Hello! I Would Like to Rent This Place for Nine Months: The Surrogate Mother Market

On the eve of 2025, Lily Collins, the figurehead of the worldwide-renowned Netflix series, Emily in Paris, stuns the red carpet. And only a few weeks later, she and her husband celebrated the birth of their first child, which evidently sent ripples to the internet, because amongst the words used to describe her at that event, pregnant was definitely not one of them.

The answer to this is something that’s not unfamiliar to the upper deciles of Western society, and it lies in the caption she posted: “Words will never express our endless gratitude for our incredible surrogate…” 

And, well, after that, carnage in the form of online bashing came their way. “She was supposedly in perfect health, no?” Was the main opinion of those who thrashed their way to the couple. To no surprise also, a lot of Hollywood A-listers use surrogacy as an option to produce their own child, though for varying reasons. 

Surrogate. Subrogare. To put in another’s place. The word has evolved since before the fall of the Roman Empire from something that is almost always associated with legal and political representatives, and, cue to the 21st century, the word is most known to be paired with the word “mother.” Surrogate Mother. To put your baby in another woman’s womb that is unrelated by marriage or a relationship with them, bluntly speaking. 

The case of surrogate mothers has come a long way, tracing all the way back to the Babylonians, to the famous custody dispute case of Baby M during the late 20th century, and now, as borders between countries are more easily crossed, trans-national surrogacies are engines of an even bigger global industry. But despite the many advancements, the debates concerning the moral and ethical standpoint of surrogacies have not stopped.

Let us, then, delve deeper into the industry with a never-ending flow of nine-month leases. 

Flip A Coin: Heads (Adopt) or Tails (Surrogacy)

The open-market that is pushed further by globalization and the advancement of technology knows no bounds. As of 2025, the surrogacy market size has reached to $19.37 billion globally, and it is further projected to reach a blazing number of $43.6 billion in 2030 (Business Research Company, 2026).

The demand for surrogates itself could be explained through a multitude of factors. The global trend itself for female infertility has been steadily rising from 1990 until 2021, with it affecting 9 percent of women of childbearing age worldwide (Liu et al, 2025). Other than that, the legal recognition of same-sex couples has gone on a positive route in many countries in recent years. These two facts of medical and non-medical demand may not immediately translate to the increasing demand for surrogacies, but the potential demand pool for it could see itself getting bigger.

However, surrogacy itself is not the only option of having a child in a non-conventional way, no? The alternative that has been more mainstream for a longer period of time is adoption. 

But, there is an interesting case seen from the cases of surrogacies and adoptions. While the former projects an even bigger growth for their industry in the following years, coincidentally, the latter shows an opposite trend. Adoption rates in the US and for international adoptions have seen a decrease through the years (Torres et al., 2019). While the rise in surrogacy cannot necessarily be said to cause the decline in adoption, the fact that these trends have unfolded alongside each other is certainly an interesting coincidence.

The framework between adoption and surrogacy could also be explained in this way: that both are imperfect substitutes to one another. Surrogacy presents something that adoption does not: genetic relatedness. This choice is evident for men or male couples, where they put a high importance on genetic relatedness with the child when making a consideration between adoption and surrogacy (Blake et al., 2017; Duthie et al., 2017). 

The Woes of Being A Woman

Outside of those who seek surrogacy for medical reasons or just outright lack the vital organs needed to commence a reproductive act, there also exists a pool where the couple does not lack the reproductive organs needed, nor do they suffer from medical issues that prevent them from conceiving on their own. The reason why these women opt to choose that route may be due to the inherent issue of misogyny itself.

How familiar are people with the case of the motherhood penalty?

The motherhood penalty refers to the fact that women with children face lower and stagnating wages subsequently, and weaker labor-market outcomes than their childless counterparts. Career interruptions, reduced working hours, and occupational changes following childbirth are important mechanisms behind this penalty (Gangl & Ziefle, 2009). 

Though it does not eliminate the motherhood penalty that women face from having a child completely, since career interruptions following childbirth are an important component of the motherhood penalty, having a surrogate could potentially allow these women to avoid some of the costs associated specifically with pregnancy and childbirth. Less time off from work, fewer consequences of career disruption altogether.

The OG Charlie’s Angels star, Lucy Liu, said that her decision to opt for a surrogate was not driven by medical issues, she quoted: “It just seemed like the right option for me because I was working and I didn’t know when I was going to be able to stop.”

But, is this choice really as liberating as it looks like? Viewing feminism should not be separated from a class-conscious lens. The ability to outsource these costs is also fundamentally dependent on purchasing power, and the alleviation of their burdens only relocates it to someone else with a less fortunate background. This creates a class dimension to the motherhood penalty itself: some women can potentially purchase their way out of part of the costs of reproduction, while other women can become the providers of the reproductive labour being purchased. 

The Inherent Structure of The System

The act of surrogacy is an intimate form of reproductive labor. Although artificial means of insemination no longer require the surrogate mother’s egg for it to operate, the act of using your own womb as a medium for another couple’s child for nine months, including the risks it follows, will always be a high-stakes ordeal. The act of borrowing your womb for a means to an end is comfortably at a higher risk and stakes than, let’s say, the act of being a sperm donor.

This can be understood through Vora’s (2009) concept of “biological labour,” which describes the commodification of the biological capacities of the body, including the ability to gestate an embryo. Surrogacy can therefore be viewed as a form of reproductive labour in which gestation itself becomes a marketable service.

The commodification of the body underlines a significant implication when considering the issue of cross-border surrogacies. In these trans-national procedures, the global demand is driven primarily by parents or customers from comparatively wealthy Western nations, and those providing the service of their wombs are those from less affluent settings, with their countries being of lesser economic standing (Hodson et al., 2019; Arvidsson, 2015; Stuvøy, 2018; Timms, 2018). Thinking that this practice is highly vulnerable to exploitation, especially in poorly regulated countries, is not wrong, because most of the time it is exactly what is happening.

The problem of asymmetric information is especially often in countries with poor regulation. It is evident in one of the companies that is a spearhead in popularizing trans-national surrogacy, NewLife. After it opened in many countries across the world, such as India, Georgia, and Latin America, it became a company that was a cheap yet still safe alternative when compared to clinics in the US, where the price is comparatively higher. 

The problem with things that come at low costs is that they often come with hidden risks, in this case, the recipient who is burdened by the uncaptured is back again: the surrogate mother. The agency has recruited thousands of women worldwide in low-income countries, and some of these women turned out to be victims of domestic violence. More importantly, there were often cases where said company boosted the chances of successful pregnancy by transferring two or three embryos to the surrogate, at the risk of their own life (Finance Uncovered, 2023). 

Hence, we come back again to the fact that, yes, many surrogate mothers in low-income countries choose to be surrogates because it provides better wages and offers when compared to their previous lives (Riaz et al., 2023). Freedom of choice may be present in reasons why they got into this position, but the dangers of exploitation inherent in the system that is evident from one of these examples makes this vulnerability an even bigger issue.

A Cycle of Relocations of Resources & Reallocations of Costs

Countries vary in their regulation of surrogacy; some outright ban it due to religious values, and outside of them, there are commercial and altruistic surrogacies. 

Altruistic surrogacy became an alternative to commercial ones, in which the surrogate mother is typically a close relative to the parents, and it differs in the way they would not receive pay other than reimbursement for medical care. The USA is an example of a country that legalizes both commercial and altruistic surrogacy. In comparison, countries that only legalize altruistic surrogacy are the UK, Canada, and some of the countries within the EU. 

This distinction reflects a broader question about the boundaries of markets. Roth (2007) describes repugnance as a constraint on markets: a transaction may be feasible and desired by the parties involved, yet face social opposition because some consider the transaction itself inappropriate. This aligns with the UK having a regulation banning commercial surrogacy due to it being seen as a commodification of the female reproductive capacity. 

But the problem of the commodification of women's bodies does not stop, especially when the alternative is to outsource it to another place. As these countries like Canada face an excess demand of parents, they just seek the abundance of supply to another country, more bluntly speaking, to lower-income countries (Horsey, 2024). 

And this is the case of trans-national surrogacy, where people seek outside of their own country due to reasons such as regulations, a long wait-list of parents, excess demand, and also the cheaper alternative when compared to the clinics within their countries (Riaz et al., 2023). Case in point, the price of surrogacies in Kenya is only one-fifth of its price in well-developed countries (Gondoin et al., 2024).

When we are able to see through the cycle that happens in the surrogacy industry in these lower-income countries, a chilling realization occurs. First, let’s step in to see the industry in India, where it used to be the world’s core of global surrogacy. The industry progressed until a regulation change happened and commercial surrogacy was banned nationwide in 2022. Why, though?

The reason for this is that, as time goes by, the inherent nature of this system of rent on wombs is revealed, and much more exploitative conduct on the economically vulnerable women there came to light one after the other. The foreign entities benefited themselves to the greatest extent possible, while the women seeking to improve their lives did not see that dream realized and remain very poor post-surgery (Suryanarayanan, 2023; Riaz et al., 2023). 

Akin to a hydra, you cut off one head, two more shall take its place. Prohibiting commercial surrogacy in a country does not mean the problem of exploitation goes away, it would either just relocate or even open up a shadow economy within that country. So then other clinics in Thailand, Cambodia, Ukraine, Kenya, and Georgia emerged, experiencing a similar boom with similar consumer profiles, but then a regulation change happens that bans commercial surrogacy altogether. Always a similar cycle, and always a similar relocation of demand. 

Some May Agree or Disagree, but Some Can Only Persist

Biological innovations could always push through the realm of what is possible, the human body becomes a temple. With the emergence of new possibilities, new markets will inevitably emerge, regardless of whether or not people morally agree with the existence of those markets. What further needs to be done is better regulation of the allocation of risks and costs without any of it being externalized.

Following Roth’s (2007) concept of repugnance as a constraint on markets illustrates why. Some view the commodification of reproductive capacity as unacceptable, while others regard it as a legitimate market exchange. These differences make international regulatory harmonization difficult.

This becomes particularly consequential in cross-border surrogacy. Restricting commercial surrogacy in one jurisdiction does not necessarily eliminate demand; it may instead redirect it toward jurisdictions where the service remains available and cheaper. Further highlighting the problem within the system and the vulnerability that these surrogate mothers are constantly subjected to.

We then circle back to square one: technology. It can revolutionize the way we reproduce, but it cannot change the fact that it still needs a medium in the form of a woman's body for it to happen. The market can put a price on the service, but it cannot make the cost disappear. And perhaps that is why surrogacy will remain a debate for as long as women have wombs: a cycle of relocation of demands, resources, and burdens.

References

Bowers, S. (2023, June 27). Georgia to ban overseas couples from hiring women as surrogates. Finance Uncovered. https://www.financeuncovered.org/stories/georgia-ban-low-cost-surrogacy-new-life

Gondouin, J., Eriksson, Å., & Thapar-Björkert, S. (2024). Chains of extraction: Shifting bioeconomies in India and East Africa. Frontiers in Sociology, 9, 1149368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1149368 

Hibino, Y. (2022). Ongoing commercialization of gestational surrogacy due to globalization of the reproductive market before and after the pandemic. Asian Bioethics Review, 14(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-022-00215-4 

Horsey, K. (2024). The future of surrogacy: A review of current global trends and national landscapes. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 48(5), 103764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103764 

Humaidan, P., & Schmidt, L. (2024). Permanently infertile couples and family building—a cross-sectional survey in Denmark. Human Reproduction, 39(11), 2525–2536. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deae208

Pulitzer Center. (2022, December 18). The Baby Broker Project: Inside the world’s leading low-cost surrogacy agency. https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/baby-broker-project-inside-worlds-leading-low-cost-surrogacy-agency

Riaz, M. N., Farooq, Z., Butt, M. U., Rafi, U., & Jing, W. (2023). Why is commercial surrogacy banned worldwide? A complete review. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2023.56045

Rozée, V., Unisa, S., & de La Rochebrochard, E. (2020). The social paradoxes of commercial surrogacy in developing countries: India before the new law of 2018. BMC Women’s Health, 20, 234. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-01087-2

Suryanarayanan, S. (2023). Poverty and commercial surrogacy in India: An intersectional analytical approach. Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence, 8(2), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.23860/dignity.2023.08.02.04 

The Business Research Company. (2026). Surrogacy market report 2026: Global outlook, market size, trends, and forecast to 2030. https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/surrogacy-global-market-report

Torres, G., Shapiro, A., & Mackey, T. K. (2019). A review of surrogate motherhood regulation in South American countries: Pointing to a need for an international legal framework. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 19, Article 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2182-1