Why Is Surrogacy Facing Growing Backlash? Understanding the Negative Media Narrative in 2026

Surrogacy has always been a subject that evokes strong emotions. For some, it represents one of the most extraordinary ways to build a family when pregnancy is not possible. For others, it raises difficult questions about the commercialization of pregnancy, women's autonomy, and the boundaries of reproductive medicine.

In 2026, the public conversation around surrogacy feels increasingly polarized.

Stories about irresponsible agencies, allegations of exploitation, financial misconduct, legal disputes, and questionable practices attract considerable attention. Terms such as "baby factories" and "surrogacy farms" appear in public discussions, sometimes shaping perceptions far beyond the specific cases being reported.

And I understand why these stories generate strong reactions.

When an agency mishandles a family's money, when a surrogate's rights are disregarded, or when a child becomes caught in a legal dispute, these are not minor problems that can be dismissed as unfortunate exceptions.

They deserve scrutiny, investigation, and accountability.

But there is another question I believe we need to ask.

When we talk about the problems associated with surrogacy, are we examining the practices that need to change, or are we increasingly treating surrogacy itself as the problem?

That distinction matters because surrogacy is not a single business model, legal system, or experience. The conditions under which arrangements take place can vary enormously, and those differences directly affect the people involved.

This is not an argument for ignoring criticism or defending every surrogacy arrangement. Quite the opposite.

If we want surrogacy to be practiced responsibly, we must be willing to discuss what goes wrong, understand why it happens, and insist on meaningful protections.

But we also need to make room for the experiences of people whose journeys do not fit the most troubling headlines.

Why is surrogacy receiving so much negative attention?

Part of the answer lies in how visible surrogacy has become.

International fertility services, advances in reproductive medicine, and opportunities to pursue parenthood across national borders have made surrogacy a more prominent part of conversations about family building.

Intended parents increasingly share their experiences publicly. Agencies advertise internationally. Clinics and legal professionals work with clients from different countries, and social media has made information about surrogacy much easier to encounter.

This visibility has also brought greater scrutiny.

Journalists investigate agency practices, legal professionals raise concerns about poorly structured arrangements, and advocates for women's and children's rights question whether existing safeguards are sufficient.

These conversations are important.

However, the stories that attract the greatest attention are rarely the ordinary ones.

A family quietly welcoming a long-awaited baby after years of infertility and many unsuccessful IVF attempts is unlikely to attract the same interest as a scandal involving significant financial losses, allegations of exploitation, or a dispute over parental rights.

That is understandable. Journalism has an important role in exposing wrongdoing, and serious allegations deserve public attention.

But it also means that the cases receiving the greatest visibility may not provide a balanced picture of the many different circumstances in which surrogacy takes place.

A reader who repeatedly encounters stories about financial misconduct or exploitation may eventually come to associate those experiences with surrogacy generally.

Yet the existence of a serious failure in one program does not establish that every program operates under the same conditions.

Equally, the existence of a positive experience does not demonstrate that the wider system is free from problems.

The challenge is not to silence negative stories. It is to ensure that they inform the discussion rather than define it entirely.

Is the backlash really increasing?

There is an important distinction between observing a more negative public conversation and demonstrating that opposition to surrogacy has increased across the population.

A growing number of visible controversies does not, by itself, prove that public opinion has shifted. Establishing that would require reliable polling or other comparable evidence over time.

What we can say is that surrogacy continues to face significant public, political, ethical, and legal scrutiny.

We can also observe that certain controversies have prompted renewed questions about how international surrogacy arrangements are organized and regulated.

Rather than treating every critical headline as evidence that public attitudes are becoming universally more hostile, I believe it is more useful to examine the concerns behind those headlines.

Some criticisms reveal genuine failures that require action. Others arise from fundamental disagreements about whether surrogacy should be permitted at all.

Those are different conversations, and they deserve to be understood separately.

When individual failures become an industry-wide narrative

One of the difficulties in discussing surrogacy is that we use the same word to describe arrangements that may operate under very different conditions.

A gestational surrogacy arrangement in which the surrogate has independent legal representation, receives appropriate medical care, understands the risks, and makes decisions without coercion is fundamentally different from one involving pressure, misleading information, or financial abuse.

Both may be described simply as surrogacy.

But the experiences of the people involved can be profoundly different.

The legal frameworks may also vary. In some jurisdictions, specific legislation establishes requirements concerning eligibility, compensation, parentage, and the responsibilities of professionals. Elsewhere, the legal position may be less clear or depend heavily on court decisions and administrative practices.

International surrogacy introduces another layer of complexity because the intended parents and the surrogate often live in different countries with different legal approaches to pregnancy, parenthood, and citizenship.

When something goes wrong, identifying the responsible party may therefore be much more complicated than it first appears.

Was the failure caused by the agency? Did a clinic fail to meet appropriate standards? Were legal protections inadequate? Did the intended parents receive misleading assurances? Did the surrogate have access to independent advice?

These are the questions that allow us to understand what happened.

They also help us distinguish between risks inherent in pregnancy and reproduction, risks created by poor professional practice, and risks arising from inadequate legal protections.

Why accountability matters more than defending an agency's reputation

When an agency fails, the first response should not be to protect the image of the surrogacy industry.

It should be to understand the failure.

If intended parents have lost money, we need to examine how their funds were collected, held, and used. If they were promised services that were never delivered, we need to understand what contractual protections existed and whether those promises were realistic.

If a surrogate was mistreated, the questions must focus on her rights, medical care, compensation, access to support, and freedom to make decisions about her own body.

If a child becomes involved in a legal dispute, their welfare and legal identity must remain central.

These are not simply public relations problems.

They concern the actual people who trusted professionals with some of the most important decisions of their lives.

In my work with intended parents, I encourage them to look beyond polished presentations, testimonials, and reassuring promises.

An agency may have an impressive website, positive reviews, and a confident representative. None of those things, on their own, establish that its processes are safe or transparent.

I explore these questions in much greater detail in my guide to surrogacy scams and red flags, including how intended parents can evaluate the practices and financial arrangements behind an agency's promises.

A negative case should encourage us to examine accountability, not abandon critical thinking.

The uncomfortable question of commercial surrogacy

One of the strongest criticisms of surrogacy concerns money, particularly the fact that intended parents are often wealthier than the surrogates they “hire”.

For me, the starting point of this discussion is simple: women should have the right to make informed decisions about their own bodies, including the decision to become a surrogate. I support surrogacy because I believe women deserve both reproductive autonomy and the freedom to decide what pregnancy, compensation, and helping another person build a family mean to them.

Critics of commercial surrogacy often argue that financial compensation can exploit women facing economic hardship, especially when intended parents have significantly greater financial resources. This power imbalance is real and deserves attention. But I do not believe that a woman's financial circumstances automatically invalidate her ability to make her own decisions.

Women make choices about work, family, health, and their futures within different economic realities every day. Many take on physically demanding or emotionally challenging responsibilities because those choices offer financial security, opportunity, or a better future for themselves and their families. Why should surrogacy be treated differently simply because it involves a woman's reproductive capacity?

If a woman understands the medical risks, receives independent advice, has access to appropriate healthcare, and freely chooses to carry a pregnancy for someone else, I believe her decision deserves respect. And if she takes on the physical demands, medical risks, time commitment, and emotional responsibilities of pregnancy, why should she not be fairly compensated for that contribution?

Of course, supporting surrogacy does not mean ignoring exploitation. Genuine consent matters. So do transparent agreements, independent legal advice, medical safeguards, fair compensation, and protection against coercion. The financial disparity between intended parents and surrogates makes these protections particularly important.

But there is a difference between acknowledging an unequal financial relationship and assuming that the woman in that relationship has no agency.

Is paying a surrogate inherently unethical?

There is no universal agreement on whether paying a surrogate is inherently unethical. Different countries have adopted different legal and ethical approaches to compensation, with some permitting payments beyond expenses and others restricting or prohibiting commercial surrogacy.

But I think there is an important question that often gets lost in this debate: why is the surrogate's compensation singled out for scrutiny when so many other people involved in the same arrangement are paid for their professional services?

Lawyers receive fees for drafting and reviewing contracts. Clinics and doctors are paid for medical treatment. Agencies charge for coordinating services. And, as Australian lawyer and former surrogate Sarah Jefford has pointed out, even newborn photographers may be paid as part of the wider journey.

There is an entire network of professionals who earn money by helping intended parents have a child. Yet when the woman who actually carries the pregnancy receives compensation, that payment is often treated as the most ethically questionable part of the arrangement.

I find this contradiction difficult to ignore. If we accept that professionals deserve to be paid for their time, expertise, and responsibilities, why should we assume that compensating a surrogate is inherently exploitative?

Of course, the fact that everyone else is paid does not automatically make every surrogacy arrangement ethical. Consent must be informed and voluntary, compensation must be transparent, and surrogates must have independent legal representation, appropriate psychological support, and full authority over their own medical care. Financial vulnerability should never be used to justify coercion or the removal of a woman's rights.

But these are arguments for stronger safeguards, not necessarily against compensation itself.

My position is that paying a surrogate is not inherently unethical. We should be careful not to confuse the existence of financial compensation with exploitation. The two are not synonymous. A woman can have financial reasons for becoming a surrogate and still make a considered, informed, and meaningful choice. 

If we believe women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, that principle must also apply when they choose to carry a pregnancy for someone else in exchange for compensation. Ethical surrogacy should protect women without automatically dismissing their agency or denying them the right to be paid for what they contribute.

What does meaningful consent actually look like?

Informed consent is more than obtaining a signature.

A surrogate should understand the medical procedures involved, the known risks of pregnancy, the contractual obligations she is considering, and how decisions will be handled if circumstances change.

She should have the opportunity to ask questions and obtain advice from professionals who are not simply representing the interests of the intended parents or the agency.

That includes understanding what happens if an embryo transfer is unsuccessful, if medical complications occur, or if disagreements arise during pregnancy.

She should also understand her rights concerning medical decisions.

An agreement about the intended parents' expectations cannot remove a gestational carrier's right to make decisions about her own medical treatment.

Similarly, appropriate compensation should not be structured in a way that encourages someone to disregard medical advice or accept risks she would otherwise reject.

These protections are not obstacles to successful surrogacy.

They are part of what makes participation genuinely informed and respectful.

Why regulation and accountability matter in international surrogacy

International surrogacy often involves multiple agencies, clinics, lawyers, and legal systems across several countries. Intended parents may sign an agreement with an agency in one country, undergo fertility treatment in another, and need to establish legal parentage back home. With so many parties involved, it is essential to understand who is responsible for each part of the process.

Who manages the funds? Who ensures the surrogate receives her compensation? What happens if a clinic or agency stops operating? And what does an all-inclusive program actually cover?

Clear contracts, transparent pricing, and defined responsibilities are essential to protecting both intended parents and surrogates. But there is another reality that deserves recognition: not every eventuality can be anticipated or controlled.

COVID-19 brought international journeys to a standstill when borders closed and travel became impossible. Regulatory changes, such as additional INVIMA requirements for embryos shipped to Colombia, can introduce unexpected testing and procedural steps. Changes in the legal approach to surrogacy, as seen in Argentina, can create even more profound uncertainty.

These developments highlight the complexity of international surrogacy, but they do not remove the need for accountability. Providers should be transparent about what they can and cannot guarantee, explain foreseeable risks, fulfil their contractual obligations, and communicate promptly when circumstances change. Where problems arise, they should make reasonable efforts to help those affected understand their options and find solutions.

At the same time, not every unexpected outcome means that a provider has acted negligently or broken a promise. Some changes are genuinely outside any individual organisation's control. The important distinction is between an unforeseen event itself and how the people responsible for managing the arrangement respond to it.

Responsible international surrogacy requires both accountability and an honest recognition of uncertainty. The aim is not to guarantee that nothing will go wrong, but to ensure that responsibilities are clear, appropriate protections are in place, and everyone involved is treated fairly when circumstances change.

International parentage is another area where safeguards are essential

Regulatory differences become particularly important after a baby is born.

An arrangement may be permitted in the country where the birth takes place, but the intended parents' home country may have different rules about recognizing legal parentage.

That can create difficulties involving birth certificates, citizenship, travel documents, and recognition of the parent-child relationship.

These are not theoretical concerns.

The Hague Conference on Private International Law has examined the challenges surrounding legal parentage in international surrogacy arrangements, including the problems that arise when different countries do not recognize parentage in the same way.

In March 2026, its governing council decided not to proceed to drafting a possible convention at that stage, while leaving open the possibility of revisiting the project.

This illustrates a wider problem: international surrogacy has developed across borders without a single, comprehensive international framework governing all its legal consequences.

For intended parents, that makes destination-specific and home-country legal advice essential.

For the wider surrogacy industry, it reinforces the need for transparency about what can and cannot be guaranteed.

Stronger safeguards should not automatically be viewed as a threat to surrogacy. They can help distinguish responsible arrangements from practices that expose people to unnecessary harm.

There is more than one perspective in every surrogacy journey

Public debates about surrogacy often frame the issue as a conflict between two groups: intended parents who want a child and women who carry pregnancies for them.

Real life is considerably more complicated.

Intended parents may have spent years navigating infertility, medical treatment, pregnancy loss, or legal restrictions before considering surrogacy.

Others may be single or part of a same-sex couple and unable to carry a pregnancy themselves.

Some begin researching surrogacy only after exhausting other family-building possibilities. Others know much earlier that it may be the most suitable route for them.

For many, the process involves a substantial financial commitment and uncertainty about whether they will ultimately become parents.

These experiences deserve compassion and respect.

But so do the experiences of surrogates.

A woman may choose to become a surrogate because she wants to help someone build a family, because she values the compensation, or because several considerations are important to her.

Some women describe their experiences positively and may choose to participate again.

Others may encounter medical complications, emotional difficulties, unmet expectations, or problems with the people and organizations involved.

We should be willing to hear all of these experiences without assuming that every surrogate feels the same way.

It is equally important not to treat the surrogate simply as a service provider whose role begins with embryo transfer and ends with delivery.

She is a person with her own family, responsibilities, health considerations, preferences, and legal rights.

Her experience matters independently of whether the intended parents ultimately have a positive outcome.

What about the rights of children born through surrogacy?

The child must also have a meaningful place in this conversation.

Children are sometimes discussed almost exclusively in terms of the intentions and agreements of the adults involved.

But children born through surrogacy have interests and rights of their own.

These include questions about legal identity, nationality, recognition of parentage, access to information about their origins, and protection from discrimination or exploitation.

In its recommendations for protecting children's rights in surrogacy arrangements, UNICEF emphasizes the importance of safeguarding children's identity, ensuring appropriate legal recognition, preventing exploitation, and protecting their rights regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

This is particularly relevant in international arrangements, where differences between national laws can create difficulties establishing or recognizing parentage.

A child's welfare should not become an afterthought addressed only when a legal problem arises.

It needs to be considered before the arrangement begins.

That includes understanding how parentage will be established, whether the child may acquire citizenship, what documentation will be needed, and which legal responsibilities apply after birth.

A responsible approach must make room for the intended parents, the surrogate, and the child without allowing one person's interests to erase another's.

Listening to intended parents should not mean overlooking surrogates.

Protecting surrogates should not require dismissing the experiences of people seeking to build families.

And recognizing the complexity of surrogacy should never prevent us from identifying and challenging abuse.

How can intended parents distinguish responsible surrogacy practices from concerning ones?

For someone considering surrogacy, the public debate can feel overwhelming.

You may read one article describing surrogacy as a wonderful way to build a family, followed immediately by another describing serious misconduct.

You may encounter agencies promoting their ethical standards while also reading allegations about financial irregularities or inadequate protections elsewhere in the industry.

How should you make sense of these conflicting messages?

I would begin by moving away from broad labels and looking at the actual practices of the people and organizations you are considering working with.

Rather than asking whether an agency is "ethical" and accepting its answer, ask how its safeguards work in practice.

Look beyond promises of transparency

Transparency should mean that you can understand the services being offered, the organizations responsible for delivering them, and the financial arrangements involved.

Ask for a clear explanation of program fees, expected medical costs, surrogate compensation, additional expenses, and the circumstances in which further payments may be required.

Find out whether the agency is directly providing a service or coordinating it through another organization.

Ask what happens if a clinic, legal partner, or other provider becomes unavailable.

The answers should be specific enough for you and your independent advisers to assess.

If you are repeatedly told not to worry, but cannot obtain clear information, that deserves further investigation.

Ask how the surrogate's interests are protected

A provider's commitment to surrogate welfare should be demonstrated through its procedures.

Does the surrogate have access to independent legal advice? Is she adequately informed about medical risks and her contractual rights? How are her payments administered? What support is available if complications arise?

How are disagreements handled, particularly when they concern medical decisions?

The purpose of asking these questions is not to suggest that intended parents and surrogates should be adversaries.

It is to understand whether the arrangement protects each participant appropriately.

A well-structured process should not require anyone to surrender their rights in order for the arrangement to proceed.

Examine legal arrangements before making financial commitments

International surrogacy can involve multiple legal systems, and an agency's confidence about a destination is not a substitute for qualified legal advice.

You should understand whether the arrangement is legally permitted for someone with your citizenship, relationship status, and family circumstances.

You should also know how legal parentage will be established, whether your home country will recognize it, and how your child will obtain the documents needed to travel home.

The fact that another family successfully completed a journey in the same country does not necessarily establish that the same legal pathway is available to you.

Ask questions that go beyond the sales presentation

One of the most valuable things intended parents can do is prepare questions before meeting prospective providers.

You should not have to make major decisions based only on a reassuring conversation or an attractive package description.

My guide to the questions to ask a surrogacy agency explains how to assess the people, processes, costs, and protections behind the services being offered.

Good questions will not eliminate every risk.

But they can reveal where important information is missing, where responsibilities are unclear, and where additional professional advice may be needed.

What should the future of surrogacy look like?

I believe the answer to the problems surrounding surrogacy is better regulation, accountability, and education, not banning or restricting access.

Education is essential. Intended parents need to understand the differences between countries, legal frameworks, providers, and packages before committing. They should know what their money covers, what protections they have, and what risks and uncertainties they are accepting. Surrogates need the same access to clear, independent information about their medical risks, compensation, legal rights, and responsibilities. Both parties should be able to make informed decisions with realistic expectations, rather than discover important details when it is too late.

Providers must be accountable for their commitments, and both parties deserve appropriate legal and financial protections. But no regulation can eliminate every risk, particularly when laws and circumstances change unexpectedly.

I do not believe banning surrogacy is the solution. People will not stop wanting children because legal pathways close; they may simply turn to less transparent arrangements with fewer safeguards.

The goal should be to make surrogacy safer, more transparent, and better regulated — empowering intended parents and surrogates to make informed choices while respecting women's reproductive autonomy and families' opportunity to have children.

Independent guidance for intended parents

If you are considering international surrogacy, you may already have encountered conflicting information about which destinations are safe, which agencies are trustworthy, and which programs offer appropriate protections.

It can be difficult to assess these questions when much of the information available comes from organizations selling their own services.

This is one reason I created The Surrogacy Insider.

As an independent surrogacy consultant, I support intended parents in understanding their options, examining the information they receive, asking more informed questions, and identifying areas that may require additional medical or legal advice.

My role is not to promise that every journey will be straightforward or free from risk.

It is to help you approach your decisions with greater clarity and a realistic understanding of the arrangements you are considering.

If you would like independent guidance before choosing an agency or moving forward with a program, you can book a free 30-minute discovery call to discuss your circumstances and the questions that matter most to your family.

Olga Pysana is an independent surrogacy consultant and founder of The Surrogacy Insider, supporting intended parents as they navigate international surrogacy options.