Women in Lesbian Relations

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 (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).

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, non-birth 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-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.

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.

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 turn-takings 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 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 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:

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 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 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 well-known 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.

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.

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 & Shelley-Sireci, 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.