Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Aug 6;41(1):20.
doi: 10.1007/s10680-025-09742-w.

Agree to Disagree? Fertility Intentions Among Mixed Couples in Sweden

Eleonora Mussino  1   2 , Caroline Uggla  3   4
Affiliations

Agree to Disagree? Fertility Intentions Among Mixed Couples in Sweden

Eleonora Mussino et al. Eur J Popul. .

Abstract

Whether couples agree on having a(nother) child is crucial for both individuals and society. While fertility research has long focused on women, recent studies emphasize the need to incorporate both partners' perspectives. However, analyses that jointly consider men's and women's fertility intentions remain scarce. This focus on women has been partly driven by homogamy-the tendency for individuals to select partners with similar traits and values. Given that couples with mixed backgrounds have higher dissolution rates, they may also be less likely to share family-related beliefs. This study examines how agreement on fertility intentions varies among mixed and homogamous couples in Sweden. Using the 2021 Swedish Generation and Gender Survey (GGS) and stratifying by respondents' gender, we find that most couples agree not to have a(nother) child, reflecting recent fertility declines. Couples where both partners are migrants exhibit the highest agreement, while mixed couples show the most disagreement and the strongest gender asymmetries in reported intentions. However, these differences are small and vary by the gender of the reporting partner. The higher disagreement among mixed couples aligns with broader research on their elevated dissolution risks. However, reverse causality is possible-value differences may be linked to other stressors, making childbearing less desirable. By highlighting the role of couple composition in fertility decision-making, our findings contribute to understanding how family formation dynamics vary across different couple types.

Keywords: Couple perspective; Fertility intentions; GGS; Migrants; Mixed unions; Sweden.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: No competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Predicted Probabilities of Fertility Intentions by Couples’ Migrant Background in Sweden—Full model. Source: GGS our elaboration, weighted results. Note: mutual agreement to have a(nother) child (“AgreeYes”), mutual agreement to stop childbearing (“AgreeNo”), and disagreement on having a(nother) child (“Disagree”). We controlled for age class, education, employment status, parity, gender of the respondent, for type of partnership, age and educational difference between partners, religiosity and gender equality
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Predicted Probabilities of Fertility Intentions by Couples’ Migrant Background in four categories—Women, Full model. Source: GGS our elaboration, weighted results. Note: mutual agreement to have a(nother) child (“AgreeYes”), mutual agreement to stop childbearing (“AgreeNo”), and disagreement on having a(nother) child (“Disagree”). We controlled for age class, education, employment status, parity, gender of the respondent, for type of partnership, age and educational difference between partners, religiosity and gender equality
Fig. A1
Fig. A1
Predicted Probabilities of Fertility Intentions by Couples’ Migrant Background in Sweden by gender—Null Model. Source: GGS our elaboration, weighted results. Note mutual agreement to have a(nother) child (“AgreeYes”), mutual agreement to stop childbearing (“AgreeNo”), and disagreement on having a(nother) child (“Disagree”)
Fig. A2
Fig. A2
Percentage of agreement/disagreement by couples’ migrant background with four categories by gender. Source: GGS our elaboration, weighted results
Fig. A3
Fig. A3
Predicted Probabilities of Fertility Intentions by Couples’ Migrant Background four categories: where respondent is a man. Source: GGS our elaboration, weighted results. Note mutual agreement to have a(nother) child (“AgreeYes”), mutual agreement to stop childbearing (“AgreeNo”), and disagreement on having a(nother) child (“Disagree”). We controlled for age class, education, employment status, parity, gender of the respondent, for type of partnership, age and educational difference between partners, religiosity, and gender equality
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Alderotti, G., Mussino, E., & Comolli, C. L. (2023). Natives’ and migrants’ employment uncertainty and childbearing during the great recession: A comparison between Italy and Sweden. European Societies,25(4), 539–573. 10.1080/14616696.2022.2153302
    1. Alderotti, G., Tomassini, C., & Vignoli, D. (2022). ‘Silver splits’ in Europe: The role of grandchildren and other correlates. Demographic Research,46(April), 619–652. 10.4054/DEMRES.2022.46.21
    1. Andersson, G. (2004). Childbearing after migration: Fertility patterns of foreign-born women in Sweden. International Migration Review,38(2), 747–775. 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00216.x
    1. Andersson, G., Hank, K., Rønsen, M., & Vikat, A. (2006). Gendering family composition: Sex preferences for children and childbearing behavior in the Nordic countries. Demography,43(2), 255–267. 10.1353/dem.2006.0010 - PubMed
    1. Andersson, G., Persson, L., & Obucina, O. (2017). Depressed fertility among descendants of immigrants in Sweden. Demographic Research,36(1), 1149–1184. 10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.39

LinkOut - more resources