SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Izmir Democracy University Health Sciences Journal / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

The Two Faces of Reproductive Rights: Dynamics Between Autonomy and Coercion

Üreme Haklarında İki Yüz: Özerklik ve Baskı Arasındaki Dinamikler

Kaan Kurnaz(Çilimli İlçe Devlet Hastanesi)0009-0000-0204-6721
Filiz Süzer Özkan(DÜZCE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2539-8591
Pages
10–22
Publication Date
2026-05-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It includes a comprehensive review of the literature on the role of reproductive coercion in restricting reproductive autonomy, the effects of reproductive coercion on reproductive autonomy, and strategies for strengthening reproductive autonomy and preventing reproductive coercion.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:While reproductive autonomy and reproductive coercion may appear to be related concepts, they represent fundamentally different—and often opposing—realities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A clear distinction between these two concepts can help us understand the dynamics of reproduction at both societal and individual levels.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It includes a comprehensive review of the literature on the role of reproductive coercion in restricting reproductive autonomy, the effects of reproductive coercion on reproductive autonomy, and strategies for strengthening reproductive autonomy and preventing reproductive coercion.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Üreme Hakları · Üreme Sağlığı · Kişisel Özerklik

Abstract

While reproductive autonomy and reproductive coercion may appear to be related concepts, they represent fundamentally different—and often opposing—realities. A clear distinction between these two concepts can help us understand the dynamics of reproduction at both societal and individual levels. Reproductive autonomy, a concept shaped around terms such as reproductive rights, reproductive freedom, reproductive choice, and reproductive justice, refers to the right of individuals to make decisions about reproduction based on their own will, preferences, and desires. In contrast, reproductive coercion is a form of gender-based violence that emerges in interpersonal relationships and aims to eliminate or restrict reproductive autonomy. In this respect, reproductive coercion directly opposes the concept of reproductive autonomy. For women to cope with reproductive coercion and to have the power to make free decisions regarding reproductive issues, it is crucial that they possess reproductive autonomy. This study was conducted to examine the relationship between reproductive autonomy and reproductive coercion in international contexts. It includes a comprehensive review of the literature on the role of reproductive coercion in restricting reproductive autonomy, the effects of reproductive coercion on reproductive autonomy, and strategies for strengthening reproductive autonomy and preventing reproductive coercion.

Özet

Üreme özerkliği ve üreme baskısı benzer kavramlar gibi görünse de temelde birbirinden oldukça farklı, hatta çoğu zaman birbiriyle çelişen iki olgudur. Bu iki kavramı doğru bir şekilde ayırt etmek hem toplumsal hem de bireysel düzeyde üreme ile ilgili dinamikleri anlamamıza yardımcı olabilir. Üreme hakları, üreme özgürlüğü, üreme seçimi ve üreme adaleti gibi terimler etrafında şekillenen bir kavram olan üreme özerkliği; bireylerin üreme kararlarını kendi iradeleri, tercihleri ve istekleri doğrultusunda verme hakkını ifade eder. Buna karşılık üreme baskısı; kişilerarası ilişkiler düzeyinde ortaya çıkan toplumsal cinsiyete dayalı bir şiddet türüdür ve üreme özerkliğini ortadan kaldırmayı veya sınırlandırmayı hedefler. Bu yönüyle üreme baskısı, üreme özerkliğine doğrudan zıt bir kavramdır. Kadının üreme baskısı ile başa çıkabilmesi ve üreme ile ilgili konularda özgürce karar verebilmesi için üreme özerkliğine sahip olması oldukça önemlidir. Bu çalışma, uluslararası literatür çerçevesinde üreme özerkliği ile üreme baskısı arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek amacıyla hazırlanmıştır. Çalışmada; üreme özerkliğinin kısıtlanmasında üreme baskısının rolü, üreme baskısının üreme özerkliği üzerindeki etkileri ile üreme özerkliğinin güçlendirilmesine ve üreme baskısının önlenmesine yönelik kapsamlı literatür bilgisine yer verilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kurnaz, K., Özkan, F. S. (2026). The Two Faces of Reproductive Rights: Dynamics Between Autonomy and Coercion. Izmir Democracy University Health Sciences Journal, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.52538/iduhes.1767423

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (60)

  1. Huslage M, Ely GE, Nugent WR, Auerbac, S, Agbemenu K. Reproductive autonomy in Appalachia: An investigation into perceived contraceptive pressure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2023;38(9-10):6985-7011.
  2. Petropanagos A. Reproductive 'choice' and egg freezing. Cancer Treatment Research. 2011;156:223-235. Upadhyay UD, Dworkin SL, Weitz TA, Foster DG. Development and validation of a reproductive autonomy scale. Studies in Family Planning. 2014;45(1):19-41.
  3. Purdy L. Women’s reproductive autonomy: Medicalisation and beyond, Journal of Medical Ethics. 2006;32(5):287-291.
  4. Johnston J, Zacharias RL. The future of reproductive autonomy. Hastings Center Report. 2017;47(3):6-11.
  5. Graham M, Haintz GL, Bugden M, de Moel-Mandel C, Donnelly A, McKenzie H. Re-defining reproductive coercion using a socio-ecological lens: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):1371.
  6. Grace KT, Anderson JC. Reproductive coercion: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence Abuse. 2018;19(4):371-390.
  7. Senderowicz L. Contraceptive autonomy: Conceptions and measurement of a novel family planning indicator. Studies in Family Planning. 2020;51(2):161-176.
  8. Dejoy G. State reproductive coercion as structural violence. Columbia Social Work Review. 2019;17(1):36–53.
  9. Bagwell-Gray ME, Thaller J, Messing JT, Durfee A. Women’s reproductive coercion and pregnancy avoidance: Associations with homicide risk, sexual violence, and religious abuse. Violence Against Women. 2021;27(12–13):2294-2312.
  10. Gomez AM, Wapman M. Under (implicit) pressure: Young Black and Latina women’s perceptions of contraceptive care. Contraception. 2017;96(4):221-226.
  11. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Levenson RR, Waldman J, Silverman JG. Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception. 2010;81(4):316-322.
  12. Raidoo S, Elwan D. Reproductive autonomy and choice of contraceptive method. Fertility and Sterility. 2020;114(3):e174.
  13. Mutombo N, Bakibinga P. The effect of joint contraceptive decisions on the use of Injectables, Long-Acting and Permanent Methods (ILAPMs) among married female (15-49) contraceptive users in Zambia: a cross-sectional study. Reproductive Health. 2014;11(51):2-8.
  14. Osamor P, Grady C. Factors associated with women’s health care decision-making autonomy: empirical evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Biosocial Science. 2018;50(1):70-85.
  15. Loll D, Fleming PJ, Manu A, Morhe E, Stephenson R, King EJ, Hall KS. Reproductive autonomy and pregnancy decision-making among young Ghanaian women. Global Public Health. 2020;15(4):571-586.
  16. Wright RL, Fawson PR, Siegel E, Jones T, Stone K. Predictors of reproductive autonomy among a rural university population. Health & Social Wor. 2018;43(4): 235-242.
  17. Yalew AS, Zeleke BM, Teferra AS. Demand for long acting contraceptive methods and associated factors among family planning service users, Northwest Ethiopia: a health facility based cross sectional study. BMC Research Notes. 2015;8(29):2-10.
  18. Zeiler K. Reproductive autonomous choice - A cherished illusion? Reproductive autonomy examined in the context of preim plantation genetic diagnosis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2004;7(2):175-183.
  19. Potter JE, Stevenson AJ, Coelman-Minahan K, Hopkins K, White K, Baum SE, Grossman D. Challenging unintended pregnancy as an indicator of reproductive autonomy. Contraception. 2019;100(1):1-4.
  20. Pearson E, Biswas KK, Andersen KL, Moreau C, Chowdhury R, Sultana S, Decker MR. Correlates of contra ceptive use 4 months postabortion: findings from a prospective study in Bangladesh. Contraception. 2017;95(3):279-287.
  21. Wollum A. Bornstein M, Mopiwa G, Norris A, Gipson JD. Assessing the relationship between reproductive autonomy and contraceptive use in rural Malawi. Reproductive Health. 2023;20(1):142.
  22. Brodsky A. “Rape-adjacent”: imagining legal responses to nonconsensual condom removal. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. 2017;32(2):183-210.
  23. Fasula AM, Gray SC, Vereen RN, Carry M, Sales JM, & Gelaude D. Multiple psychosocial health problems and sexual risk among African American females in juvenile detention: A cross-sectional study. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;88(12), 74-80.
  24. Northridge JL, Silver EJ, Talib HJ, & Coupey SM. Reproductive coercion in high school–aged girls: Associations with reproductive health risk and intimate partner violence. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. 2017;30(6):603-608.
  25. Miller E, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Decker MR, Anderson H, Silverman JG. Recent reproductive coercion and unintended pregnancy among female family planning clients. Contraception. 2014;89(2):122-128.
  26. Tuerkheimer D. Conceptualizing violence against pregnant women. Indiana Law Journal. 2006;81:667. Tarzia L, McKenzie M. Reproductive coercion and abuse in intimate relationships: Women’s perceptions of perpetrator motivations. PLoS One. 2024;19(4):e0299069.
  27. Moore AM, Frohwirth L, Miller E. Male reproductive control of women who have experienced intimate partner violence in the United States. Social Science & Medicine. 2010;(11):1737-1744.
  28. Early D, Riedel JC, de Bocanegra HT, Swann D, Schwarz EB. Differences in contraceptive use between women reporting reproductive coer cion and intimate partner violence. Contraception. 2015;92(4):362.
  29. Masho SW, Rozario S, Walker DW, Cha S. Racial differences and the role of marital status in the association between intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2018;33(20):3162-3185.
  30. Fernandes ETBS, Ferreira LS, Ferreira CSB, Santos EA. Autonomy in the reproductive health of quilombolas women and associated factors. Revista Brasileira de Enfermage. 2020;73(4):e20190786.
  31. Stark E. Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press: 2007. Fay K & Yee L. Reproductive Coercion and Women’s Health. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018;63(5):518-525.
  32. Finer LB, Zolna MR. Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;374:843-852.
  33. Warling A, Treder KM, Brandi K, Kumar B, Fay KE. An Ecological Model of Reproductive Coercion. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2023;68(6):697-701.
  34. Camp, AR. Coercing pregnancy. Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 2015;275-318.
  35. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action. In Marks DF, editors. The health psychology reader. SAGE Publications Ltd.;2002:pp. 94-106.
  36. Salinger AP, Vermes E, Waid JL, Wendt AS, Dupuis SJN, Kalam A, … Sinharoy SS. The role of self-efficacy in women’s autonomy for health and nutrition decision-making in rural Bangladesh. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):338.
  37. Moulton JE, Corona MIV, Vaughan C, Bohren MA. Women's perceptions and experiences of reproductive coercion and abuse: a qualitative evidence synthesis. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0261551.
  38. Katz J, Poleshuck EL, Beach B, Olin R. Reproductive coercion by male sexual artners: Associations with partner violence and college women's sexual health. Journal of Interpers Violence. 2017;32(21):3301-3320.
  39. French SE, Holland KJ. Condom negotiation strategies as a mediator of the relationship between self-efficacy and condom use. Journal of Sex Research. 2013;50(1):48-59.
  40. Campbell, J. C., Pugh, L. C., Campbell, D., Visscher, M. The influence of abuse on pregnancy intention. Womens Health Issues. 1995;5(4):214-23.
  41. Feyisetan B, Oyediran KA. Can married or cohabiting women negotiate protective sex? Findings from demographic and health surveys of two west African countries. Journal of Biosocial Science. 2020;52(6):758-806.
  42. Jones AC, Robinson WD, & Seedall RB. The role of sexual communication in couples’ sexual outcomes: A dyadic path analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2018;44(4):606-623.
  43. Widman L, Welsh DP, McNulty JK, Little KC. Sexual communication and contraceptive use in adolescent dating couples. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2006;39(6):893-899.
  44. Nguyen N, Londeree J, Nguyen LH, Tran DH, Gallo MF. Reproductive autonomy and contraceptive use among women in Hanoi. Vietnam. Contraception: X. 2019;1:100011.
  45. Sheeran N, Vallury K, Sharman LS, Corbin B, Douglas H, Bernardino B, … Tarzia L. Reproductive coercion and abuse among pregnancy counselling clients in Australia: Trends and directions. Reproductive Health. 2022;19(1):170.
  46. Suha M, Murray L, Warr D, Chen J, Block K, Murdolo A, … Vaughan C. Reproductive coercion as a form of family violence against immigrant and refugee women in Australia. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0275809.
  47. Miller E, Jones KA, Zachor H. Effect of communication skills training on discussion of intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. 2016;29(2):164.
  48. Grace KT. Caring for women experiencing reproductive coercion. Journal Midwifery & Womens Health. 2016;61(1):112-115.
  49. Bhakuni H. Reproductive justice: non-interference or non-domination? Developing World Bioethic. 2021;2:93-98.
  50. Buchanan F, Humphreys C. Coercive control during pregnancy, birthing and postpartum: women’s experiences and perspectives on Health Practitioners’ responses. Journal of Family Violence. 2020;36(1):325-335.
  51. Herrero J, Torres A, Rodríguez-Díaz FJ, Juarros-Basterretxea J. Intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: The influence of male partners’ traditional gender roles and general violence. Psychology of Violence. 2017;7(3):385-394.
  52. Llano-Suárez A, Lana A, Gasch-Gallén Á, Fernández-Feito A. Gender roles and intimate partner violence among female university students in Spain: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0258862.
  53. de Bocanegra HT, Rostovtseva DP, Khera S, Godhwani N. Birth control sabotage and forced sex: Experiences reported by women in domestic violence shelters. Violence Against Women. 2010;16(5):601-612.
  54. Nikolajski C, Miller E, McCauley HL, Akers A, Schwarz EB, Borrero S. Race and reproductive coercion: A qualitative assessment. Women's Health Issues. 2015;25(3):216–223.
  55. Ram R, Kumar M, Kumari N. Association between women's autonomy and unintended pregnancy in India. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health. 2022;15(55):101060.
  56. Miller E, McCauley HL, Decker MR, Levenson R, Zelazny S, Jones KA, … Silverman JG. Implementation of a family planning clinic–based partner violence and reproduc tive coercion intervention: Provider and patient perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2017;49:85-93.
  57. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee opinion no. 554: Reproductive and sexual coercion. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2013;121(2 Pt 1):411-415.
  58. Öztürk R, Güner Ö. Turkish validity and reliability of the Reproductive Coercion Scale. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2021;15(1):100-109.
  59. Özyön E, Koçak K, Ege E. Turkish validity and reliability of the reproductive autonomy scale. Journal of Midwifery and Health Sciences. 2024;7(2):239–249.
  60. Saldanha S, Botfield JR, LaGrappe D, Moradi M, Mazza D. Reproductive Coercion and Associated Health Consequences: A Scoping Review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2025;00(0):1-12.