Author
Abstract
Social egg freezing (SEF) is the process of freezing a woman’s eggs for non‐medical reasons to preserve her ability to become pregnant in the future. SEF is both praised as a procedure that every woman should consider to prolong fertility, and criticized for medicalizing social problems, making unrealistic promises, trivializing risks, and having a poor cost–benefit ratio. This article explores the debate surrounding SEF and societal attitudes towards it in Austria, a country currently discussing the legalization of the procedure. Ten qualitative interviews were conducted with individuals involved in the public debate on medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Thematic analysis revealed three groups of respondents—advocates, ambivalents, and one opponent—who held different views on several key themes. All groups perceived SEF as not being “the” solution to the underlying problem of balancing parenthood and work. Interviewees demanded comprehensive counseling before SEF, including information about the technical procedure and medical risks. Many interviewees characterized the Austrian debate on MAR as polarized, describing policymakers as frequently uninformed and the political system as stagnant and reluctant to reform. They also expressed a need for more public debate in an open and dialogue‐driven spirit. This article contributes to existing research by investigating the Austrian discourse on SEF, a topic that has rarely been explored. It shows that the regulation of SEF remains controversial in Austria, with attitudes towards it being based not only on the right to reproductive autonomy, but also on a wide range of broader social issues in contemporary societies.
Suggested Citation
Erich Griessler, 2025.
"The Discourse on Social Egg Freezing in Austria: Individual Solution to a Societal Problem,"
Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
Handle:
RePEc:cog:socinc:v13:y:2025:a:10440
DOI: 10.17645/si.10440
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v13:y:2025:a:10440. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.