10th Biennial ACSPRI Social Science Methodology Conference in conjunction with the Australian Social Network Analysis Conference (ASNAC)

In countries with widespread access to modern contraception, childbearing is, for most people, a deliberate choice. Demographic theory has often implicitly assumed that people have clearly defined preferences or desires towards children and are able to articulate their future parenthood plans. For some people, the decision does come easily and can be clearly articulated. However, a growing body of recent theoretical and empirical work suggests that reproductive decisions often involve a significant degree of ambivalence around childbearing desires, and uncertainty regarding fertility intentions.

The study analyses text data, consisting of posts and comments, from an online community on Reddit which is dedicated specifically to individuals who are struggling with the decision of whether or not to embark into parenthood, or to have another child. This corpus represents a large-scale, self-initiated, and naturalistic account of fertility decision and provides a rare opportunity to understand the nature of ambivalence and uncertainty around parenthood and childbearing . Using ‘close reading’ and qualitative thematic analysis, and incorporating insights from the social psychological field of decision making theory we identify the key recurring patterns of ambivalence and sources of uncertainty in the fertility decision making , and the strategies people use to navigate them.

Preliminary findings point to the important influence of cognitive biases, including status quo bias and loss aversion, alongside distinct decision-making styles (rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, spontaneous). This study extends existing demographic frameworks and offers new insight into the lived experience of reproductive indecision.

In many high-income countries like Australia, concerns about low birth rates have emerged as a significant issue, evident in public and political discourse. However, worries about declining family sizes and young people not having children are not a new phenomenon; rather they have been a persistent concern throughout Australia's history since Federation. By analysing 125 years of Australian federal parliamentary Hansard transcripts (1901–2026), we examine the historical political framing of low birth rates as a concern, how birth rate trends have been interpreted and evidenced, and the evolution of explanations for fertility decline.

The Hansard from both the Senate and House of Representatives, from the 1st of January 1901 to 1st July 2026, was searched for relevant discussions using key terms including: ‘birth rate(s)’, ‘fertility’, ‘natural increase’, ‘having children’, and ‘family size’. After excluding material not related to human birth rates, the corpus consisted of 1,802 speeches from 921 individual speakers. The texts were analysed using close reading, or qualitative content analysis. The analysis was organised around two frameworks: Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework and Bacchi's ‘What's the Problem Represented to Be?’. These frameworks guided us in examining the conditions under which low birth rates were identified as a matter of policy concern and how the ‘problem’ was framed once it became part of debates.

We find that the nature of concern regarding low birth rates has shifted over time. In the early 20th century, low birth rates were linked to national security fears surrounding geopolitical vulnerabilities, as a small population was deemed susceptible to invasion. By the early 2000s, the discourse shifted to economic anxieties, particularly about ageing populations, influenced notably by the 2002 Intergenerational Report. More recently, the framing has evolved to focus on reproductive choice and intergenerational equity, with low birth rates seen as a signal that young people cannot achieve the families they want. The salience of birth rates as a topic of political concern has also depended on whether it was seen as amenable to policy.

Discussions around the causal explanations for low birth rates also evolved significantly over time. In the early decades, low birth rates were seen as a moral problem rooted in societal selfishness. This view then shifted with economic and structural explanations increasingly being favoured, including the high cost of living and housing, and more recently also work-family imbalance. This shift was accompanied by a change in underlying assumptions about fertility desires. Moral explanations treated low fertility as reflecting what people wanted, while later accounts emphasised a gap between desired and achieved family size. Throughout, the whole period a persistent partisan asymmetry is also noticeable. Regardless of which party held office, opposition speakers were more likely to emphasise economic constraints, while government speakers were more likely to invoke complexity, cultural change or individual choice.

We also find that while early discussions relied on simple measures, over time increasingly sophisticated statistics and understanding of trends became the norm. Despite the more precise and sophisticated data, demographic trends are still typically discussed as acute crises marked by successive ‘record lows’ rather than as part of a long-run decline. By tracing how these narratives have emerged, competed, and evolved over more than a century of Australian parliamentary debate, this paper provides a historical foundation for more critically informed engagement with the fertility policy debates now underway across the developed world.