La Strada International has published a new policy paper analysing how the exploitation of surrogacy came to be included in the revised EU Anti-Trafficking Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/1712) as a form of human trafficking.
The paper examines the legislative process, stakeholder positions, and political dynamics that led to the inclusion of surrogacy in the Directive, even though no substantial empirical evidence was presented to support its classification as an “emerging form” of human trafficking.
This paper seeks to understand how, why and when surrogacy entered the Directive and which actors and arguments shaped this outcome.
Background and Aim
The revision of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive, adopted in June 2024, introduced three additional forms of exploitation under Article 2: surrogacy, forced marriage, and illegal adoption.
While the Commission’s initial proposal and the Council’s position made no reference to surrogacy, the concept was added at a late stage of the negotiations – on the initiative of Members of the European Parliament through amendments submitted by the LIBE and FEMM Committees.
Main Findings
- No substantial empirical evidence was presented during the revision process to support the classification of surrogacy as an emerging form of human trafficking. According to Eurojust, only two cases involving trafficking for illegal surrogacy were registered in Europe since 2000.
- Across all EU Member States, no country explicitly defined surrogacy as trafficking in its criminal legislation prior to the amendment.
- This addition was largely normative rather than evidence-based, reflecting broader moral and political debates around surrogacy in Europe rather than documented trafficking trends. “exploitation of surrogacy” was ultimately included in the Directive following strong political and ideological advocacy from both conservative and abolitionist feminist networks, as well as support from some European institutions.
- Existing EU and national legislation already allows the prosecution of trafficking cases involving surrogacy when the acts, means and purpose of trafficking are established. Therefore, a specific reference to surrogacy was not legally required to ensure accountability in cases of coercion or abuse.
The paper highlights the risk of creating legal uncertainty and stigmatisation or surrogate mothers and intended parents, particularly where surrogacy is voluntary and regulated. This may also hinder the development of rights-based legal frameworks and distort the focus of anti-trafficking efforts.
Looking Ahead
The paper calls for clear EU guidance on how to interpret and apply the term “exploitation of surrogacy” in practice, to prevent misapplication of the Directive. It also highlights the need for systematic data collection, further comparative research, and the involvement of relevant experts to assess whether exploitative surrogacy indeed constitutes human trafficking.
“If the objective is to protect surrogate mothers and children from exploitation, the response must be grounded in facts, legal clarity, and respect for human rights,” the authors conclude.
Read the full paper: Exploitation of Surrogacy as a Form of Human Trafficking – How Did It End Up in the Amended EU Anti-Trafficking Directive?