

A couple on the beach (Photo by Igor Rodrigues on Unsplash)
In a nutshell
- Acceptance of voluntary childlessness varies widely across Europe, with Northern European countries being most accepting and Eastern European countries least accepting.
- Attitudes toward childlessness have two distinct dimensions: whether society approves of choosing childlessness (prescriptive) and whether society believes children are necessary for fulfillment (proscriptive).
- Gender equality at the country level is the strongest predictor of accepting attitudes toward voluntary childlessness, while an individual’s gender, age, education, and religious habits also strongly influence their views.
BUDAPEST — Across Europe, people’s views on voluntary childlessness are changing dramatically. What society once considered abnormal is increasingly seen as a valid life choice. However, this acceptance isn’t uniform across countries and depends heavily on how questions about childlessness are asked.
A new study published today in PLOS ONE examines how Europeans view men and women who choose not to have children. Researchers Ivett Szalma, Marieke Heers, and Maria Letizia Tanturri discovered that acceptance of childlessness isn’t a single attitude but contains two distinct elements: prescriptive attitudes (whether society approves of someone choosing childlessness) and proscriptive attitudes (whether society thinks children are necessary for a fulfilled life).
For decades, Europeans generally believed parenthood was essential for a meaningful life. Traditional norms favored family formation and often stigmatized childlessness—especially for women. Since the 1960s, however, cultural shifts emphasizing personal choice and individual freedom have changed how people think about adulthood, family, and parenthood.
How Researchers Measured Attitudes Toward Childlessness
The research team analyzed responses from 27 European countries using both the European Social Survey (ESS) and European Values Study (EVS). These surveys asked different questions about childlessness. The ESS asked, “How much do you approve or disapprove if a woman/man chooses never to have children?” This measures social expectations about parenthood. The EVS asked whether “a woman/man has to have children in order to be fulfilled,” which captures beliefs about what childless people might miss out on.
The findings reveal clear geographical patterns. Northern European countries are most accepting of voluntary childlessness on both measures, while Central and Eastern European countries are least accepting. Southern European countries generally fall in the middle. The Netherlands consistently ranks as the most accepting nation for both male and female childlessness.
Denmark stands out as a particularly interesting case. Danes strongly approve of people’s right to choose childlessness but are more likely to believe that children are necessary for fulfillment—aligning them with more conservative Eastern European countries on that measure.


Who Accepts Childlessness and Why?
Several factors consistently predicted more accepting attitudes toward voluntary childlessness. Women were more accepting than men of both male and female childlessness. Younger people, those with college degrees, and less religious individuals also showed greater acceptance. People who already had children were much less accepting of childlessness than those without kids.
Relationship status also affected attitudes. People living together without marriage showed more acceptance of childlessness than married respondents. Single individuals differed from married ones only on one measure—they were more likely to approve of someone choosing not to have children, but didn’t necessarily think a childless life could be fulfilling.
At the country level, gender equality emerged as a key factor. Nations with greater equality between men and women showed higher acceptance of voluntary childlessness on both measures. Interestingly, countries with higher rates of childlessness showed more people believing that children aren’t necessary for fulfillment. However, this pattern didn’t extend to approval of the choice to remain childless.
A surprising finding was that while a person’s religious habits strongly predicted their attitudes (with religious people being less accepting of childlessness), the overall religiosity of a country didn’t seem to affect acceptance at the population level.
Why It Matters: Policy and Social Implications
The growing acceptance of voluntary childlessness reflects broader social trends across Europe, including better gender equality, rising education levels, and changing family structures. As the researchers point out, studying attitudes toward childlessness is especially relevant as many former socialist countries implement policies that favor parents and might disadvantage those without children.
climate changeThe findings matter for policymaking across Europe. Understanding attitudes toward voluntary childlessness helps create more inclusive policies that don’t penalize those who choose not to have children. This becomes increasingly important as more people, especially younger generations worried about climate change and overpopulation, choose to remain childless.
The study shows why it’s important to distinguish between different aspects of voluntary childlessness. How researchers phrase questions about childlessness significantly affects the answers they receive. As the authors conclude, how and in what ways attitudes are measured matters more than whether the question refers to men or women.
As Europe continues to see demographic shifts and evolving family structures, tracking attitudes toward voluntary childlessness remains important. Whether people see children as essential for fulfillment or as one of many possible life choices reflects broader social values about gender, family, and personal freedom.
Paper Notes
The study “Measuring attitudes towards voluntary childlessness: Indicators in European comparative surveys” was published in PLOS ONE on March 19, 2025. The research was conducted by Ivett Szalma from the Institute for Sociology at HUN-REN Centre for Social Sciences in Budapest, Hungary; Marieke Heers from the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences (FORS) at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland; and Maria Letizia Tanturri from the Department of Statistical Sciences at the University of Padua in Italy.
The research received funding from the Momentum Programme of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the Cariparo Foundation Program, and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.