Contextual Biases in Judging Pregnant Rape Survivors Seeking Reproductive Healthcare in the U.S.

Objectives In the United States, abortion might be allowed under the stipulation of rape, forcing pregnant people to report their allegation to law enforcement or their physician. However, rape allegations are very seldomly made due to personal or institutional barriers. Although it is already difficult for pregnant cisgender women to access abortions under this stipulation, it might be even more difficult for pregnant people who are gender nonconforming and already subjected to prejudice and discrimination in reproductive healthcare. The current study examined whether respondents showed bias against pregnant rape survivors as a function of their gender identity, especially when they wanted to terminate their pregnancy.Methods A 4(Pregnant Survivor Gender: cisgender female, transgender male, nonbinary, cisgender female control) x 2(Decision: abortion, pregnancy) × 2 (Formal Allegation: yes, no) × 2(Participant Gender: male, female) between-subjects design was utilized. Participants read a vignette that manipulated gender identity, pregnancy decision, and whether a rape allegation was provided. They provided responses to various questions about the pregnant person, the rape allegation, and the abortion, as well as individual difference scales.Results Overall, participants’ responses indicated a bias against pregnant survivors who chose to get an abortion, and pregnant transgender men were rated as less normal than cisgender comparison targets. Factors irrelevant to the survivor’s actual rape allegation affected their credibility, such that participants believed the allegation more when the survivor kept the pregnancy compared to terminating it. Additionally, attitudes toward abortion and sexual and gender minorities were related to whether the survivors’ allegations were believed.Conclusions Negative attitudes toward gender nonconformity and abortion impacted perceptions of rape allegation believability in the current study, biases of which could potentially act as a barrier to pregnant persons accessing abortions in real life. This research has theoretical, social, and legal implications regarding social biases and potential access to abortion services.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Sexual Health
Published
2026-10-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2026.2747678
Primary Topic
Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Contextual Biases in Judging Pregnant Rape Survivors Seeking Reproductive Healthcare in the U.S.

Laura A. Pazos, Monica K. Miller
International Journal of Sexual Health
Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
article

Contextual Biases in Judging Pregnant Rape Survivors Seeking Reproductive Healthcare in the U.S.

Laura A. Pazos, Monica K. Miller
article en

Abstract

Objectives In the United States, abortion might be allowed under the stipulation of rape, forcing pregnant people to report their allegation to law enforcement or their physician. However, rape allegations are very seldomly made due to personal or institutional barriers. Although it is already difficult for pregnant cisgender women to access abortions under this stipulation, it might be even more difficult for pregnant people who are gender nonconforming and already subjected to prejudice and discrimination in reproductive healthcare. The current study examined whether respondents showed bias against pregnant rape survivors as a function of their gender identity, especially when they wanted to terminate their pregnancy.Methods A 4(Pregnant Survivor Gender: cisgender female, transgender male, nonbinary, cisgender female control) x 2(Decision: abortion, pregnancy) × 2 (Formal Allegation: yes, no) × 2(Participant Gender: male, female) between-subjects design was utilized. Participants read a vignette that manipulated gender identity, pregnancy decision, and whether a rape allegation was provided. They provided responses to various questions about the pregnant person, the rape allegation, and the abortion, as well as individual difference scales.Results Overall, participants’ responses indicated a bias against pregnant survivors who chose to get an abortion, and pregnant transgender men were rated as less normal than cisgender comparison targets. Factors irrelevant to the survivor’s actual rape allegation affected their credibility, such that participants believed the allegation more when the survivor kept the pregnancy compared to terminating it. Additionally, attitudes toward abortion and sexual and gender minorities were related to whether the survivors’ allegations were believed.Conclusions Negative attitudes toward gender nonconformity and abortion impacted perceptions of rape allegation believability in the current study, biases of which could potentially act as a barrier to pregnant persons accessing abortions in real life. This research has theoretical, social, and legal implications regarding social biases and potential access to abortion services.

International Journal of Sexual Health
University of Nevada, Reno (US), Poder Judicial de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires (AR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
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.

Laika access coming soon