Mapping the Terrain of Male-Perpetrated Reproductive Coercion: A Multiple Case Study Analysis

Background/Purpose: Approximately 5% of US women have experienced reproductive coercion – an intimate partner trying to get them pregnant when they did not want to be (Black et al., 2011). Reported prevalence is higher (14-74%) in smaller community samples of women receiving services (e.g., Miller et al., 2010; Raphael, 2005). Associations with physical/sexual violence have been mixed, though reproductive coercion was related to unintended pregnancy when physical violence was present (Miller et al., 2010).

Current interventions focus on educating women about contraception they can hide from their partners; however, an intervention that shifts responsibility from the victim-survivor to the perpetrator is much needed. This study’s objective was to learn more about men’s specific motivations and intended outcomes when perpetrating reproductive coercion to inform the development of a perpetrator-centered intervention.

Methods: A small sample of demographically diverse men (n=5) from the Mid-west screening positive for perpetrating reproductive coercion was recruited via Craig’s List and Backpage.com for in-depth interviewing. Using multiple case study analysis, a case was defined as each participant’s extended account of the context in which he perpetrated reproductive coercion, how it was perpetrated, and for what purpose. Case study research was used to acquire proximity to real world experiences, to uncover distinctions previously obscured by aggregated quantitative data, to complicate existing constructions of the phenomenon, and to introduce new variables to the research (Flyvbjerger, 2005; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). The researcher engaged in detailed analysis by revisiting audio recordings and transcripts multiple times until thoroughly acquainted with each case and emerging patterns.

Results: Findings supported the notion that reproductive coercion need not occur as part of coercive control, or a “web” of abuse (Johnson, 2008). Rather, it can manifest within intimate relationships wherein other forms of IPV appear absent. Participants reported several strategies: (1) constant pressure (or “wearing down”), (2) threats to leave, (3) neglecting to “pull out” during intercourse, (4) convincing a partner not to use hormonal contraception, and (5) tampering with birth control pills.

All participants expressed a strong desire for biological children, believing that fatherhood would provide them with purpose in life and propel them to “settle down.” This, coupled with the gendered notion that males must lead their households, appeared to partially explain why many men felt some guilt attached to their actions, but ultimately little shame. Several participants cited relationships with their fathers, regardless of the quality, as influencing their desire for a child. Finally, early experiences of parentification provided many participants with confidence in their capacity for child caretaking. 

Conclusion/Implications: Results from this multiple case study analysis extend prior statistical findings that have established the problem’s prevalence and need for intervention. Findings raised questions about the type of acts that constitute reproductive coercion and what a perpetrator-centered intervention might entail. Further research might explore how dominant gendered discourse around family roles and domestic success can contribute to the perpetration of reproductive coercion. Locating male perpetrators within this overarching and permeating discourse might best determine how social work practitioners can intervene in this behavior.