by highlighting light
nighttime sleep. Furthermore, children turning to their birth
mother when they are grumpy, sleepy, or hurt is thought to
result from ‘‘contact of a completely different kind,’’ where
the child ‘‘is drawn to the mother,’’ as another interviewee
Rakel claimed.
In the prior excerpt involving Marie and Eva, both
mothers draw on the biologistic repertoire and reinforce
each other with new metaphors and examples on the same
theme. The dialogue is quite loud and intense, and they
build up their account vividly with sharp contrasts.
‘‘Screaming’’ and crying are contrasted to ‘‘a little whimper,’’ and ‘‘love’’ is contrasted to a biological ‘‘instinct’’
and ‘‘force.’’ In this excerpt, the interviewer plays a central role. When Marie talks about biological forces, my
input is questioning rather than emphasizing. When I ask
‘‘Is this because of the nursing,’’ her claim (that instincts
cause birth mothers to wake up) is questioned, and I offer
a more practical explanation. At that time, Eva launches
into the dialogue with additional metaphors and examples
that strengthen her partner’s case. Because their rhetoric
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
Malmquist
263
relies heavily on biology, differences are claimed to be
non-negotiable urges, rather than personal desires.
Because the ‘‘reality’’ of biology sets the frames, the parents’ unequal roles are justified; they are simply construed
as factual. Claiming that something is factual is a wellknown rhetorical strategy that enables the speaker to
appear not to be personally accountable for how things are
(Edwards & Potter, 1992).
In Marie and Eva’s interview, a balance is presented as
resulting from the switch of birth mother; Marie repeatedly
claims that things are ‘‘the same’’ (but opposite) with both
children. In other interviews, however, the biologistic interpretative repertoire forms an imbalance where birth mothers
are empowered to set the standard to which non-birth mothers
must adjust. For example, Jessica and her partner Ellen both
claimed that they wanted to go on parental leave. Still, birth
mother Jessica states how she set the standard: ‘‘I said, ‘as
long as I’m home the first year.’’’ Jessica’s decision was to
leave the remaining 5 months of parental leave to her partner,
and she declares that she would ‘‘not have wanted to let go’’
of the baby earlier.
Overlapping and Blurred Repertoires
In most cases, but not always, both partners in the interviewed couples construe a mutual interpretative repertoire,
presenting a concordant view. The clearest examples of
partners drawing on different repertoires occur when one
partner draws on the struggling repertoire and the other
draws on biologistic rhetoric. Typically, when non-birth
mothers position themselves as secondary and adopt the
struggling repertoire to express a desire for earlier shared
parental leave, this is dismissed by the birth mothers
because of breastfeeding (i.e., from a position as primary
parent in a biologistic repertoire). As birth mother Isabelle
argues ‘‘It’s the fact that you’re breastfeeding that makes
it difficult.’’
In the preceding, I presented the interpretative repertoires as distinctly different and neatly coherent ways of
presenting the parental roles. However, the interviews also
contained examples where the repertoires were more
blurred or drawn on in unusual ways. An interesting example is when interviewee Nina drew on the biologistic
repertoire to explain why it was perfect for her that her
partner was the one who got pregnant: ‘‘They were our
most natural roles if you will. I was the mother hen, taking
care and fixing things, so it was great with someone who
wanted to be pregnant, so I could just, well, make food
and arrange things.’’ Nina’s claim draws strongly on a biologistic rhetoric, where she positions herself in a caregiving that is depicted as natural. Unlike other parents
drawing on the biologistic repertoire; however, her statement does not connect caregiving with being a birth
mother but with being the partner of a pregnant woman.
Discussion
In the present article, I have described three different interpretative repertoires drawn on by Swedish lesbian parents
as they reflect about their parental roles. Egalitarian values
have previously been described as being idealized among
Western lesbian parenting couples (Goldberg & PerryJenkins, 2007; Patterson et al., 2004). Limited access to parental leave or other parental benefits may set the limits for
non-birth mothers in many countries and obstruct their ability
to spend time with their child. In Sweden, however, equal and
extensive access to parental leave and other parental rights
undoubtedly give both parents in a couple the structural ability to combine caregiving and breadwinning duties.
The importance of egalitarian values is echoed in the present study because two of the three identified interpretative
repertoires embrace an idealization of equality. The relation
to equality differs, however, between these two repertoires,
wherein the unison repertoire starts from the notion that
equality is a given, and the struggling repertoire depicts
equality as a potential result of hard work. The struggling
repertoire can be linked to findings from Goldberg and
Perry-Jenkins’ (2007) study of lesbian couples’ transition to
parenthood. In their study, several non-birth mothers
described strategies to minimize the influence of biology,
such as sharing caregiving equally or compensating for not
breastfeeding by performing other childcare tasks.
The biologistic interpretative repertoire differs from the
others in not idealizing equality. Rather, when drawing on
this repertoire, the interviewees claim that the two parents are
different because of the ‘‘reality’’ of biology. The birth mother’s closer bond to the child is outlined in a biologistic rhetoric that forms a non-negotiable frame for parenthood. This
rhetoric effectively outplays potential egalitarian values,
visualized in particular when the partners in a couple draw
on different repertoires where one partner calls for an equality
that the other dismisses by referring to the ‘‘reality’’ of biology. Multiple previous empirical studies have shown a difference between birth mothers and non-birth mothers wherein
birth mothers spend more time with the child (Bos et al.,
2007; Ciano-Boyce & Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Downing &
Goldberg, 2011; Goldberg & Perry-Jenkins, 2007; Patterson,
1995). Mothers also seem to engage in different types of
childcare such that birth mothers do more nurturing activities
and non-birth mothers engage more in rough-and-tumble play
(Goldberg et al., 2008). Moreover, and presumably accordingly, previous research has shown that most infants show a
preference for the birth mother over the non-birth mother
(Goldberg et al., 2008; Pelka, 2009). These empirical studies
seem to reflect the core claim of the biologistic repertoire:
that the difference in birth status between parents matters a
great deal. However, Goldberg and Perry-Jenkins (2007)
show that birth mothers who believe that biology makes a difference in parenting also do a higher proportion of childcare
in their families than do birth mothers who do not have this
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
264
Psychology of Women Quarterly 39(2)
belief. Thus, having the view that biology is important seems
to correspond to a nurturing practice that, in turn, strengthens
the birth mother’s relationship with the child, so that one
could argue that the ideology is self-fulfilling for those who
draw on a biologistic repertoire.
Depicting a biological reality, however, is not unique to
the biologistic repertoire. Drawing on the struggling repertoire
also often means construing biological differences as a factual reality; only unlike the biologistic repertoire, this reality is presented as an enemy to be fought. Shared parental
leave periods and hard work are depicted as strategies to
overcome the birth mother’s spontaneous—that is, biological—advantage.
The unison repertoire differs from the others in its relation
to biology. Because equality is claimed to be a spontaneous
starting point, biological differences are dismissed. Some
interviewees make overt claims to downplay a biologistic discourse, stating that the birth mother’s advantage is something
they do not experience. Thus, statements made within the unison repertoire show that a biologistic discourse is just as
negotiable as any other discourse, and it does not set any
‘‘reality’’ frames for their rhetoric.
The statuses as birth mother and non-birth mother have
previously been discussed in terms of gender (Downing &
Goldberg, 2011; Oerton, 1997). In lesbian couples, both the
birth parent and the non-birth parent are women. Families
such as these would, at least theoretically, provide an opportunity to study differences between partners who are tied to
birth giving, rather than differences tied to social gender.
Downing and Goldberg (2011) discuss lesbian parenting couples’ division of labor, and they show that the families organize housework and childcare in gendered patterns but refrain
from describing their division in gendered terms. However, in
the present article, a heteronormative gendered discourse colors the claims made by some of the interviewees. Both from
the struggling and biologistic repertoire, we see examples of
inequality being depicted in gendered terms: Being a secondary mother to the child is depicted as a paternity role and
being a primary caregiver as a maternity role. Not giving
birth is heteronormatively intertwined with the male gender
and thus affects the rhetoric even of some lesbian couples.
Moreover, construing one’s parental role in gendered terms
has the rhetorical effect of pointing out inequality. Several
examples of birth mothers who draw on a struggling repertoire and express their frustration over a homebound role also
depict a traditional power imbalance following this gendered
pattern wherein the birth mother is depicted as the weaker
partner. When drawing on the struggling repertoire, parents
in families with one birth mother more often claim that they
have simply ended up unequal, and families with two birth
mothers more often claim that they have successfully overcome inequality. This finding may suggest that it is harder
to break a breadwinner/caregiver division in families with
only one birth parent.
The struggling repertoire offers a different view on
power in other interview sequences, such as when a close
mother–child relationship is presented, as the praised value
and the non-birth mother is positioned as spontaneously
secondary (i.e., the non-birth mother is construed as the
weaker partner). Accordingly, Goldberg and her colleagues
(2012) show that, in lesbian couples, childcare is less
affected by formal power resources (such as income and
education) than are feminine-coded household chores.
Childcare, they argue, is a more valued type of labor not
to be passed over to the weaker partner. Furthermore, some
studies point at a ‘‘maternal jealousy’’ at play in couples
where one partner is dissatisfied with the child’s preference
for the other mother (Goldberg et al., 2008; Pelka, 2009).
This again shows that the close bond to the child is a
praised value. In other words, the position as secondary parent and main breadwinner could be depicted, in terms of
power, both as a privilege and as a disadvantage.
In the unison repertoire, power is construed as a nonissue because the mothers are claimed to be spontaneously
equal. At first glance, this repertoire provides a comfortable
position for both partners who share primary motherhood. It
is notable, however, that when equality is claimed to be
earned spontaneously, rather than seen as resulting from
hard work, there is no rhetorical room left to address dissatisfaction or imbalance. A potential power imbalance might
therefore be ignored. The unison repertoire also presents
gender as irrelevant to lesbian parenthood. Mothers claim
their ability to form their equal parenting roles, unrelated
to societal heteronormativity. In other words, presenting
one’s relations as un-gendered is rhetorically effective when
depicting equality.
Limitations and Future Research
Within the frames of the present study, it is not possible to
show what implications the different repertoires may have for
the children’s ways of talking about families and parental
relations. Rather, that is a question for further research. The
present study engages with equality in lesbian parenting couples in Sweden. The findings are of interest in their specific
context. Because both women in Swedish lesbian couples
have equal rights to comprehensive parental leave (Swedish
Social Insurance Agency, 2012a), it would be of further interest to scrutinize how these women negotiate parental leave
and whether their interpretations of equality are reflected in
leave negotiations as well as the actual outcome of division
of parental leave. Yet, there is no known similar study on gay
male couples in Sweden. In future research, it would be of
interest to focus on male couples’ relations to equality in parenting roles. Such a study would offer another dimension to
our understanding of the interplay between gender and parental roles in a society known to idealize equality.
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
Malmquist
265
Practice Implications
Findings in the present study could be useful for clinicians
working with lesbian couples. Rather than making assumptions about equality for a lesbian couple, it is important to
understand the specific couple and their descriptions. Previous studies on lesbians’ encounters with health care staff
show that non-birth mothers often feel excluded in the interaction, being treated as if they were less of a parent (for an
overview, see McManus, Hunter, & Renn, 2006). Given the
present findings that some lesbian mothers depict themselves
as equal in their parental roles, or struggle to achieve such
equality, it is not surprising that unequal attention from health
care staff could offend the parents. For psychologists and others working in close interaction with couples in psychotherapy, such awareness could be of particular importance for a
positive therapy process.
Findings in the present study also inform the lesbian
community of differences in how equality is construed
and enacted between different parental couples. Despite
assumptions that lesbians are forming more equal relationships than different-sex couples (Bos et al., 2007; Bos & van
Balen, 2010; Chan et al., 1998, Ciano-Boyce & ShelleySireci, 2002; Goldberg et al., 2012; Patterson et al., 2004;
Perlesz et al., 2010; Tasker & Golombok, 1998), it is important to highlight the present finding that many lesbians
depict their parental roles as unequal. In Sweden, both parents in a lesbian couple have equal and extensive parental
rights, including shared legal custody, access to compensated parental leave, granted right to part-time work, and
to stay home from work with compensation when a child
is sick. For Swedish lesbian and gay activists, struggle for
equal parental rights has been an important battle (Malmquist & Zetterqvist Nelson, 2008). Despite equal formal
rights, the couples in the present study differ in how they
depict equality in their own relations. Important from an
activist perspective, these finding suggest that formal equal
rights do not automatically insure equality.
Conclusion
In the present article, I explore how women in lesbian relations depict their parental roles in relation to the notion of
equality. Based on findings from interviews with 96 Swedish
lesbian mothers, I present three interpretative repertoires. The
different, and in many respects contradictive, repertoires
show the breadth of homonormativities among lesbian parents in Sweden. The unison repertoire forms a homonormativity where equality is spontaneously earned because
gender and birth status are claimed to be irrelevant. This
forms a homonormative way of presenting one’s relations
as independent of the surrounding heteronormativity. Unlike
this way of talking, both the struggling and the biologistic
repertoire adhere to heteronormative discourses because
lesbian parenthood is discussed in gendered terms in which
biology is the benchmark. Within the struggling repertoire,
equality is idealized, requiring a feminist struggle similar to
that of parents in egalitarian different-sex relationships. The
biologistic repertoire presents no equality ambitions and, as
such, forms a homonormativity that leans more heavily on
traditional heteronormativity.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) declared receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This work was supported by the Swedish Council for Working
Life and Social Research (Reg. No. 2008-0449).
References
Ahmed, S. (2006). Orientations: Toward a queer phenomenology.
GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 12, 543–574.
Ahrne, G., Roman, C., & Franzén, M. (2003). Det sociala landskapet. Göteborg, Sweden: Förlaget Korpen.
Archakis, A., & Lampropoulou, S. (2009). Talking different heterosexualities: The permissive, the normative and the moralistic
perspective—Evidence from Greek youth storytelling. Discourse
& Society, 20, 307–326.
Berland, L., & Warner, M. (1998). Sex in public. Critical Inquiry,
24, 547–566.
Bos, H., & van Balen, F. (2010). Children in new reproductive technology: Social and genetic parenthood. Patient Education and
Counseling, 81, 429–435.
Bos, H., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian-parent families. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 38–48.
Brown, G. (2012). Homonormativity: A metropolitan concept that
denigrates ‘‘ordinary’’ gay lives. Journal of Homosexuality, 59,
1065–1072.
Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism. London, England: Routledge.
Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Chabot, J., & Ames, B. (2004). ‘‘It wasn’t like ‘Let’s get pregnant and
go do it’’’: Decision making in lesbian couples planning motherhood via donor insemination. Family Relations, 53, 348–356.
Chan, R., Brooks, R., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. (1998). Division of
labor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: Associations with
children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 12,
402–419.
Ciano-Boyce, C., & Shelley-Sireci, L. (2002). Who is mommy tonight?
Lesbian parenting issues. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 1–13.
Clarke, V. (2005). Feminist perspectives on lesbian parenting: A
review of the literature 1972-2002. Psychology of Women
Section Review, 7, 11–23.
Craig, L., & Powell, A. (2012). Dual-earner parents’ work-family
time: The effects of atypical work patterns and non-parental
childcare. Journal of Population Research, 29, 229–247.
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
266
Psychology of Women Quarterly 39(2)
Downing, J., & Goldberg, A. (2011). Lesbian mothers’ construction
of the division of paid and unpaid labor. Feminism & Psychology, 21, 100–120.
Duggan, L. (2004). The twilight of equality: Neoliberalism, cultural
politics, and the attack on democracy. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.
Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires,
ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In M. Wetherell, S.
Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 189–228). Milton Keynes, England: Open University.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London,
England: Sage.
Försäkringskassan. (2012). Socialförsäkringsrapport 2012:9.
Föra¨ldrapenning: Analys av användandet 1974-2011. Stockholm, Sweden: Försäkringskassan.
Gartrell, N., Bos, H., Peyser, H., Deck, A., & Rodas, C. (2011). Family characteristics, custody arrangements, and adolescent psychological well-being after lesbian mothers break up. Family
Relations, 60, 572–585.
Goldberg, A., Downing, J., & Sauck, C. (2008). Perceptions of children’s parental preferences in lesbian two-mother households.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 419–434.
Goldberg, A., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2007). The division of labor and
perceptions of parental roles: Lesbian couples across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 297–318.
Goldberg, A., Smith, J. A., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). The division
of labor in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual new adoptive parents.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 812–828.
Gustafsson, S. (1994). Childcare and types of welfare states. In D.
Sainsbury (Ed.), Gendering welfare states (pp. 45–61). London,
England: Sage.
Holli, A. M., Magnusson, E., & Rönnblom, M. (2005). Critical studies of Nordic discourses on gender and gender equality. NORA –
Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 13, 148–152.
Johansson, T., & Klinth, R. (2008). Caring fathers: The ideology of
gender equality and masculine positions. Men and Masculinities,
11, 42–62.
Kawash, S. (2011). New directions in motherhood studies signs.
Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 36, 969–1003.
Kitzinger, C. (1987). The social construction of lesbianism. London,
England: Sage.
Kitzinger, C. (2005). ‘‘Speaking as a heterosexual’’: (How) does
sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction? Research on Language
and Social Interaction, 38, 221–265.
Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2005). Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting
the heterosexist presumption. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 38, 371–416.
Magnusson, E. (2008). The rhetoric of inequality: Nordic women
and men argue against sharing house-work. NORA – Nordic
Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 16, 79–95.
Malmquist, A., Möllerstrand, A., Wikström, M., & Zetterqvist
Nelson, K. (2014). ‘A daddy is the same as a mummy’: Swedish
children in lesbian households talk about fathers and donors.
Childhood, 21, 119–133.
Malmquist, A., & Zetterqvist Nelson, K. (2008). Diskursiv
diskriminering av regnbågsfamiljer. En analys av argument mot
likställande av homo- och heterosexuellas föräldraskap. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 15, 315–331.
Malmquist, A., & Zetterqvist Nelson, K. (2013). Gay and lesbian parents. In H. Montgomery (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies in childhood
studies (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Malmquist, A., & Zetterqvist Nelson, K. (2014). Efforts to maintain
a ‘just great’ story: Lesbian parents’ talk about encounters with
professionals in fertility clinics and maternal and child healthcare
services. Feminism & Psychology, 24, 56–73.
McManus, A., Hunter, P., & Renn, H. (2006). Lesbian experiences and
needs during childbirth: Guidance for health care providers. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 35, 13–23.
Morgan, D. (1996). Family connections. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Morgan, D. (2011). Rethinking family practices. Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Oerton, S. (1997). ‘‘Queer housewives?’’: Some problems in theorising the division of domestic labour in lesbian and gay households. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20, 421–430.
Patterson, C. (1995). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Parents’
division of labor and children’s adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 31, 115–123.
Patterson, C., Sutfin, E., & Fulcher, M. (2004). Division of labor
among lesbian and heterosexual parenting couples: Correlates
of specialized versus shared patterns. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 179–189.
Pelka, S. (2009). Sharing motherhood: Maternal jealousy
among lesbian co-mothers. Journal of Homosexuality, 56,
195–217.
Perlesz, A., Power, J., Brown, R., McNair, R., Schofield, M., Pitts,
M., . . . Bickerdike, A. (2010). Organising work and home in
same-sex parented families: Findings from the work love play
study. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family
Therapy, 31, 374–391.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology.
London, England: Sage.
Robinson, B. A. (2012). Is this what equality looks like? How assimilation marginalizes the Dutch LGBT community. Sexuality
Research and Social Policy, 9, 327–336.
Rozental, A., & Malmquist, A. (In press). Vulnerability and acceptance: Lesbian women’s family making through assisted reproduction in Swedish public healthcare. Journal of GLBT Family Studies.
Ryan-Flood, R. (2005). Contested heteronormativities: Discourses
on fatherhood among lesbian parents in Sweden and Ireland. Sexualities, 8, 189–204.
Ryan-Flood, R. (2009). Lesbian motherhood: gender, families and
sexual citizenship. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sainsbury, D. (1996). Gender, equality, and welfare states. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Schober, P. (2013). The parenthood effect on gender inequality:
Explaining the change in paid and domestic work when British couples become parents. European Sociological Review, 29, 74–85.
SFS 1994:1117 Lag om registrerat partnerskap. [Swedish law on
registered partnership]
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
Malmquist
267
Sverige Statistiska centralbyrån, enheten för befolkningsstatistik
(Ed.) (2012). På tal om kvinnor och män: lathund om jämställdhet. 2012. Stockholm, Sweden: Statistiska centralbyrån.
Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2012a). Parental benefit.
Retrieved from Swedish Social Insurance Agency website
http://www.forsakringskassan.se
Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2012b). Temporary parental
benefit for care of children. Retrieved from Swedish Social
Insurance Agency website http://www.forsakringskassan.se
Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1998). The role of co-mothers in planned
lesbian-led families. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 2, 49–68.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship.
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires.
Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue.
Discourse & Society, 9, 387–412.
Wetherell, M. (2007). A step too far: Discursive psychology, linguistic ethnography and questions of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11, 661–681.
Weisfeld, C., Dillon, L., Nowak, N., Mims, K., Weisfeld, G.,
Imamoglu, O., . . . Shen, J. (2011). Sex differences and similarities in married couples: Patterns across and within culture.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1165–1172.
Wielers, R., & Raven, D. (2013). Part-time work and work
norms in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review,
29, 105–113.
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016