How Was the Idea of Mandating Fathers’ Parental Leave Received By Koreans? a Case Study of South Korea’s Parental Leave Policy Discourse

Background and Purpose: South Korea has recorded the lowest fertility rate among 200 countries and territories. In response, the South Korean government has introduced various policies. However, fertility rates have continued to decline, and the gender gap in parental leave usage remains wide. Among policy approaches to address these issues, a 2019 bill proposed mandating fathers’ usage of parental leave for at least one month. While the bill was ultimately unsuccessful, it generated substantial public discussion.This study uses a case study approach to analyze the values and assumptions behind two different policy approaches to parental leave in South Korea: (1) incentivized voluntary parental leave (the current policy), and (2) a 2019 bill that proposed mandatory parental leave for fathers. The purpose of this study is to uncover the implicit values and assumptions in the narratives around these policy approaches and examine what is emphasized or overlooked in the policy discourse.

Methods: This study employed a policy case study method to analyze data drawn from two main sources: official government documents and public comments posted on the National Assembly’s website. The data included original bill texts, committee reports, a policy brief, and 252 public comments. All data were publicly available. Using a constant comparison method, codes and categories were developed iteratively and refined throughout the analysis. The analysis was divided into two parts: (1) official documents representing formal government narratives, and (2) public comments reflecting informal public opinions. A second reviewer independently analyzed the public comment data to strengthen reliability.

Results: Three major findings emerged. First, the narratives around parental leave policy were gendered. For males, the objective of parental leave policies was to increase their usage. For females, on the other hand, the goal was to provide protection to give mothers a chance to raise their children and keep their careers. There was no mention of protection for (engaged) fatherhood anywhere in the formal documents or public responses. This is interesting because social pressure in the workplace was mentioned as a barrier to parental leave usage for both males and females. Second, it was revealed that there were competing narratives about fathers’ motivation for childrearing. Some narratives assumed that fathers want to use parental leave and bond with their children, whereas other narratives presumed that fathers try their best to avoid childrearing duties. Lastly, philosophical tensions between equality and individual choice were revealed in the discourse around parental leave policies. Somewhat predictably, one of the most common reasons against mandatory parental leave for fathers was the concern about violation of personal freedom; to many, liberty was not something that can be sacrificed.

Conclusions and Implications: This case study highlights underlying values and assumptions that shape parental leave policy discourse in South Korea. These findings suggest that addressing ultra-low fertility may require conscious examination of the trade-offs between equality and liberty, and a reconsideration of how gender roles and responsibilities are constructed in both policy and public discourse.