Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Women’s Reproductive Choices in Australia: Mapping Federal and State/Territory Policy Instruments Governing Choice

  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The reproductive choices available to women, and the consequences of those choices, exist within the broader policy context whereby policy is influenced by pervasive ideologies of women’s roles in society and the family. Women’s reproductive rights and their resulting consequences are governed by policy at the federal and state/territory levels within Australia yet little is known about the number or scope of these policies. This study aimed to systematically search and map Australian policy to identify the number and scope of policies governing women’s reproductive choices and their consequences, including how policy interprets the role of women in society through their reproductive choices. The systematic search identified 147 Australian policies in 2013. The mapping of the policies identified common themes that drive policy agenda impacting women’s reproductive choices, including those where the focus is promoting motherhood and/or children, providing economic incentives, regulating reproduction, or a broader health focus. These policy agendas simultaneously construct and are shaped by the context in which women’s reproductive choices and impacts occur. Women’s reproductive choices are highly politicised and regulated, impacting women’s position within society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Medicare is Australia’s publicly funded universal health care scheme.

References

  1. Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2013). The Australian policy handbook (5th ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ananat, E. O., Gruber, J., & Levine, P. (2007). Abortion legalization and life-cycle fertility. Journal of Human Resources, XLII(2), 375–397. doi:10.3368/jhr.XLII.2.375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Australiang Government Department of Health and Ageing. (2010). National Women’s Health Policy 2010. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.

  4. Australianh Human Rights Commission. (2006). How are human rights protected in Australian law? http://www.humanrights.gov.au/how-are-human-rights-protected-australian-law. Accessed January 19, 2015.

  5. Averett, S. L., Rees, D. I., & Argys, L. M. (2002). The impact of government policies and neighborhood characteristics on teenage sexual activity and contraceptive use. American Journal of Public Health, 92(11), 1773–1778. doi:10.2105/Ajph.92.11.1773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bacchi, C. (2009). Rethinking policy analysis: Theory and politics. In Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson Australia.

  7. Balbo, N., Billari, F., & Mills, M. (2013). Fertility in advanced societies: A review of research. European Journal of Population, 29(1), 1–38. doi:10.1007/s10680-012-9277-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bessett, D., Prager, J., Havard, J., Murphy, D. J., Agénor, M., & Foster, A. M. (2014). Policy matters: Barriers to contraceptive access after health care reform: Experiences of young adults in Massachusetts. Women’s Health Issues, 25(2), 91–96. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2014.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brindis, C. D. (2006). A public health success: Understanding policy changes related to teen sexual activity and pregnancy. Annual Reviews of Public Health, 27, 277–295. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell, R., & Wasco, S. (2000). Feminist approaches to social science: Epistemological and methodological tenets. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(6), 773–791. doi:10.1023/A:1005159716099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Charles, N. (2000). Feminism, the state and social policy. Great Britain: Macmillan Press LTD.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chavkin, W., & Chesler, E. (2005). Where human rights begin: Health, sexuality, and women in the new millennium. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Colebatch, H. K. (2009). Policy. Concepts in the social sciences (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Short introductions. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cowell-Meyers, K., & Langbein, L. (2013). Measuring women-friendly policy in the American states. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 34(2), 159–185. doi:10.1080/1554477x.2013.776392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dever, M. (2005). Baby talk: The Howard government, families, and the politics of difference. Hecate, 31(2), 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Engeli, I. (2012). Policy struggle on reproduction: Doctors, women, and Christians. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 330–345. doi:10.1177/1065912910395323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gray, G. (2006). Women, federalism and women friendly policies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(1), 25–45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2006.00470a.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gray Jamieson, G. (2012). Reaching for health [electronic resource]: the Australian women’s health movement and public policy. Canberra, ACT: ANU E Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gray, M., Qu, L., & Weston, R. (2008). Fertility and family policy in Australia. Australian Institute of Family Studies: Australian Government.

  21. Graycar, R., & Morgan, J. (2002). The hidden gender of law (2nd ed.). Sydney: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hood, C. (1983). Using bureaucracy sparingly. Public Administration, 61(2), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00347.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hughes, C. (2002). Key concepts in feminist theory and research. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Jackson, N., & Casey, A. (2009). Procreate and cherish: A note on Australia’s abrupt shift to pro-natalism. New Zealand Population Review, 35(1), 129–148.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Keleher, H. (2013). Policy scorecard for gender mainstreaming: Gender equity in health policy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(2), 111–117. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Levine, P. B. A. (2002). The impact of social policy and economic activity throughout the fertility decision tree. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper series (no. 9021).

  28. Nelson, E. (2013). Law, policy and reproductive autonomy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Redshaw, M., & Martin, C. R. (2011). Reproductive decision-making, prenatal attachment and early parenting. Journal of Reproductive & Infant Psychology, 29(3), 195–196. doi:10.1080/02646838.2011.614106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rønsen, M, (2004). Fertility and public policies—Evidence from Norway and Finland. Demographic Research, 10(6):143–170. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2004.10.6.

  31. Shaw, D. (2006). Sexual and reproductive health: rights and responsibilities. The Lancet, 368(9551), 1941–1943. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69487-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Smith, D. (1978). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Theodoulou, S. (Ed.). (2013). The contemporary language of public policy: Starting to understand. Public policy: The essential readings (2nd ed.). USA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  34. UN General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III). http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html. Accessed January 19, 2015.

  35. UN General Assembly. (1979). Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm. Accessed January 19, 2015.

  36. UN General Assembly. (1999). Optional protocol to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, 6 October 1999, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2131, p. 83. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/. Accessed January 19, 2015.

  37. United Nations. (1995). Report of the international conference on population and development. Cairo, 5–13 September 1994, New York: United Nations (Sales No. 95.XIII.18).

  38. Watson, S. (1995). Reclaiming social policy. In B. Caine & R. Pringle (Eds.), Transitions: New Australian feminisms. Allen & Unwin: NSW.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wilkinson, P., French, R., Kane, R., Lachowycz, K., Stephenson, J., Grundy, C., et al. (2006). Teenage conceptions, abortions, and births in England, 1994–2003, and the national teenage pregnancy strategy. Lancet, 368(9550), 1879–1886. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69777-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yang, Z., & Gaydos, L. M. (2010). Reasons for and challenges of recent increases in teen birth rates: A study of family planning service policies and demographic changes at the state level. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(6), 517–524. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.03.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by the School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Through Acton on Social Exclusion (CHASE), School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Australia

    Melissa Graham, Hayley McKenzie, Greer Lamaro & Ruth Klein

Authors
  1. Melissa Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hayley McKenzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Greer Lamaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ruth Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa Graham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Graham, M., McKenzie, H., Lamaro, G. et al. Women’s Reproductive Choices in Australia: Mapping Federal and State/Territory Policy Instruments Governing Choice. Gend. Issues 33, 335–349 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9159-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9159-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation