About 10 years ago Greil published a review and critique of the literature on the socio-psychological impact of infertility. He found at the time that most scholars treated infertility as a medical condition with psychological consequences rather than as a socially constructed reality. This article examines research published since the last review. More studies now place infertility within larger social contexts and social scientific frameworks although clinical emphases persist. Methodological problems remain but important improvements are also evident. We identify two vigorous research traditions in the social scientific study of infertility. One tradition uses primarily quantitative techniques to study clinic patients in order to improve service delivery and to assess the need for psychological counseling. The other tradition uses primarily qualitative research to capture the experiences of infertile people in a sociocultural context. We conclude that more attention is now being paid to the ways in which the experience of infertility is shaped by social context. We call for continued progress in the development of a distinctly sociological approach to infertility and for the continued integration of the two research traditions identified here.

Health and illness are not objective states but socially constructed categories. We focus here on infertility, a phenomenon that has shifted from being seen as a private problem of couples to being seen as a medical condition. Studying infertility provides an ideal vantage point from which to study such features of health care as inter‐societal and cross‐cultural disparities in health care, the relationship between identity and health, gender roles, and social and cultural variations in the process of medicalization. Infertility is stratified, both globally and within Western societies. Access to care is extremely limited for many women in developing societies and also for marginalized women in some highly industrialized societies. We also discuss the ways in which responses to infertility are influenced by the process of self‐definition. The experience of infertility is profoundly shaped by varying degrees of pronatalism and patriarchy. In advanced industrial societies, where voluntary childfree status is acknowledged, many women experience infertility as a ‘secret stigma’; in other cultures, where motherhood is normative for all women, infertility may be impossible to hide. In the West, acceptance of the medical model is virtually hegemonic, but in other societies medical interpretations of infertility coexist with traditional interpretations.

Gender differences in research participation have been documented in both quantitative and qualitative studies, a pattern that is particularly pronounced in studies of reproduction. We use the National Survey of Fertility Barriers to analyze three reasons frequently used to explain men's non-participation in reproductive research: (1) Reproduction is a sensitive subject for men, (2) reproduction is women's domain, and (3) men's unavailability due to seemingly pragmatic reasons (e.g., work schedule). Using binary logistic regression, we test these three explanations across two different models: women's gatekeeping (denying researcher access to partners) (n = 1,637) and men's own non-response (n = 1,454). A substantial minority of women (12.8 percent), engaged in gatekeeping, but the dominant mechanism of men's non-participation was their own non-response once women granted researcher access to partners. Consistent with prior studies on general survey non-response, several demographic variables were associated with men's participation. Additionally, findings suggest that the notion of reproduction as women's domain received the strongest support, though specific variables within this construct differed for models predicting women's gatekeeping versus men's nonresponse of their own accord.

The authors wish to thank Kimberly Tyler, Julia McQuillan, and Helen Moore for their helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank the families who generously shared their stories. Abstract Gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) parents are increasingly common and visible, but they face a number of social and legal barriers in the United States. Using legal consciousness as a theoretical framework, we draw on data from 51 interviews with GLB parents in California and Nebraska to explore how laws impact experiences of parenthood. Specifically, we address how the legal context influences three domains: the methods used to become parents, decisions about where to live, and experiences of family recognition. Law and perception of the law make some pathways to parenthood difficult or unattainable depending on state of residence. Parents in Nebraska, where laws are less supportive, discussed having to "work within the system" available to secure their families while those in California described living in "a bubble" that gave same-sex parents legal protections less available in other parts of the country. Policy and clinical implications of these findings are discussed. How Law Shapes Experiences of

Evidence of group differences in reproductive control and access to reproductive health care suggests the continued existence of "stratified reproduction" in the United States. Women of color are overrepresented among people with infertility but are underrepresented among those who receive medical services. The authors employ path analysis to uncover mechanisms accounting for these differences among black, Hispanic, Asian, and non-Hispanic white women using a probability-based sample of 2,162 U.S. women. Black and Hispanic women are less likely to receive services than other women. The enabling conditions of income, education, and private insurance partially mediate the relationship between race-ethnicity and receipt of services but do not fully account for the association at all levels of service. For black and Hispanic women, social cues, enabling conditions, and predisposing conditions contribute to disparities in receipt of services. Most of the association between race-ethnicity and service receipt is indirect rather than direct.