Surrogacy arrangements – agreements for someone to carry a pregnancy for the intended parents – have existed for millennia, and modern surrogacy contracts for half a century.

These contracts typically address parental rights, the possibility of abortion, medical instructions, health insurance and payment of expenses, each side with its own legal representation. The contracts are usually honored, resulting in thousands of babies born through surrogacy in the U.S., at a cost that can top US$200,000 when agencies are involved.

In a 2026 case, surrogate McKenna West refused the intended parents’ request for an abortion after the fetus was diagnosed with a serious heart condition. The case raises an uncomfortable question: What happens when the surrogate’s bodily autonomy collides with the intended parents’ wishes?

As scholars of reproductive justice and family law, we see this case as an example of how rapidly changing abortion laws, reproductive technology and family law can create conflicts that surrogacy contracts cannot necessarily anticipate.

West’s contract stated that “there shall be a termination of the pregnancy for a fetal abnormality … if the Intended Parents request” it. She later wrote that “their lawyer and my own former lawyer sent me letters threatening six-figure penalties if I didn’t comply with their demand to terminate.”

Instead, West moved from Alaska to Texas, where she had family support and believed the baby, when born, could get needed care. Moreover, she knew that Texas bans abortion in almost all circumstances. Meanwhile, the intended parents, who lived in California, obtained a court order before the birth stating they........

© The Conversation