Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 167–180 | Cite as

Cohabitation Law Reform – Messages From Research



Empirical research in this field has underlined the diversity of the cohabitation population, the existence of the common law marriage myth and the lack of consensus on the best way forward for reform of the law in England and Wales. Against the backdrop of the English Law Commission’s on-going project on cohabitation law, this article will explore the reasons found by recent research for people’s choice of cohabitation over marriage, the interrelationship between commitment and economic vulnerability and the tension in feminist debates as to whether an extension of rights for opposite-sex cohabitants that are analogous to married spouses (either by an opt-in model or opt-out model) might be an appropriate solution or a reinforcement of patriarchal marriage values. It will also consider, given recent research findings and other initiatives aimed at raising awareness about the legal differences between different styles of cohabitation relationship, law’s dual and conflicting role in shaping regulated family structures whilst both protecting vulnerable family members inside and outside such structures and at the same time also offering socially acceptable standards of dispute resolution in this most personal of spheres.


cohabitants cohabitation cohabitation law reform socio-legal research 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arthur S., Lewis J., Maclean M. (2002) Settling Up. National Centre for Social Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey-Harris R. (1996) Law and the Unmarried Couple – Oppression or Liberation? Child and Family Law Quarterly 8:137–147Google Scholar
  3. Barlow A., Duncan S. (2000) Family Law, Moral Rationalities and New Labour’s Communitarianism: Part II”, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 22(2):129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow, A., Duncan, S., James, G. & Park, A., “Just a Piece of Paper? Marriage and Cohabitation in Britain”, in British Social Attitudes: The 18th Report, eds. A.␣Park, J. Curtice, K. Thomson, L. Jarvis & C. Bromley (London: Sage, 2001), 29–57Google Scholar
  5. Barlow A., Duncan S., James G., Park A. (2005) Cohabitation. Marriage and the Law: Social Change and Legal Reform in the 21st Century. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Barlow A., James G. (2004) Regulating Marriage and Cohabitation in 21st Century Britain. Modern Law Review 67(2):143–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barlow, A. & Probert, R., eds., “Special Issue on Family Law and Policy: Cohabitation and Marriage Promotion”, Law and Policy 26/1 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. Bottomley A. (1998) Women and Trust(s): Portraying the Family in the Gallery of Law. In: Bright S., Dewar J. (eds) Land Law: Themes and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 206–228Google Scholar
  9. Burgoyne C. (1995) “Financial Organisation and Decision-Making Within Western ‚Households’”. Journal of Economic Psychology 16(3):421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clive E. (1980) Marriage an Unnecessary Legal Concept? In: Eekelaar J., Katz S. (eds) Marriage in Contemporary Societies. Butterworths, Toronto, pp. 71–81Google Scholar
  11. Cretney S. (2003) Family Law in the Twentieth Century – A History. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Deech R. (1980) The Case Against the Legal Recognition of Cohabitation. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 29:480–497Google Scholar
  13. Dewar J. (1998) The Normal Chaos of Family Law. Modern Law Review 61:467–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas G. (2000) “Marriage, Cohabitation, and Parenthood: From Contract to Status?”. In: Katz S., Eekelaar J., Maclean M. (eds) Cross Currents: Family Law and Policy in the US and England. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 211–233Google Scholar
  15. Duncan S., Barlow A., James G. (2005) Why Don’t They Marry? Cohabitation, Commitment and DIY Marriage. Child and Family Law Quarterly 17(3):383–398Google Scholar
  16. Eekelaar, J., ed., “Unmarried Cohabitation in Europe” Special Issue: International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 15/1 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. Eekelaar J., Maclean M. (2004) “Marriage and the Moral Bases of Personal Relationships”. Journal of Law and Society 31(4):510–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ermisch J., Francesconi M. (2000) “Cohabitation in Great Britain: Not for Long, But Here to Stay”. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 163(2):153–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fineman M. (1995) The Neutered Mother, the Sexual Family and Other Twentieth Century Tragedies. Routledge, New York, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman M. (1984) Legal Ideologies, Patriarchal Precedents and Domestic Violence. In: Freeman M. (eds) The State, the Law and the Family: Critical Perspectives. Sweet & Maxwell, London, pp. 51–78Google Scholar
  21. Giddens A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Glennon L. (2000) Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd: An Endorsement of the Functional Family?. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 14:226–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hale B. (2004) Baroness of Richmond, “Unmarried Couples in Family Law”. Family Law 34:419–426Google Scholar
  24. Harvie-Clark, S., “Family Law (Scotland) Bill: Cohabitation (Updated)” Scottish Parliament Information Centre Briefing 3 March 05/11 (Edinburgh: The Scottish Parliament, 2005)Google Scholar
  25. Home Office (1998) Supporting Families. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Jamieson L., Anderson M., McCrone D., Bechhofer F., Stewart R., Li Y. (2002) Cohabitation and Commitment: Partnership Plans of Young men and Women. The Sociological Review 50(3):356–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson M. (1991) Commitment to Personal Relationships. In: Jones W., Perlman D. (eds) Advances in Personal Relationships. Jessica Kingsley, London, pp. 117–143Google Scholar
  28. Kiernan K. (2004) Cohabitation and Divorce across Nations and Generations. In: Chase-Lansdale P., Kiernan K., Friedman R. (eds) Human Development Across Lives and Generations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 139–170Google Scholar
  29. Kiernan K. (2004b) “Unmarried Cohabitation and Parenthood in Britain and Europe”. Law and Policy 26(1):33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Law Commission for England and Wales (2005) Ninth Programme of Law Reform. Law Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Law Commission for England and Wales, Sharing Homes: A Discussion Paper (London: Law Commission, 2002)Google Scholar
  32. Lewis J. (2001) The End of Marriage? Individualism and Intimate Relationships. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  33. Miles J. (2003) “Property Law vs. Family Law: Resolving the Problems of Family Property”. Legal Studies 23(4):624–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morgan P. (1999) Marriage-Lite: The Rise of Cohabitation and its Consequences. Institute for the Study of Civil Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Donovan K. (1993) Family Law Matters. Pluto Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Office for National Statistics, Social Trends 35 (2005)Google Scholar
  37. Probert R. (2001) From Lack of Status to Contract: Assessing the French Pacte Civil de Solidarité. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 23(3):257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Probert R. (2004) “Cohabitation in Twentieth Century England and Wales: Law and Policy”. Law and Policy 26(1):13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scottish Law Commission (1992) Report on Family Law (Scots Law Com No 135). The Stationery Office, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  40. Shaw C., Haskey J. (1999) “New Estimates and Projections of the Population Cohabiting in England and Wales”. Population Trends 95:7–17Google Scholar
  41. Smart C., Stevens P. (2000) Cohabitation Breakdown. PSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Thornes B., Collard J. (1979) Who Divorces? Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Wong S. (2003) “Trusting in Trust(s): The Family Home and Human Rights”. Feminist Legal Studies 11(2):119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations