Emotional Support? Law, Social Control, and the Medicalization of the Human–Animal Bond

In recent years, the socio-legal concept of emotional support animals (ESAs) has come under increasing scrutiny in the U.S. Widespread confusion about the legal status of ESAs versus service animals and concerns about misrepresentation have resulted in a backlash and a cascade of new legislation addressing “fake service animals.” However, this reaction reveals a broader social problem rooted in policy lag: the integration of companion animals into society has not kept pace with the rise of multispecies families. This article examines law, policy, and public discourse about ESAs within two distinct social contexts: (1) the emergence of multispecies families alongside the systemic exclusion of companion animals from many private and public spaces, and (2) the medicalization of relational bonds and everyday life. Although well-intentioned, the legal and social construction of ESAs creates a two-tiered system where caregivers of companion animals must acquire a medical diagnosis in order to obtain equal access to basic necessities like housing. In addition to resting on weak evidence, the ESA framework diverts attention from macro social issues by pathologizing the individual, creating a problematic medicalization of the human-animal bond that is ultimately detrimental to the well-being of companion animals, their caregivers, and people with disabilities. The construct is also troublingly anthropocentric, centering what animals can do for humans without considering the psychological and emotional support needs of the animals themselves. This article concludes that the anthropocentric medical model advanced by the ESA construct should be replaced with a multispecies social model that supports the human-animal bond without unnecessary medicalization. This approach advocates for equitable laws and policies, such as the expansion of pet-inclusive housing, that benefit families that include companion animals and the communities in which they are embedded.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Pets
Published
2025-11-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2040040
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.82
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Emotional Support? Law, Social Control, and the Medicalization of the Human–Animal Bond

Nicole R. Pallotta
1 citations
Pets
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
1.82
article

Emotional Support? Law, Social Control, and the Medicalization of the Human–Animal Bond

Nicole R. Pallotta
article en
1 citations

Abstract

In recent years, the socio-legal concept of emotional support animals (ESAs) has come under increasing scrutiny in the U.S. Widespread confusion about the legal status of ESAs versus service animals and concerns about misrepresentation have resulted in a backlash and a cascade of new legislation addressing “fake service animals.” However, this reaction reveals a broader social problem rooted in policy lag: the integration of companion animals into society has not kept pace with the rise of multispecies families. This article examines law, policy, and public discourse about ESAs within two distinct social contexts: (1) the emergence of multispecies families alongside the systemic exclusion of companion animals from many private and public spaces, and (2) the medicalization of relational bonds and everyday life. Although well-intentioned, the legal and social construction of ESAs creates a two-tiered system where caregivers of companion animals must acquire a medical diagnosis in order to obtain equal access to basic necessities like housing. In addition to resting on weak evidence, the ESA framework diverts attention from macro social issues by pathologizing the individual, creating a problematic medicalization of the human-animal bond that is ultimately detrimental to the well-being of companion animals, their caregivers, and people with disabilities. The construct is also troublingly anthropocentric, centering what animals can do for humans without considering the psychological and emotional support needs of the animals themselves. This article concludes that the anthropocentric medical model advanced by the ESA construct should be replaced with a multispecies social model that supports the human-animal bond without unnecessary medicalization. This approach advocates for equitable laws and policies, such as the expansion of pet-inclusive housing, that benefit families that include companion animals and the communities in which they are embedded.

PetsVol. 2(4)
Environmental Defense Fund (US), NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
1.82
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.