Surrogacy Laws Worldwide: How Different Countries Regulate Surrogacy

Surrogacy – the arrangement in which one person carries a pregnancy on behalf of another – has become one of the most legally contested reproductive practices worldwide. While the medical procedure is largely standardized, the laws governing it could not be more different from one country to the next. In some places, commercial surrogacy is a regulated industry. In others, it is a criminal act. And in many countries, no clear law exists at all. This patchwork of legislation creates confusion, ethical debates, and very real consequences for the people involved. Here is a clear breakdown of how different countries approach surrogacy law, and why those differences matter.

Global variations in surrogacy legislation 🔗

There is currently no unified international framework regulating surrogacy. Each country – and in some cases, each state or province within a country – operates under its own rules. This has created a global map that is roughly divided into three categories: countries that ban surrogacy entirely, countries that permit only altruistic surrogacy (where the surrogate receives no financial compensation beyond expenses), and countries that allow commercial surrogacy with full legal contracts and compensation.

Countries that ban surrogacy 🔗

Several European nations take the most restrictive position, banning all forms of surrogacy – both altruistic and commercial. France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden fall into this category. In France, surrogacy has long been treated as incompatible with the principle that the human body cannot be the subject of a contract. Italy went even further in October 2024, when its parliament passed a law making it a prosecutable offense for Italian citizens to pursue surrogacy abroad, classifying it alongside crimes like human trafficking. These prohibitions are rooted in a combination of ethical objections, concerns about commodifying reproduction, and cultural values around the family.

Countries that allow commercial surrogacy 🔗

At the other end of the spectrum, certain jurisdictions permit commercial surrogacy – where the surrogate is paid a fee beyond just reimbursing her expenses. The United States, though it has no federal surrogacy law, is the most prominent example. States like California, Florida, and Illinois have strong legal protections for all parties, and California in particular is known for its surrogacy-friendly environment, allowing pre-birth parental orders and welcoming intended parents regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. Not all U.S. states are as permissive, however – Louisiana, for example, restricts surrogacy to married heterosexual couples using their own genetic material, with no compensation permitted. Georgia and Ukraine have historically been major destinations for international commercial surrogacy as well, though both countries have seen significant legal shifts in recent years.

The ethical debate around commercial surrogacy is significant. Critics argue that paying surrogates – particularly in lower-income countries – creates conditions for exploitation, with women choosing surrogacy purely out of financial desperation. Supporters counter that prohibiting payment could itself be exploitative, restricting women’s ability to make informed economic decisions about their own bodies. This tension sits at the heart of almost every legislative debate on the subject.

The grey zone: unregulated or partially regulated countries 🔗

A large number of countries fall into neither a clear “permitted” nor “banned” category. Nigeria, Malaysia, and Kenya, for instance, have no formal surrogacy legislation, though the practice occurs and commercial arrangements may be enforceable in court as basic contracts. Laws and practices on the ground do not always reflect the formal legal position, making these jurisdictions risky for both intended parents and surrogates. India, which was once a major destination for international commercial surrogacy, reversed course significantly – it now permits only altruistic surrogacy for Indian heterosexual couples and bans foreigners from participating entirely.

Surrogacy in the UK: altruistic arrangements and their legal limits 🔗

The United Kingdom occupies an interesting middle position. Surrogacy is legal, but only on an altruistic basis. The altruistic model was established by the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, which made it illegal to pay a surrogate beyond “reasonable expenses” and prohibited advertising for surrogacy services. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 later expanded who could be an intended parent, allowing same-sex couples, unmarried couples, and single individuals to apply for parental orders.

Reasonable expenses in the UK context can include travel costs, maternity clothing, medical expenses, and compensation for lost earnings. However, any fee paid beyond that is not permitted. One of the most significant aspects of UK surrogacy law is that surrogacy agreements are not legally binding. Either party can withdraw from the arrangement at any time. Under English and Welsh law, the surrogate is considered the legal mother at birth – even if she has no genetic connection to the child. If she is married, her spouse is typically recognised as the second legal parent. To transfer legal parenthood to the intended parents, they must apply to the court for a Parental Order, which can only be granted once the baby is at least six weeks old and requires the surrogate’s informed consent.

Both traditional and gestational surrogacy are permitted under UK law, but the legal infrastructure around them remains fragile. Surrogacy has grown by an estimated 350% over the past decade in the UK, yet the legal framework has not kept pace. The Law Commission proposed reforms in 2019, including a new pathway that would establish intended parents as legal parents from birth while preserving the surrogate’s right to contest – but as of now, those reforms have not been enacted into law.

Surrogacy in Canada: a comparable altruistic model 🔗

Canada shares the UK’s commitment to altruistic surrogacy only. Under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004, paying a surrogate beyond reimbursement of documented expenses is a criminal offense carrying potential fines and imprisonment. Like the UK, Canada permits surrogacy for a wide range of intended parents, including same-sex couples and single individuals. Canada is widely considered one of the more accessible altruistic surrogacy destinations for foreign intended parents, partly because of its clear legal framework and well-developed network of surrogacy agencies and clinics. Unlike the UK, intended parents in Canada can often be recognized as legal parents at the time of birth through court orders, though this varies by province.

The contrast between Canada and countries that penalize commercial surrogacy is instructive. In Canada, the law creates clear protections and transparency, making it a relatively safe environment for all parties. In countries where surrogacy is banned or heavily restricted, people still pursue it – but they do so without legal safeguards, often through informal or cross-border arrangements that leave surrogates, children, and intended parents with no legal recourse if something goes wrong.

Case studies: how legal challenges have shaped surrogacy law 🔗

The Baby M case (USA, 1988) 🔗

No discussion of surrogacy law is complete without the In re Baby M case, which became the first court ruling in the United States on the validity of a surrogacy agreement. The facts were stark: Mary Beth Whitehead had entered into a traditional surrogacy contract with William Stern, agreeing to be artificially inseminated with his sperm and relinquish parental rights after birth in exchange for $10,000. When the baby – referred to in court as “Baby M” – was born in 1986, Whitehead found herself unable to give up the child and fled with her to Florida. The Sterns sued for enforcement of the contract.

The New Jersey trial court initially upheld the surrogacy contract and awarded full custody to the Sterns. But on appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated the surrogacy contract as against public policy in a landmark 1988 decision. The court found that the contract conflicted with state laws prohibiting payment in connection with adoptions, laws requiring proof of parental unfitness before terminating parental rights, and laws making consent to adoption revocable. It restored Whitehead’s parental rights, though custody was ultimately awarded to the Sterns based on the best interests of the child, with Whitehead receiving visitation rights.

The Baby M ruling had far-reaching consequences. It established that surrogacy contracts could not override a birth mother’s parental rights – at least in cases of traditional surrogacy where the surrogate is also the genetic mother. It also triggered a wave of surrogacy legislation across U.S. states, as courts and legislators scrambled to define the legal status of surrogacy arrangements. The case also reopened feminist debates about bodily autonomy, contract law, and whether women from lower economic backgrounds can ever truly consent freely to commercial surrogacy arrangements.

Importantly, the Baby M ruling applied to traditional surrogacy, where the surrogate uses her own eggs. The subsequent rise of gestational surrogacy – where a surrogate carries an embryo created from the intended parents’ or donors’ genetic material – reopened many of these legal questions, since the surrogate has no genetic link to the child. California courts took a notably different approach in cases involving gestational surrogacy, generally enforcing contracts and recognizing intended parents’ legal rights.

Legal disputes in the UK: surrogacy agreements and their limits 🔗

The UK has had its own share of instructive surrogacy disputes, though large-scale legal battles are relatively rare. In Re H (2017), a same-sex couple’s surrogate did not hand the baby over at birth after their relationship broke down during the pregnancy. The High Court ruled that the child should be transferred to the intended fathers on the basis that the child was more likely to thrive in their care, with limited contact granted to the surrogate. Cases like this illustrate that while the UK surrogate technically retains legal parenthood at birth, courts apply a “best interests of the child” standard that can override that initial legal position – though not without emotional and financial cost to everyone involved.

A major milestone came in the UK Supreme Court’s Whittington Hospital ruling, which found that a woman who had been rendered unable to carry a pregnancy due to medical negligence was entitled to claim the costs of commercial surrogacy carried out in California, a country where it is legal. The Supreme Court acknowledged an evolution in attitudes about how families are formed and signaled a shift toward accommodating paid surrogacy arrangements made abroad that are not exploitative. This ruling, while not legalizing commercial surrogacy in the UK, marked a softening of judicial attitudes and added pressure for legislative reform.

Why legal frameworks matter beyond the courtroom 🔗

The variation in surrogacy laws has direct, practical consequences. When intended parents in countries with strict bans seek surrogacy abroad, they often return home to find that their child’s foreign birth certificate is not recognized and that they must navigate lengthy adoption or parental order processes. Children born through cross-border surrogacy have sometimes faced complex legal questions about parentage and nationality, and in some cases have been left temporarily stateless. For surrogates in countries with weak or no regulation, the absence of enforceable contracts means they have little legal protection if intended parents abandon the arrangement or dispute payment.

The regulatory gap is most visible at the international level. There is no treaty, no convention, and no binding global standard governing cross-border surrogacy. A 2018 UN expert report noted that surrogacy practices in some countries had amounted to the sale of children in the most exploitative cases, highlighting the urgency of stronger international coordination. Professional bodies like the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) have published ethical guidelines on surrogate screening, consent, and medical standards – but these are advisory, not legally binding.

What makes surrogacy law uniquely challenging is that it sits at the intersection of reproductive rights, contract law, child welfare, immigration law, and deeply held cultural values about motherhood and family. A country’s approach to surrogacy often reflects its broader stance on bodily autonomy, commodification, and the role of the state in regulating private reproductive choices. This is why two democracies with similar healthcare systems – say, France and Canada – can arrive at completely opposite legal conclusions on the same practice.

What do you think? Should there be an international legal framework governing cross-border surrogacy to protect surrogates and children from exploitation, or would such a framework risk overriding the diverse cultural and ethical values that shape how different societies approach reproduction? And given that surrogacy contracts are unenforceable in the UK, does that legal gap better protect surrogates’ autonomy – or does it leave intended parents and children without adequate security?

References

1. https://www.theregreview.org/2024/03/02/international-approaches-to-surrogacy-regulation/
2. https://flytotreat.com/article/where-surrogacy-is-legal
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy_laws_by_country
4. https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/03/18/regulating-international-commercial-surrogacy/
5. https://surrogacy360.org/considering-surrogacy/current-law/
6. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/70377/the-legal-limbo-of-uk-surrogacy
7. https://carefertility.com/blog/is-surrogacy-legal-in-the-uk
8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37227980/
9. https://www.surrogacy4all.com/surrogacy-laws-by-country-where-is-surrogacy-legal-in-2025-a-global-guide/
10. https://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/c.php?g=452971&p=3156877
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_M
12. https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/baby-m-re
13. https://www.ngalaw.co.uk/knowledge-centre/surrogacy-disputes-uk-law/
14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32402094/