香京julia种子在线播放

We extracted effect sizes on the strength of the association between either legal variation, parental legal status, or country of residence and any of our specified outcomes (i.e., parent and child health, family functioning, child educational attainment) from quantitative studies. Although not preregistered, we also extracted effect sizes on predictors of law-related health outcomes (e.g., predictors of worrying about legal status, Reeves, 2011). As expected, effect sizes were too conceptually dissimilar to be meta-analyzed but are reported for illustrative purposes. Coding information and forest plots are provided in the OSF-Supplements S4 and S5.

We chose a data-based convergent design (Hong et al., 2017) to synthesize primary study results, which has been shown to be particularly suitable for generating frameworks or theories, the overall aim of our review. Here, a single synthesis method is used to synthesize results from both qualitative and quantitative studies by either “qualitizing” quantitative findings (by grouping them into themes) or “quantitizing” qualitative findings (by assigning them numerical values; Sandelowski et al., 2006; Hong et al., 2017).

Specifically, we chose to “qualitize” findings by using thematic synthesis (Thomas and Harden, 2008) based on our preliminary literature search that indicated a large share of studies using a qualitative approach. Our final sample composition (76% qualitative studies) corroborated this choice.

Thematic synthesis follows three steps, namely descriptive line-by-line coding, the generation of descriptive themes, and the generation of analytical themes that go beyond the data (Thomas and Harden, 2008). Based on the substantial number of possibly eligible studies, we employed a purposive sampling approach to derive a pilot sample of studies that served as the basis for developing an initial thematic codebook. To generate a rich set of codes, we aimed to maximize heterogeneity of included studies in this pilot sample with regard to populations, methodology, investigated laws, and outcomes. The pilot sample included the following seven studies: Boertien and Bernardi (2019), Butterfield and Padavic (2014), Goldberg et al. (2013), Hequembourg (2004), Malmquist et al. (2020), Ollen and Goldberg (2016), and Zhabenko (2019).

The first three authors independently performed inductive line-by-line coding of these studies' results sections and generated a first set of codes. During this early stage, we already placed codes within three groups (later defined as our analytical themes): (i) Codes that were concerned with the impact of laws, (ii) codes that were concerned with counteractions families engaged in to mitigate this impact, and (iii) codes that described possible moderators of this impact. For impact-related codes, we specified the valence (positive, negative, no effect). For codes relating to counteractions, we also extracted reasons not to engage in this counteraction or side-effects of this counteraction.

The resulting codebook was circulated among all researchers and iteratively refined. To facilitate integration with existing minority stress and family theories, codes were labeled in line with terminology used within these frameworks where possible.

Consequently, result sections of remaining studies were assigned codes using a deductive-inductive approach. That is, we chose to assign codes based on our initial codebook where possible but allowed for new codes to emerge. In quantitative studies, results from hypothesis tests of interest to our review were assigned codes. In qualitative studies, quotes from individual participants and study authors' interpretations or descriptions of themes were assigned codes. Including individual participants' quotes ensured the inclusion of studies not primarily concerned with the impact of laws or legal recognition or of studies that did not report higher-order themes relevant to the review.

The first author coded all studies and refined the codebook by collapsing or further differentiating codes. Due to the heterogenous sociolegal climate described in these studies, we chose to code every study at the lowest (i.e., the code) level. The refined codebook was again circulated among all researchers.

Separating the impact of sexual orientation laws from the impact of societal prejudice, general legal challenges for stepfamilies, or lacking biological ties to a child posed a challenge during coding. Arguably, the compound impact of these related (but distinct) phenomena makes a differentiation impossible for research participants themselves. We employed a conservative coding strategy and only included quotes and study authors' statements that explicitly referenced the impact of laws or (lacking) legal recognition. While this certainly resulted in a loss of codable data, it strengthens the validity of our results.

The first and second author independently coded 36% of studies according to the final codebook (OSF-Supplement S6). Remaining studies were coded by the first author and the assignment of codes was validated by the second author. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion within the research team.

After completion of coding, we developed and critically discussed broader descriptive themes. While being firmly grounded in primary study results, we assigned theme labels again in line with minority stress and family theories. Lastly, three overarching analytical themes were developed that reflected our initial grouping (i.e., impact-related themes, counteractions, moderators).

We conducted a negative case analysis after completion of coding (Yardley, 2015) to ensure methodological rigor. Here, researchers explicitly search for cases that contradict their theoretical prediction. Empirical evidence and theory (Meyer, 2003; Hatzenbuehler, 2016) predict a positive impact of favorable legal change and, conversely, a negative impact of lacking legal recognition or criminalizing legislation. Thus, we identified coded units concerned with a negative impact of favorable legal change or a positive impact of unfavorable legislation.

According to the classification of research synthesis by Suri (2013), we adopt a positivist approach, which is characterized by objectivity, rigorous systematization, and empiricism, to conceptualize our systematic review and to derive an overarching model. This is reflected in our preregistered protocol, our exhaustive sampling approach, and our standardized coding materials and procedures. Although our predominantly qualitative evidence base would allow for a more interpretative approach (e.g., Eaves, 2001), we see our model as guiding primarily quantitative, inherently positivist, study designs.

Our final database comprised 633 coded units of data (M = 11.51, SD = 9.67, range = 1–50 per study). Taking into account multiple assignments of codes in one study, this amounted to 458 individual codes (M = 8.33, SD = 5.7, range = 1–22 per study). Thirty-five coded units stemmed from quantitative studies, from which we extracted 68 effect sizes (see OSF-Supplements S4 and S5 for numerical results and forest plots).

We identified 50 codes that we grouped into 13 descriptive themes and three analytical themes (see Table 4 for code frequencies and OSF-Supplement S9 for a correlation matrix). Detailed code descriptions and citation examples can be found in the OSF-Supplement S10. The most frequent codes (code and theme labels italicized) across studies were Legal-Financial Security (coded in 47% of studies), (Frustration with) Discrimination and Unequal Treatment (45%), and Legal Documents and Paper Trails and Reaction of Others (40% each). Six codes were only coded in one study each (2%): Acquiescence, Creation of Emotional Dependency, Creation of Financial Dependency, Emotion Regulation (Self) (all Butterfield and Padavic, 2014), Relationship with Wider Social Network (Vyncke and Julien, 2007), and School Progress (Boertien and Bernardi, 2019).

See OSF-Supplement S10 for detailed descriptions of codes and themes. The essence of our thematic synthesis is summarized below.

The analytical theme Impact (376 coded units) incorporates themes related to the impact of sexual orientation laws, most often those that regulate the legal recognition of family relationships. These themes relate to the impact on aspects of family life and relationships (e.g., division of parenting tasks, feelings of parental and family legitimacy, family relationships; descriptive theme Family), predictors and outcomes related to the health and well-being of family members (Health, Well-Being, and Security; Minority Stress; Safety Concerns), and child educational outcomes (Education). This analytical theme also incorporates the perception of no impact of legislation on any area of life or the insufficient or even detrimental consequences of (positive) legal change (General). It should be noted that only in two qualitative studies (Ollen and Goldberg, 2016; Malmquist et al., 2020), participants expressed that lacking legal recognition did not impact any area of their or their family members' life (see also Table 4). In both cases, the coded units from these studies referred to children.

The analytical theme Moderator (122 coded units) describes how some families or family members are impacted more than others due to contextual (Contextual Factors), familial (Family Characteristics), couple-level (Couple Characteristics), and individual factors (Individual Differences).

The analytical theme Counteraction (135 coded units) is concerned with the numerous counteractions on the personal (Within Person), familial (Within Family), and systemic (Within System) level that same-sex parent families engage in to alleviate the impact of sexual orientation laws on their relationships, their financial and legal security, and their health and well-being.

We identified eleven coded units from nine studies (3% of impact statements) in our negative case analysis (see OSF-Supplement S11). These include losing financial benefits due to legal change (e.g., single parent benefits, n = 2), growth of resilience, pride, and an improved parent-child relationship due to legal disadvantages (n = 2), negative effects of increased outness due to marriage or a positive effect of total concealment (n = 3), marginalization of same-sex couples not wanting to marry (n = 2), and exacerbated custody disputes due to a formal relationship recognition (n = 2).

Minority Stress Theory (Meyer, 2003) posits that sexual minorities face unique, chronic, and socially based stressors due to their societally marginalized status. These stressors account for their heightened vulnerability to experiencing adverse (mental) health outcomes (e.g., Lick et al., 2013; Plöderl and Tremblay, 2015). Located on a distal-proximal continuum, minority stressors include stressful events such as experiencing discrimination, but also behaviors and cognitions such as internalized homonegativity, expectations of rejection, or sexual orientation concealment (Meyer, 2003). Importantly, minority stress theory and its application in therapeutic practice (Pachankis, 2015) assume minority stress to affect shared pathways across disorders which are susceptible to stress.

The Psychological Mediation Framework (Hatzenbuehler, 2009) elucidates psychological pathways through which minority stressors impact (mental) health outcomes. It posits that general psychological processes, such as emotional dysregulation (e.g., rumination, hypervigilance), social problems (e.g., isolation), and maladaptive cognitive processes and schemas (e.g., hopelessness) mediate the association between minority stressors and (mental) health.

The Rejection Sensitivity Model (Feinstein, 2020) complements minority stress theory and the psychological mediation framework by formalizing rejection sensitivity as a (proximal) minority stressor. It is theorized to affect mental health via a combination of cognitive (i.e., expecting rejection, interpreting ambiguous situations as evidence of rejection) and affective processes (i.e., anxiety or anger about experiencing future rejection).

The Couple-Level Minority Stress Model (LeBlanc et al., 2015) extends minority stress theory by stipulating that individual minority stressors have an equivalent on the couple level. These include discrimination due to being visible as a couple (i.e., experiences of discrimination), beliefs about the relationship being less valuable (i.e., internalized homonegativity), or concealing the romantic nature of the relationship in public (i.e., sexual orientation concealment; LeBlanc et al., 2015). The model also considers dyadic minority stress processes between partners, including minority stress discrepancies, contagion, and proliferation (LeBlanc et al., 2015).

Family Systems Theory conceptualizes the family as an organized whole, where family members (and consequently their behaviors, cognitions, and emotions) are mutually interdependent (Minuchin, 1974). Thus, from a systemic perspective, the behaviors and well-being of an individual family member can only be understood in relation to their location within the family system and its interrelations.

The Coparenting Model (Feinberg, 2003) provides a formalization of coparenting (i.e., the cooperation, coordination, and mutual support in child rearing by parents) as a central executive subsystem of the family. It comprises four coparenting dimensions, namely joint family management, division of labor, childrearing agreement, and supporting/undermining the partner, as well as individual (e.g., parental self-efficacy), familial (e.g., the interparental relationship), and ecological predictors (e.g., financial resources) of coparenting.

We propose that legal vulnerability exacerbates well-established minority stressors (e.g., discrimination, sexual orientation concealment, and rejection sensitivity; P.1) but also constitutes an independent minority stressor that impacts health-related outcomes and mediating psychological processes directly (P.2). Pathways P.3 and P.4 depict these mediational pathways (as theorized in the Psychological Mediation Framework; Hatzenbuehler, 2009) that link minority stress and (mental) health. These mechanisms are discussed in detail elsewhere (Hatzenbuehler, 2009) but included for the sake of completeness. Similarly, associations between sexual orientation laws and minority stress or mental health outcomes on the individual level (i.e., unrelated to parental status) are not the focus of this model but are hypothesized to impact parental health (as described elsewhere, e.g., Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010; Berg et al., 2013; Pachankis and Bränström, 2018).

P.1: Minority Stress. Legal vulnerability adds structural facets to well-established minority stressors such as discrimination, sexual orientation concealment, and rejection sensitivity. With regard to discrimination, evidence within our review suggests that members of same-sex parent families experience various discriminatory instances within the legal system or as a consequence of lacking legal recognition of family relationships (e.g., Kazyak, 2015; Park et al., 2016; Gash and Raiskin, 2018), as well as feelings of unequal treatment (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2013; Maxwell and Kelsey, 2014; Bacchus, 2018).

We found evidence that legal vulnerability can lead to concealment of the parents' sexual orientation or the parental role (e.g., Sobočan, 2013; Messina and D'Amore, 2018; Zhabenko, 2019), particularly so in hostile or criminalizing environments. In these instances (see our negative case analysis) concealment was sometimes preferred over the risks to personal safety associated with living authentically (Denman, 2016; Zhabenko, 2019). This adds to our understanding of the multifaceted nature of sexual orientation concealment, which can be beneficial to sexual minorities in highly stigmatizing environments (Pachankis et al., 2020). Some evidence in our review also suggests that legal vulnerability is associated with an increased selectivity in sexual orientation concealment, with same-sex parent families remaining open to their families of origin, but less so to people in the wider social network (Vyncke and Julien, 2007; Vučković Juroš, 2019b; Zhabenko, 2019). Conversely, decreased legal vulnerability (e.g., through a recognized parental relationship) may lead to increased outness and visibility as a member of a same-sex parent family (e.g., through being visible as a married couple).

Legal vulnerability also adds a structural facet to rejection sensitivity (Feinstein, 2020). Based on the evidence provided in our review, we propose that legal vulnerability is associated with rejection sensitivity toward the legal system (i.e., legal rejection sensitivity): Within our evidence base, this legal rejection sensitivity took the form of (anxiously) expecting that legal documents will not hold up in court (e.g., McClellan, 2001; Bergen et al., 2006; Goldberg et al., 2013), expectations of prejudicial treatment by actors within the legal system or the state (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2014; Gash and Raiskin, 2018; Wheeler et al., 2018; Zhabenko, 2019), distrust in the state or foreign jurisdictions recognizing the family structure (e.g., when traveling; Bergen et al., 2006; Gartrell et al., 2019), or questioning the motivation behind (e.g., Rawsthorne, 2013) or the permanency of progressive legal change (i.e., expecting a backlash; Goldberg et al., 2013; Denman, 2016).

Similar to individual rejection sensitivity (Feinstein, 2020), we propose that legal rejection sensitivity incorporates cognitive and affective components. The instances (i.e., the rejection within the legal system or its actors) outlined above are not only expected, but also anxiously anticipated. Pervasive safety concerns found within our review illustrate this anxious expectation of legal rejection that members in same-sex parent families experience due to their legal vulnerability (e.g., Shapiro et al., 2009; Rostosky et al., 2010; Goldberg et al., 2013; Kazyak, 2015; DiGregorio, 2016; Zhabenko, 2019). Conversely, strong institutional support through anti-discrimination laws and legal recognition of relationships might reduce legal rejection sensitivity, as evidence from our review suggests (Vučković Juroš, 2019b).

We did not find evidence for a link between legal vulnerability and internalized homonegativity (see Reeves, 2011, for the only and non-significant association). However, internalized homonegativity bears resemblance to feelings of decreased parental legitimacy due to lacking legal validation (e.g., Butterfield and Padavic, 2014; Malmquist, 2015; Gash and Raiskin, 2018). Specifically, negative societal messages about parenting capabilities (and rights) of same-sex parents could be internalized, which may lead to similar feelings of guilt and shame or other adverse mental health outcomes as internalized homonegativity on the individual level (Newcomb and Mustanski, 2010).

P.2: General Psychological Processes and Health Outcomes. We found evidence that legal vulnerability targets psychological processes (e.g., rumination or hypervigilance, social problems, maladaptive cognitive processes such as hopelessness) theorized to mediate the association between minority stress and (mental) health (Hatzenbuehler, 2009).

Ruminative tendencies are reflected in various and consuming safety concerns that parents experience as a consequence of their legal vulnerability. Within our review, these included concerns about the family's cohesion (e.g., Hequembourg and Farrell, 1999; McClellan, 2001; Bergen et al., 2006; Rawsthorne, 2013; Gash and Raiskin, 2018; Zhabenko, 2019), legal-financial security (e.g., Shapiro et al., 2009; Rostosky et al., 2010; Reeves, 2011), and their own or their family members' well-being (e.g., Padavic and Butterfield, 2011; Malmquist, 2015; Zhabenko, 2019).

Legal vulnerability is also associated with hypervigilance because of the non-recognized, ambiguous, or criminalized legal status of the family (members). This hypervigilance manifested itself in diverse ways within our review, for example by always having important legal documents at hand (e.g., Park et al., 2016; Gash and Raiskin, 2018; Gartrell et al., 2019; Zhabenko, 2019), being vigilant about when and where to publicly display the family structure (Vučković Juroš, 2019b; Zhabenko, 2019), or about a possible relationship dissolution that could entail loss of contact to a non-legal child (Butterfield and Padavic, 2014).

Legal vulnerability might also be associated with social support from people outside the family unit, particularly the family of origin, as evidence suggests (e.g., Hequembourg and Farrell, 1999; Hequembourg, 2004; Zamperini et al., 2016). This association was also found in other qualitative studies on the impact of marriage legislation, interestingly in all directions (i.e., increased support, continued support, continued non-acceptance; Rothblum et al., 2011; Kennedy et al., 2018; Riggle et al., 2018).

Lastly, legal vulnerability might amplify maladaptive cognitive processes such as feelings of invisibility, hope- and powerlessness. In studies within our review, these feelings were directed toward the state or legal system (e.g., Gash and Raiskin, 2018), but also toward the family unit, for example in non-legal parents with regard to parenting decisions (Butterfield and Padavic, 2014), or after a relationship dissolution (that results in a loss of contact with the legally unrecognized child, Kazyak, 2015).

The evidence found in our review also points to direct effects on parental health (but see Vyncke and Julien, 2007). Apart from the various safety concerns same-sex parent families experience, this includes feelings of stress, anger, frustration, and fear due to legally not recognized relationships or dealing with a discriminatory legal system (e.g., Ross et al., 2005; Butterfield and Padavic, 2014; Goldberg et al., 2014; Chamberlain et al., 2015; Kazyak, 2015). Conversely, we found that a positive legal shift is associated with positive emotions (e.g., relief, increased feelings of security; Short, 2007; Goldberg et al., 2013, 2014).

The economic consequences of sexual orientation legislation on the individual (Ash and Badgett, 2006) or the macro-level (Badgett et al., 2019) are beyond the scope of our review. However, we propose that legal vulnerability impacts parental health indirectly through material and financial burdens. The impact of legal vulnerability on the family's legal-financial security was indeed the most frequently assigned code in our review (found in 47% of studies). The health-related benefits of economic well-being are well-documented (Pampel et al., 2010; Phelan et al., 2010), and we propose that access to a partner's insurance, property, or inheritance via legally recognized relationships might be similarly beneficial for parental health.

We propose that legal vulnerability also impacts parental health through minority-specific (P.5) and general (P.6) psychological processes that parents experience jointly, as well as through mediating pathways linking minority stress to health outcomes (P.7). To conceptualize these effects, we draw on the couple minority stress model (LeBlanc et al., 2015).

P.5: Couple Level Minority Stress. We propose that individual minority stressors as a consequence of legal vulnerability also have an equivalent on the couple level. Specifically, these correspond to the minority stressors outlined in pathway P.1. We argue that they target parents both as individuals and as joint members of the parental unit, as the experience of them is contingent on their parental role.

P.6: General Relational Stress. In our review, we found preliminary evidence that legal vulnerability impacts general relational stress, for example due to conflicts that result out of (legal) power differentials between parents (Butterfield and Padavic, 2014). We discuss these mechanisms in section Impact of Legal Vulnerability on Family Functioning and Child Outcomes, where family relations are conceptualized as outcomes in their own right.

Of note, no study in our review directly addressed the impact of legal vulnerability on the mediating role of minority stress in impaired relationship functioning or general relational stress (P.7). We include this pathway for the sake of completeness (see LeBlanc et al., 2015; Cao et al., 2017) and to guide future research questions.

Our review suggests that the legal recognition of the interparental or the parent-child relationship is associated with increased feelings of family legitimacy, stability, normalcy, and cohesion for all family members (Short, 2007; Porche and Purvin, 2008; Goldberg and Kuvalanka, 2012; DiGregorio, 2016; Gash and Raiskin, 2018; Malmquist et al., 2020), and also in the perception of others (e.g., Hequembourg and Farrell, 1999; Rawsthorne, 2013; Vučković Juroš, 2019b; Stambolis-Ruhstorfer and Descoutures, 2020). Conversely, lacking legal recognition has been described as being associated with feelings of diminished family legitimacy, notably only with regard to others, in studies within our review (Goldberg and Allen, 2013; Gash and Raiskin, 2018).

We propose that legal vulnerability impacts the interparental relationship due to direct and indirect effects: First, lacking legal recognition of the interparental relationship (through marriage or civil unions) may translate into a lack of pre-defined relational roles for same-sex relationships (e.g., Zamperini et al., 2016). While we found only scant evidence for this hypothesis in our review, this notion has also been put forward with regard to relationship uncertainty and ambiguity in a shifting sociopolitical climate for sexual minorities (Monk and Ogolsky, 2019). Conversely, legal recognition was found to strengthen the interparental relationship by publicly signaling love and commitment (e.g., Taylor, 2011; Kimport, 2013). However, legal recognition of the interparental relationship was frequently not found to be necessary for a loving and committed relationship (e.g., Vyncke and Julien, 2007; Goldberg and Kuvalanka, 2012; Kimport, 2013; DiGregorio, 2016).

Second, we found evidence within our review that the consequences of an unrecognized parent-child relationship might spill over into the interparental relationship due to a legal power differential between parents (e.g., Padavic and Butterfield, 2011; Butterfield and Padavic, 2014). Coupled with an unequal division of parenting tasks due to this legal power differential (e.g., Kazyak, 2015; Malmquist, 2015; Bacchus, 2018; Zhabenko, 2019), this can result in dependency, interparental conflict, and maladaptive counteractions (Padavic and Butterfield, 2011; Butterfield and Padavic, 2014). Conversely, evidence within our review suggests that legal recognition of the parent-child relationship prevents these consequences (Malmquist, 2015). Third, individual psychological strain due to legal vulnerability in the parent-child relationship (e.g., a worrying non-legal parent) can translate into strain on the interparental relationship, as evidenced in one study within our review (Butterfield and Padavic, 2014).

Drawing on the coparenting model (Feinberg, 2003), we propose that legal vulnerability impacts the way parents relate to each other in their child-rearing. Most evidently in our review, legal vulnerability impacted division of (parenting) labor, when the non-legal parent was unable to take on responsibilities that required a legal guardian (e.g., signing documents, taking the child to medical appointments, e.g., Surtees, 2011; Maxwell and Kelsey, 2014; Kazyak, 2015; Malmquist, 2015; Bacchus, 2018; Zhabenko, 2019, but see Polaškova, 2007). However, we propose that legal vulnerability may also impact other coparenting dimensions either directly or through interparental conflict (F.4). Further direct effects include instances where the legal parent takes over important parenting decisions (i.e., child-rearing agreement, e.g., Padavic and Butterfield, 2011), or undermines the parental role of the non-legal parent (i.e., support/undermining).

No study in our review investigated the impact of impaired coparenting due to legal vulnerability on child outcomes directly (F.5). However, the general association between coparenting and child outcomes is a well-established finding in the family literature for both mixed-sex (Teubert and Pinquart, 2010; McHale and Lindahl, 2011) and same-sex parent families (Farr and Patterson, 2013; Farr et al., 2019).

Important determinants of coparenting are individual parenting behaviors and aspects of parental adjustment, such as parental self-efficacy and parental mental health (Feinberg, 2003). Based on the evidence within our review (e.g., Surtees, 2011; Rawsthorne, 2013; Malmquist, 2015; Bacchus, 2018; Gash and Raiskin, 2018), we propose that legal vulnerability might impact parental self-efficacy of the non-legal parent in particular through feelings of parental illegitimacy, and legally determined constraints to engage in parenting (e.g., being able to take parental leave; Ross et al., 2005).

Within the studies included in our review, the impact of legal vulnerability on the parent-child relationship was most noticeable in the case of relationship dissolutions (Goldberg and Allen, 2013; Malmquist et al., 2020), when the non-legal parent's means to gain custody for the child are limited or inexistent. Without informal agreements between parents (Goldberg and Allen, 2013), this was reported to result in a loss of contact to the child (similarly in case of death or incapacity of the legal parent)—a pervasive fear for non-legal parents (e.g., Hequembourg and Farrell, 1999; McClellan, 2001; DiGregorio, 2016; Bacchus, 2018). As described above, this fear can permeate family relationships even before a relationship dissolution, and, in some instances, lead to increased caution on the side of the non-legal parent with regard to the relationship with the child (McClellan, 2001; Padavic and Butterfield, 2011).

Conversely, the legal validation of the parent-child relationship (e.g., through a second-parent adoption) can serve to validate the relationship between parents and children, as evidence suggests (Goldberg et al., 2013, 2014; Gash and Raiskin, 2018). The joint efforts to mitigate legal disadvantages was also reported as strengthening the parent-child relationship (Gash and Raiskin, 2018). Some evidence also suggests that the legal recognition of the interparental relationship might strengthen the parental role of the non-legal parent (particularly in stepfamilies; Goldberg and Kuvalanka, 2012).

Similar to the impact on the parent-child-relationship, legal vulnerability can affect the sibling relationship after a parental relationship dissolution. Specifically, siblings with different legal parents might be reared apart (see Goldberg and Allen, 2013; Malmquist et al., 2020, for evidence within our review).

Children might experience stressors related to the lacking legal recognition of family relationships or the criminalization of their parents' sexual orientation. Within our review, this included feelings of reduced family legitimacy (F.1), but also experiences of discrimination (Bos et al., 2008; Goldberg and Kuvalanka, 2012; Goldberg and Allen, 2013; Goldberg et al., 2013) or concealment of their family structure (Bos et al., 2008; Goldberg and Kuvalanka, 2012; Messina and D'Amore, 2018; Zhabenko, 2019). No study in our review tested the impact of experiencing these legal vulnerability-related stressors on child health. However, evidence on the impact of general minority-related stressors in children with same-sex parents bolsters this assumption (Gartrell et al., 2005; Bos and van Balen, 2008; Koh et al., 2019). Some evidence within our review suggests that legal vulnerability (or associated structural factors) might indeed pose a risk to children's well-being and adjustment directly (Bos et al., 2008; Goldberg and Kuvalanka, 2012; Lick et al., 2012; Goldberg et al., 2013).

Only one study in our review investigated the impact of sexual orientation laws on children's educational attainment using eight waves of data from the large-scale American Community Survey (Boertien and Bernardi, 2019). This study found no evidence of an association between state-wide marriage laws (or anti-discrimination legislation) on children's school progress in same-sex parent families. This is in line with meta-analytic (Fedewa et al., 2015), representative (e.g., Rosenfeld, 2010; Potter, 2012), and non-representative (e.g., Gartrell and Bos, 2010) evidence suggesting that (when controlling for important confounders such as family transitions or socioeconomic status) parental sexual orientation is not associated with adverse academic or cognitive outcomes for children (see Boertien and Bernardi, 2019, for a detailed methodological review).

The impact of legal vulnerability on parental outcomes (see above) may have indirect ramifications for child adjustment. Specifically, a plethora of studies established that impaired parental mental health (Goodman et al., 2011; van Santvoort et al., 2015), interparental conflict (Rhoades, 2008; Van Eldik et al., 2020), negative parent-child relationships (Erel and Burman, 1995; Popov and Ilesanmi, 2015), dysfunctional parenting (McLeod et al., 2007; Yap and Jorm, 2015), low parental self-efficacy (Albanese et al., 2019), and coparenting problems (Margolin et al., 2001; Teubert and Pinquart, 2010) belong to the primary family risk factors for child development. These indirect effects of legal vulnerability on child outcomes have yet to be tested empirically as no study in our review addressed them.

While not focal to our review, we also propose that the economic and legal disadvantages of unrecognized family relationships (e.g., lack of health insurance, Gonzales and Blewett, 2013) and, conversely, increased legal and financial security of the family (e.g., Goldberg and Kuvalanka, 2012; Gartrell et al., 2019; Malmquist et al., 2020) impact children's health and well-being. This robust association between parental socioeconomic status and child health is outlined in detail elsewhere (Repetti et al., 2002; Conger et al., 2010).

Evidence within our review suggests that family members engage in person-centered counteractions such as emotion regulation (Butterfield and Padavic, 2014), seeking legal information (e.g., to protect their family or to regulate their emotions by looking for positive legal change in other countries; e.g., Dalton and Bielby, 2000; Short, 2007; Kazyak, 2015; Ollen and Goldberg, 2016), or questioning heteronormativity within legislation and family models (e.g., Hequembourg, 2004; Short, 2007; Rawsthorne, 2013; Zamperini et al., 2016; Vučković Juroš, 2019a).

Family members engage in counteractions to mitigate legal vulnerability in other family members, as evidence within our review suggests. These relate to emotion regulation (e.g., parents instilling pride in their children about their family; e.g., Goldberg et al., 2013; Butterfield and Padavic, 2014; Maxwell and Kelsey, 2014; Ollen and Goldberg, 2016), emphasizing equal parenting (Goldberg and Allen, 2013; Malmquist et al., 2020), or creating legal dependency between family members (e.g., by obtaining second-parent adoption in the absence of legal partnership options; e.g., Hequembourg and Farrell, 1999; Dalton and Bielby, 2000; Acosta, 2017; Wheeler et al., 2018; Stambolis-Ruhstorfer and Descoutures, 2020).

Of note, three counteractions stem from only one study included in our pilot sample (Butterfield and Padavic, 2014). These counteractions are linked to the interparental relationship and focus on minimizing the probability of a relationship dissolution (which would entail loss of contact between the non-legal parent and the child). They entail the creation of emotional (e.g., by reducing other support systems or isolation of the partner) and financial dependency (e.g., by being the sole breadwinner), or acquiescing to the partner's wishes.

Family members engage in counteractions that are directed toward people or institutions outside the family unit. Within studies in our review, this entailed (legally) securing the family structure through obtaining wills or power of attorney (not surprisingly the most frequent counteraction; e.g., Dalton and Bielby, 2000; Bergen et al., 2006; Rostosky et al., 2016; Gash and Raiskin, 2018; Zhabenko, 2019), temporal or permanent relocation to gain legal security or recognition (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2013; Maxwell and Kelsey, 2014; Kazyak, 2015; Park et al., 2016) or safety (e.g., by seeking asylum; Zhabenko, 2019), or by concealing the family structure out of safety concerns (Zhabenko, 2019).

Evidence suggests that families also choose to ignore legal limitations (e.g., a non-legal parent acting as a legal guardian; e.g., Rawsthorne, 2013; Wheeler et al., 2018) or engage in symbolic actions such as commitment ceremonies or sharing the same last name (e.g., Bergen et al., 2006; DiGregorio, 2016; Zamperini et al., 2016; Bacchus, 2018; Wheeler et al., 2018). Families also advocate for legal change (Dalton and Bielby, 2000; Brown et al., 2009; Park et al., 2016; Gash and Raiskin, 2018; Wheeler et al., 2018), or actively engage other people in their family life (e.g., to create allyship or convey guardianship arrangements in the case of the legal parent's death; Dalton and Bielby, 2000; Butterfield and Padavic, 2014; Park et al., 2016; Gash and Raiskin, 2018).

None of the counteractions above provide the legal protection that would be automatically conferred by law and some may even have negative ramifications as our review suggests. Particularly strategies related to securing the family structure via other means were considered to be (too) costly, time-consuming, frustrating, or shameful (e.g., Rostosky et al., 2010; Denman, 2016; Bacchus, 2018; Gash and Raiskin, 2018). Other counteractions were described as inducing guilt, such as including a child in concealing the family structure (Messina and D'Amore, 2018), or creating financial or emotional dependency in a partner to prevent a relationship dissolution (Butterfield and Padavic, 2014).

First, our review identified important actors outside the family (see Figure 2) who can ignore or emphasize lacking legal ties between family members. By doing so, they alleviated or exacerbated legal vulnerability, for example judges and notaries concerned with second-parent adoptions or notarizing important documents (e.g., DiGregorio, 2016; Gash and Raiskin, 2018; Zhabenko, 2019), border control agents questioning the family structure (Gash and Raiskin, 2018; Vučković Juroš, 2019b), healthcare staff or teachers in their regard of non-legal parents (e.g., Polaškova, 2007; Surtees, 2011; Goldberg and Allen, 2013; Malmquist et al., 2020), or (un-)supportive families of origin (e.g., Hequembourg and Farrell, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2013; Vučković Juroš, 2019b).

Second, anecdotal evidence from other families experiencing legal disadvantages (e.g., Surtees, 2011; Goldberg and Kuvalanka, 2012; Butterfield and Padavic, 2014; Gash and Raiskin, 2018) or, conversely, lacking role models for same-sex parents (Sobočan, 2013) were found to exacerbate or mitigate the impact of lacking legal recognition, particularly with regard to safety concerns and worries. Due to lacking norms, rituals, and language for same-sex parent families in general (see e.g., Hall and Kitson, 2000), as well as an ambiguous legal climate (DiGregorio, 2016), we propose that these families might be particularly reliant on anecdotal evidence in navigating the legal system.

Third, the impact of legal recognition fluctuates in everyday family life. Within our review, it was found to be more salient while traveling (e.g., Gash and Raiskin, 2018; Vučković Juroš, 2019b), in a medical emergency (Bergen et al., 2006; Gash and Raiskin, 2018), or after a relationship dissolution (Hequembourg and Farrell, 1999; Goldberg and Allen, 2013; Malmquist et al., 2020). Thus, while legal vulnerability is defined as enduring, its influence varies and is exacerbated in situations where legal ties are (expected to be) relevant.

Characteristics of the family may moderate the impact of legal vulnerability or the family's ability to engage in counteractions. We found that different family types, such as planned (Polaškova, 2007), foster (Goldberg et al., 2013), or stepfamilies (Gash and Raiskin, 2018), may experience different ramifications of lacking legal recognition (e.g., stepfamilies with a second legal parent outside the family unit). Additionally, evidence suggests that family members may experience lacking legal recognition differently, for example a non-legal parent being impacted more directly by legal vulnerability (e.g., Padavic and Butterfield, 2011; Kazyak, 2015; Wheeler et al., 2018), or a child who is unknowing of the family's legal status (e.g., Ollen and Goldberg, 2016).

Moderating characteristics on the couple level found in our review are the gender of the couple (e.g., Taylor, 2011; Goldberg et al., 2013), and their socioeconomic status (which enables the engagement in many counteractions, particularly those related to legally securing the family structure; e.g., Taylor, 2011; Goldberg and Kuvalanka, 2012; Kazyak, 2015; DiGregorio, 2016).

Characteristics of the parents, including age (Reeves, 2011), personality traits (e.g., optimism, Ollen and Goldberg, 2016), minority stress experiences (Goldberg and Smith, 2011; Ollen and Goldberg, 2016), history of migration (Vučković Juroš, 2019b), past experiences with the legal system (McClellan, 2001; Butterfield and Padavic, 2014; Goldberg et al., 2014), as well as characteristics of the child, such as age (McClellan, 2001; Ollen and Goldberg, 2016) or gender (Bos et al., 2008; Goldberg and Kuvalanka, 2012), may moderate the impact of legal vulnerability or their ability to engage in counteractions, as our review suggests. Furthermore, the awareness about the current legal situation or the family's legal status may moderate their impact on family members (e.g., children being unaware about their non-legal relationship to one of their parents; Ollen and Goldberg, 2016; Malmquist et al., 2020).

With regard to minority stress in particular, one study included in our review found that parental internalized homonegativity moderated the association between a state's legal climate and changes in depression and anxiety during the 1st year of parenthood (Goldberg and Smith, 2011). On the individual level, minority stress has also been found to moderate the impact of sexual orientation laws (e.g., Bauermeister, 2014; Pachankis et al., 2014; Hylton et al., 2017; Ogolsky et al., 2019).

Quantitative investigations of the pathways outlined in the legal vulnerability model are paramount considering the current primarily qualitative evidence base.

Across jurisdictions, we suggest including items related to family relationships, parenting, or child outcomes in multi-nation investigations into sexual minority health (e.g., European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2020; Weatherburn et al., 2020). Research on sexual minority individuals has capitalized on the legal variation offered within these datasets by linking objective indices of the legal climate with health-related outcomes (Berg et al., 2013; Pachankis and Bränström, 2018; van der Star et al., 2021). This constitutes some of the most compelling evidence on the impact of sexual orientation laws (and concomitant societal attitudes) to date. Using legal variation across many jurisdictions (along with other country-level control variables) would overcome the limitations of the two country-comparisons found within our review (Vyncke and Julien, 2007; Bos et al., 2008; Shapiro et al., 2009).

Within jurisdictions, variation in legal vulnerability can be assessed in several ways. Many of the approaches outlined below have already been recommended in pertinent reviews on the advancement of research on same-sex couples and families in general (e.g., LeBlanc et al., 2015; Umberson et al., 2015) and can be extended to the structural level.

First, in jurisdictions without legally recognized relationships, dyadic designs (e.g., actor-partner interdependence models, Smith et al., 2020) can be used to contrast outcomes in legal and non-legal parents while taking further partner characteristics (e.g., minority stress) into account. Daily fluctuations in legal vulnerability and stress spillover effects could be assessed by dyadic diary studies (Totenhagen et al., 2018; Cooper et al., 2020).

Second, in jurisdictions with legally recognized relationships, investigations into “lingering” or continued effects of legal vulnerability (e.g., on parental legitimacy or legal rejection sensitivity) seem warranted. Legal advances for sexual minorities are recent phenomena globally and same-sex parent families today are likely to have faced legal vulnerability at some point in their shared family biography in the past. Indeed, referenda and campaigns on sexual minority rights can exert long-lasting influences on sexual minorities (Russell et al., 2011). Lifeline and relationship timeline approaches (LeBlanc et al., 2015) could elucidate lingering effects of legal vulnerability. Research with adult children would provide insights into lingering effects of legal vulnerability beyond childhood (see e.g., Lick et al., 2012).

Third, researchers could draw on legal variation within a jurisdiction by assessing outcomes before and after legal change (i.e., akin to a quasi-experimental design; see Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009, 2010). This entails re-analyzing existing datasets or capitalizing on periods of legal changes as they take place.

The proposed research designs necessitate psychometric innovations to measure the legal climate for same-sex parent families and aspects of legal vulnerability on the individual level. On the country level, several indices to measure the general (socio-)legal climate for sexual minorities have been recently developed (e.g., Lee and Ostergard, 2017; Lamontagne et al., 2018) that could be adapted to assessing the legal climate for same-sex parent families in particular.

On the individual level, we suggest developing and validating measures that capture different manifestations of legal vulnerability (e.g., legal worries, family legitimacy due to [lacking] legal recognition) and family members' counteractions to tackle legal vulnerability. Researchers can utilize existing scales that measure aspects of legal vulnerability directly (e.g., legal worries; Shapiro et al., 2009). They can also adapt existing scales, such as couple-level minority stress (Neilands et al., 2020), parenting stigma (Gato et al., 2019; Shenkman, 2020), or challenges in achieving parenthood (Simon and Farr, 2020) to explicitly incorporate legal aspects.

The development of models related to sexual minority health on the individual, couple, and family-level has proliferated in recent years. Future research could integrate legal vulnerability in the family resilience model (Prendergast and MacPhee, 2018), the relationship uncertainty model (Monk and Ogolsky, 2019), or adaptations of the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (Karney and Bradbury, 1995; Totenhagen et al., 2018), among others. Conversely, researchers could link other concepts of legal meaning making for sexual minorities, such as legal consciousness (Hull, 2016), with legal vulnerability. Furthermore, assuming a rather contrasting theoretical perspective to minority stress (Meyer, 2003) and family systems theory (Minuchin, 1974)—for example through a psychoanalytical lens—could help elucidate and refine the epistemological boundaries of the legal vulnerability model and ultimately strengthen its value for theory and practice. Methodologically, a more interpretative approach to research synthesis—for example grounded theory synthesis (Eaves, 2001) or critical interpretative synthesis (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006)—could prove fruitful in analyzing the discursive strategies that study participants used.

Comparatively little is known about how legal vulnerability impacts family functioning, relationships, and child outcomes. Our evidence suggests that children are relatively unaffected by legal vulnerability (as compared to their parents), particularly in their family relationships and functioning (Malmquist et al., 2020), although reporting biases or normalizing strategies cannot be ruled out (Clarke and Demetriou, 2016). This adds to the robust body of evidence that documents how children with same-sex parents fare well-even in stigmatizing environments (see Pollitt et al., 2020, for a review).

The degree of spillover of legal vulnerability into family life can be considered the key determinant of how far it impairs the child's well-being. Concurrent assessments of parents and children could shed light on the degree to which same-sex parents are able to “compartmentalize” legal vulnerability and avoid a spillover into the parent-child relationship or parenting practices (consequently influencing child outcomes).

With regard to populations, our sample is biased toward white, well-educated (presumably), cisgender, and female-headed families. Future research should strive for including diverse families in terms of parental gender and sexual orientation (e.g., bisexual parents in same-sex relationships, unique legal vulnerabilities of transgender parents), race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic background, while incorporating an intersectional approach (Bowleg, 2012) that is sensitive to the complex effects of multiple and intersecting discrimination.

First, legal vulnerability for same-sex parent families is caused and perpetuated by the lacking legal recognition of family relationships, just as minority-specific drivers of sexual minority health disparities are caused and perpetuated by structural and societal stigmatization (Pachankis, 2015). In line with recommendations made by the American Psychological Association (2020a,b), clinical practitioners should promote the beneficial effects of protective legislation as being in the best interest of their clients.

Second, legal vulnerability needs to be acknowledged as a source of psychological strain for all family members in clinical practice. This entails adapting mixed-sex family therapy programs and minority stress related approaches for individuals or couples (Pachankis, 2018; Burton et al., 2019; Pepping et al., 2020) to the needs of legally vulnerable families.

Our model bears several implications for the derivation of such programs: Clinicians can use the counteractions proposed in our review to delineate counseling approaches for legally vulnerable same-sex parent families. Many counteractions found within our review map onto well-established family resilience processes (Walsh, 2003, 2016), such as meaning making of adversity (e.g., seeking legal information, overcoming heteronormativity), cooperative parenting, family connectedness, and mobilizing social and economic resources. Moreover, counteractions related to legal vulnerability have been identified as buffering against individual-level minority stress or promoting well-being in sexual minorities and their relationships (see e.g., Kwon, 2013; Hill and Gunderson, 2015): These include managing disclosure (Oswald, 2002; Kwon, 2013), activism (Oswald, 2002; DeBlaere et al., 2014), symbolic rituals and naming practices (Oswald, 2002), choosing kin, reframing minority stress experiences (Oswald, 2002; Frost, 2014), supportive dyadic coping (Randall et al., 2017), instilling resilience in children (Oakley et al., 2017), and legally securing the family structure (Oswald, 2002; Riggle et al., 2005).

Our list of moderators might be used to identify families (or individuals) that are particularly vulnerable or, conversely, equipped with many resources (e.g., families with a high socioeconomic status). Resilience-focused therapy and counseling approaches could aim at deriving useful coping strategies for dealing with legal vulnerability as parents and outlining effective and age-appropriate strategies to address legal vulnerability in children. However, the integration of legal vulnerability into clinical practice is by no means limited to structured therapy programs. For example, informal meeting groups have been found to be an important source of social support but also legal information for same-sex parents (Kazyak, 2015; Álvarez-Bernardo and García-Berbén, 2018; Appelgren Engström et al., 2019). Group facilitators (e.g., community members or clinicians) serve as important multiplicators in communicating the potential impact of legal vulnerability on these families and should be knowledgeable about adaptive counteractions in particular.

In jurisdictions with legal recognition for same-sex parent families, we argue that it is important to address possible lingering effects of legal vulnerability. For example, a study on same-sex couples (post marriage legislation) found that perceived unequal relationship recognition (e.g., feelings of the relationship being treated as “second-class” by the government) predicted adverse mental health outcomes irrespective of legal relationship status (LeBlanc et al., 2018). Clinicians should be prepared to address relics of past legal vulnerability on the individual (e.g., maladaptive beliefs about parental legitimacy) or family level (e.g., perceived unequal relationship recognition).

Clinicians should also be mindful about the legal shifts that have characterized the past decade in many countries, but they should not be oblivious to more insidious forms of minority stress that continue to shape sexual minorities' lives. Experiencing minority stress does not end when legal equality sets in, as evidence from our review (e.g., Rawsthorne, 2013; Goldberg et al., 2014; Gash and Raiskin, 2018) and elsewhere (Riggle et al., 2018; Wootton et al., 2019; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2020) suggests.