Advertisement

Demography

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 79–98 | Cite as

The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden

  • Gunnar Andersson
  • Turid Noack
  • Ane Seierstad
  • Harald Weedon-Fekjær
Article

Abstract

The present study investigates the demographics of same-sex marriages—that is, registered partnerships—in Norway and Sweden. We give an overview of the demographic characteristics of the spouses of these partnerships, study patterns of their divorce risks, and compare the dynamics of same-sex couples with those of heterosexual marriages. We use longitudinal information from the population registers of the two countries that cover all persons in partnerships. Our demographic analyses include information on characteristics such as age, sex, geographic background, experience of previous opposite-sex marriage, parenthood, and educational attainment of the partners involved. The results show that in many respects, the distributions of married populations on these characteristics differ by the sex composition of the couples. Patterns in divorce risks are rather similar in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, but divorce-risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages. The divorce risk for female partnerships is double that for male partnerships.

Keywords

Partnership Formation Divorce Risk Heterosexual Marriage Registered Partnership Male Partnership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agell, A. 1998. “Alternative Legal Policies: A Comparative View From a Swedish Observer.” Pp. 31–38 in Living Arrangements and Family Structures—Facts and Norms, edited by L. Vaskovics and H. Schattovits. Vienna: Austrian Institute for Family Studies.Google Scholar
  2. Amato, P. and S. Rogers. 1997. “A Longitudinal Study of Marital Problems and Subsequent Divorce.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 59:612–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, G. 2002. “Dissolution of Unions in Europe: A Comparative Overview.” Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft 27:493–504. Also available as MPIDR Working Paper 2003-004. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Badgett, M.V.L. 1997. “Beyond Biased Samples: Challenging the Myths on the Economic Status of Lesbians and Gay Men.” Pp. 65–71 in Homo Economics: Capitalism, Community, and Lesbian and Gay Life, edited by A. Gluckman and B. Reed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. —. 2001. Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Badgett, M.V.L. and M. Rogers. 2003. “Left Out of the Count: Missing Same-Sex Couples in Census 2000.” IGLSS by the Numbers. Amherst, MA: Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies. Available online at http://www.iglss.org/media/files/c2k_leftout.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. Baughman, R., S. Dickert-Conlin, and S. Houser. 2002. “How Well Can We Track Cohabitation Using the SIPP? A Consideration of Direct and Indirect Measures.” Demography 39:455–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim. 1995. The Normal Chaos of Love. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Black, D., G. Gates, S. Sanders, and L. Taylor. 2000. “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence From Available Systematic Data Sources.” Demography 37:139–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Black, D., S. Makar, S. Sanders, and L. Taylor. 2003. “The Earnings Effects of Sexual Orientation.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56:449–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brinig, M. and D. Allen. 2000. “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women.” American Law and Economics Review 2:126–69.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, L. and A. Berrington. 1999. “Socio-demographic Predictors of Divorce.” Pp. 1–37 in High Divorce Rates: The State of the Evidence on Reasons and Remedies, edited by J. Simons. London: Lord Chancellor’s Department.Google Scholar
  13. Digoix, M., P. Festy, and K. Waaldijk. 2004. “Same-Sex Couples and Heteronormativity.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Boston, April 1–3.Google Scholar
  14. Eggen, B. 2002. “Gleichgeschlechtliche Lebensgemeinschaften: Erste Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung im Rahmen des Mikrozensus” [Same-sex unions: The first results of a study based on the Mikrozensus]. Pp. 215–34 in Elternschaft heute, edited by N. Schneider and H. Matthias-Bleck. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.Google Scholar
  15. England, P., L. Sayer, and P. Allison. 2005. “He Left, She Left: Gains to Marriage, Relative Resources, and Divorce Initiation.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Philadelphia, March 31–April 2.Google Scholar
  16. Giddens, A. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton, C. and A. Perry. 2002. Family Law in Europe, 2nd ed. London: Butterworths LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  18. Hoem, J.M. 1993. “Event-History Analysis in Demography. Classical Demographic Methods of Analysis and Modern Event-History Techniques.” Pp. 281–91 in IUSSP: 22nd International Population Conference, Montreal, 1993, Vol. 3. Liege, Belgium: International Study of Population.Google Scholar
  19. Hoem, J.M., A. Aassve, G. Andersson, P. Baizán, F. Billari, H. Engelhardt, A. Fürnkrantz-Prskawetz, K. Hank, J. Huinink, H.-P. Kohler, A. Kohlmann, M. Kreyenfeld, G. Neyer, and A. Vikat. 2000. “Concepts for a Second Round of Fertility and Family Surveys in Europe With Particular Attention Paid to Persons of Reproductive/Working Age.” Pp. 59–104 in Generations and Gender Programme: Exploring Future Research and Data Collection Options, edited by United Nations Economic Commission for Europe/United Nations Population Fund. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  20. Jalovaara, M. 2002. “Socioeconomic Differentials in Divorce Risk by Duration of Marriage.” Demographic Research. Available online at http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol7/16/Google Scholar
  21. — 2003. “The Joint Effects of Marriage Partners’ Socioeconomic Positions on the Risk of Divorce.” Demography 40:67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jepsen, L. and C. Jepsen. 2002. “An Empirical Analysis of the Matching Patterns of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Couples.” Demography 39:435–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kalmijn, M. and A.-R. Poortman. 2003. “His or Her Divorce? A Study of Divorce Determinants Using Information on Who Initiated the Divorce.” Paper presented to the Second Conference of the European Research Network on Divorce, November 13–14, Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Kurdek, L. 1992. “Relationship Stability and Relationship Satisfaction in Cohabiting Gay and Lesbian Couples: A Prospective Longitudinal Test of the Contextual and Interdependence Models.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9:125–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. — 1995. “Lesbian and Gay Couples.” Pp. 243–61 in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan: Psychological Perspectives, edited by A. D’Augelli and C. Patterson. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. — 2003. “Differences Between Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20:411–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. — 2004. “Are Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples Really Different From Heterosexual Married Couples?” Journal of Marriage and Family 66:880–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lauman, E., J.M. Gagnon, R.T. Michael, and S. Michaels. 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Liu, G. and A. Vikat. 2004. “Does Divorce Risk Depend on Spouses’ Relative Income? A Register-Based Study of First Marriages in Sweden in 1981–1998.” MPIDR Working Paper 2004-010. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, C. and I. Théry. 2001. “The PACS and Marriage and Cohabitation in France.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 15:135–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moxnes, K. 1993. “Partnerskapsloven—et uttrykk for parforholdets endrede karakter” [The partnership law: An expression of the changing character of couple relations]. Løvetann 3:30–31.Google Scholar
  32. Nielsen, L. 1990. “Family Rights and the ‘Registered Partnership’ in Denmark.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 4:297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Noack, T. 2000. “Registrerte partnerskap: 1993–1998” [Registered partnerships: 1993–1998]. Samfunnsspeilet 3:24–29.Google Scholar
  34. Noack, T., H. Fekjær, and A. Seierstad. 2002. ”Skilsmisser blant lesbiske og homofile partnere—hvem er mest stabile?” [Divorces among lesbian and gay partners: Who are most stable?]. Samfunnsspeilet 3/2002:19–-27.Google Scholar
  35. Noack, T., A. Seierstad, and H. Weedon-Fekjær. 2005. “A Demographic Analysis of Registered Partnerships (Legal Same-Sex Unions): The Case of Norway.” European Journal of Population 21:89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patterson, C. 2000. “Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:1052–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pedersen, W. and H.W. Kristiansen. 2003. “Å gjøre det, å føle det og å være det. Homoseksualitet i det seinmoderne” [To do it, to feel it, and to be it. Homosexuality in postmodernity]. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 44:3–37.Google Scholar
  38. Phua, V.C. and G. Kaufman. 1999. “Using the Census to Profile Same-Sex Cohabitation: A Research Note.” Population Research and Policy Review 18:373–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Plug, E. and P. Berkhout. 2004. “Effects of Sexual Preferences on Earnings in the Netherlands.” Journal of Population Economics 17:117–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Røed, K. and O. Raaum. 2003. “Administrative Registers—Unexplored Reservoirs of Scientific Knowledge?” The Economic Journal 113:258–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rydström, J. 2004. “From Outlaw to In-law: On Registered Partnership for Homosexuals in Scandinavia, Its History and Cultural Implications.” Paper presented to the conference “Same-Sex Couples, Same-Sex Partnerships and Homosexual Marriages: A Focus on Cross-National Differentials,” September 25–26, Stockholm. Conference Proceedings available as Documents de travail 124, 2004. Paris: INED.Google Scholar
  42. Sayer, L. and S. Bianchi. 2000. “Women’s Economic Independence and the Probability of Divorce: A Review and Reexamination.” Journal of Family Issues 21:906–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. SCB. 2003. “Access to Microdata in the Nordic Countries.” Report. Statistics Sweden, Stockholm. Available online at http://www.micro2122.scb.se/Access_to_microdata_in_the_Nordic_countries. pdfGoogle Scholar
  44. Simmons, T. and M. O’Connell. 2003. “Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000.” Census 2000 Special Report. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  45. Søland, B. 1998. “A Queer Nation? The Passage of the Gay and Lesbian Partnership Legislation in Denmark, 1989.” Social Politics 5(1):48–69.Google Scholar
  46. Waaldijk, K. 2001. “Small Change: How the Road to Same-Sex Marriage Got Paved in The Netherlands.” Pp. 437–64 in Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships: A Study of National, European and International Law, edited by R. Wintemute and M. Andenæs. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. — 2005. “More or Less Together: Levels of Legal Consequences of Marriage, Cohabitation and Registered Partnership for Different-Sex and Same-Sex Partners.” Documents de travail 125, 2005. Paris: INED.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunnar Andersson
    • 1
  • Turid Noack
    • 2
  • Ane Seierstad
    • 2
  • Harald Weedon-Fekjær
    • 3
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchRostockGermany
  2. 2.Statistics NorwayOsloNorway
  3. 3.Section of Medical StatisticsUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations