Parental Relationships and Family Functioning of Finnish Children Living with LGBTQ+ Parents

ABSTRACT

Our knowledge of family relations and well-being in LGBTQ+ families is increasing, yet few studies so far have gathered quantitative data from both children and parents. The Finnish Rainbow Family study conducted surveys of 10–12-year-old children (N = 41), 13–18-year-old adolescents (N = 47), and of parents of 7–18-year-old children (N = 80 parents/103 responses) living in a LGBTQ+ family. Unlike many earlier surveys, we also asked about experiences of transgender adults in the family. Responses were compared with the nationwide School Health Promotion Study in Finland. Results suggest that the parental relationships and family functioning of underaged children in Finnish LGBTQ+ families are good and resemble those of other Finnish children. Children and parents describe their family life rather similarly. Rainbow families had slightly worse parental relations among 10–12-year-old children but overall better family functioning, and parents were very supporting and encouraging. The detected differences may relate to higher levels of both parental separation and parental education in Finnish rainbow families. Additionally, most adolescents with a transgender parent feel proud of their parent, although many have experienced difficulties talking about the transition with other people.

KEYWORDS:

• Children
• adolescents
• parents
• LGBTQ+
• trans*

Introduction

What kind of family relationships do children with parents belonging to a sexual or gender minority have in a contemporary Nordic country? The increased number and visibility of gay, lesbian, bi-, trans and queer or questioning (LGBTQ+) parents has spurred more research in the last decades, yet there is a lack of studies investigating the experiences of children. Here, we present the first large study of children with LGBTQ+ parents in a Nordic country. We capture the experiences of both Finnish children and their parents and compare children in LGBTQ+ families with nationally representative data of same-age children.

Parental relations and family functioning relate to the well-being of children (Farr, 2017). Family functioning refers to time spent together, parental support and family cohesion, for example how openly children can talk to their parents about their personal issues. Close parental relationships and family cohesion promote child well-being and can be especially important for children living in LGBTQ+ families, as they may buffer from negative attitudes and discrimination that children may encounter because of stigmatizing social norms (Bos & Gartrell, 2010; van Gelderen, Gartrell, Bos, & Hermanns, 2013; Vyncke, Julien, Jouvin, & Jodoin, 2014).

To date, studies on parental relationships of children living with a LGBTQ+ parent have been conducted mostly in the United States (e.g., Bos, Knox, van Rijn-van Gelderen, & Gartrell, 2016; Farr, 2017), the Netherlands (e.g., Bos, Kuyper, & Gartrell, 2018), and Britain (e.g., Rivers, Poteat, & Noret, 2008), and some studies have also been made in Italy (e.g., Baiocco et al., 2015) and Australia (e.g., Crouch, Waters, McNair, Power, & Davis, 2014). In the Nordic countries, Swedish children of lesbian mothers have been investigated, although based on a small number of qualitative interviews, making it difficult to draw broader conclusions (e.g., Malmquist, Andersson, & Salomonsson, 2020; Malmquist, Möllerstrand, Wikström, & Zetterqvist Nelson, 2014).

Most previous studies on LGBTQ+ families have concerned children living with a female couple or with a single lesbian mother (Adams & Light, 2015), but research on gay father families has increased (Carneiro, Tasker, Salinas-Quiroz, Leal, & Costa, 2017; Farr, 2017; Golombok et al., 2014). By contrast, the well-being and experiences of children living with a transgender parent have thus far scarcely been studied (Stotzer, Herman, & Hasenbush, 2014; Veldorale-Griffin, 2014). There is especially a lack of studies where underaged children themselves report their experiences with a transgender parent (Dierckx, Mortelmans, & Motmans, 2018; Imrie, Zadeh, Wylie, & Golombok, 2021; Zadeh, Imrie, & Golombok, 2021). Also, relations between heterosexual fathers and their children who live part-time with lesbian mothers have rarely been studied.

Previous studies indicate that parent-child relationships are, on average, at least as good in families with same-gender compared to different-sex parents, and that this is also the case for families with single gay parents when compared to families with single heterosexual parents, respectively (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Bos, van Gelderen, & Gartrell, 2015). Adolescents in different- and same-gender parent families tend to have as warm relationships with their parents, spend as much time together with their mothers, and get along as well with their parents (van Gelderen, Bos, Gartrell, Hermanns, & Perrin, 2012; Wainright & Patterson, 2008). Furthermore, some studies have identified possible benefits of living in a rainbow family: for instance, children of female couples may have more secure attachment, and talk more confidentially with their mothers than do children of male-female couples (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010). There is also some evidence that gay fathers are warmer and interact more with their children than heterosexual fathers do, a result which may relate to selection and higher motivation of gay parents (Golombok et al., 2014).

In Finland, the amount of LGBTQ+ families is rather small, although increasing by the year (Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Families, 2018). The country has around 562000 families living with children aged under 18 (Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Families, 2018). Based on official statistics, which do not take into account families with transgender, bisexual, and single parents, the organization Rainbow Families in Finland (Sateenkaariperheet ry—Regnbågsfamiljer r.f.) has estimated that approximately 10000 Finnish children live in a LGBTQ+ family at least part-time (Aarnio, 2014). The majority of these children, especially those who have been born into a LGBTQ+ family, were under school-age at the time of this study, which reflects the cultural shifts and transformed legislation of the early twenty-first century in Finland: registration of same-gender relationships became legally possible in 2001, same-gender marriage was legalized in 2017, and the legislation allowed medically assisted reproduction to single women and female couples in 2007 (see The Current Status of Rights for Rainbow Families in Finland, 2019).

The present study

To chart the well-being of LGBTQ+ families, the “Rainbow families in Finland: well-being and experiences of children and parents” study (below shortened to “Rainbow Family study”) was conducted in 2014–2018.¹ Here, we use surveys to investigate the following research questions:

1. How is relationship quality rated by children and parents in rainbow families, and how do their ratings compare to those among the whole population?

2. How is family functioning, i.e., time spent together and family cohesion, rated in rainbow families, and how does it compare to the whole population?

3. What kind of experiences do Finnish adolescents with a transgender parent have?

To our knowledge, this is the largest study of rainbow families using subjective (self-reported) data in the Nordic countries to date, and one of the first studies of children’s experiences of living with a transgender parent (but see Dierckx et al., 2018; Imrie et al., 2021; Zadeh et al., 2021). Furthermore, we introduce new questions about family functioning, and compare the responses of children with those of their parents, which no previous study on the comprehensive range of sexual minority parents has done.

Research materials

This extensive and methodologically innovative study consisted of four parts: a survey of 10–12-year-old children (N = 41), a survey of 13–18-year-old adolescents (N = 47), interviews with 7–10-year-old children (not reported here), and a survey of parents of children aged 7–18 (N = 80 parents /103 responses). All the respondents lived in a LGBTQ+ family household at least part-time. Our survey technique allows us to compare the survey responses of children and adolescents living in a LGBTQ+ family with those of their parents. We also compared the survey results of children and adolescents in rainbow families with those of children and adolescents of similar age in the nationwide School Health Promotion Study in Finland for adolescents (2015) and a School Health Promotion pilot study for 5th graders (Kanste, Halme, & Perälä, 2017).

Methods

Recruitment of participants

A random sample was not feasible due to the small amount and varying definitions of LGBTQ+ families, hence we opted for a convenience sample and aimed to reach as many potential respondents as possible. Participants were recruited through media, social media, email lists and emails sent to the members of the organization Rainbow Families in Finland. The advertisements reached more than 1,00,000 people around Finland. The targeted individuals were instructed to follow a link to a web survey where they were able to register themselves (if they were aged above 15 years) and/or their children. Parents were asked for consent for participation regarding themselves and their children. Adolescents aged above 15 years could consent themselves. Registration and consent were anonymous, but an email address was required of each participant, and parents were instructed to create an address for their child if needed. Parents were registered with a serial number connected to the questionnaires of their children, enabling us to connect anonymous survey responses from the same family.

The children, adolescents and parents who had (been) signed up for the study were sent links to their individual electronic questionnaire. They could fill out the questionnaire, save it, and continue filling it later. The average filling time was 45 minutes. Email addresses were not connected with responses to ensure anonymity.

The surveys were conducted in the fall of 2015. In addition, the parents of 7–10-year-old children filled out their questionnaires in the summer or fall of 2016 at a time when their child was interviewed. Survey questionnaires are available in Finnish from the authors.

Survey instruments

The questionnaire for 10–12-year-old children comprised questions and statements from a Finnish pilot survey of the School Health Promotion Study (SHPS) aimed at 5th graders (on average 11 years old). The questionnaire for 13–18-year-old adolescents included questions and statements from a Finnish survey of the The School Health Promotion Study (SHPS) (2015) aimed at 8th and 9th graders (on average, 14 years old), high school students and vocational school students. The Rainbow family study questionnaires for parents of 10–12-year-old children and 13–18-year-old adolescents were adapted from the SHPS questionnaires of children and adolescents to enable comparisons between children’s/adolescents’ and their parents’ responses.

Demographic characteristics

Both the 10–12-year-old children and the 13–18-year-old adolescents were asked to tell their gender (girl/boy/other), age in years, and describe all the adults who belong to their family (instruction ”Do not write their names but e.g. two mothers and a father” and ”Even if the adults live in separate homes, you can mention them all here”). The adolescents were asked whether they had been born to ”a rainbow family, that is, a family in which at least one parent belongs to a sexual or gender minority” (Yes, I have/No, I have become part of my rainbow family after my birth), and whether they were living in a rainbow family/families only (Yes, I am/No, I have also a family that is not a rainbow family). The adolescents were also asked whether their parents had separated and whether one of their parents was transgender (the meaning of the term transgender was explained). Adolescents aged 15 and above were inquired whether they attended high school, vocational school, or university, and whether they were already living independently.

Parents were asked about their gender, age, highest education, place of residence in Finland (six alternatives), their role in the life of the child they were replying on (e.g., biological mother, social father, or adoptive parent), whether they had divorced since the birth of their child and/or transitioned their gender, and if yes, how many years ago, and other demographics not reported here.

Relationships between children and their parents

The children and the adolescents rated their relationships to their mother and father in a similar way as in the SHPS by answering,” How is your relationship to your mother/father” on a 5-point scale (children) or a 3-point scale (adolescents). Similarly, they also rated their relationship to “other mother” and “other father”, when applicable. They could decide which mother/father relationship to evaluate as “mother/father” and which one “other mother/other father”. The adolescents could also respond of their relationship with a gender-non-specific “other parent”. Additionally, the parents rated their child’s relationships to each one of his/her parents on a 5-point scale (children) or a 3-point scale (adolescents). The alternatives for parenting roles were biological mother, social mother, biological father, social father, and other parent.

Functioning of the family of children and adolescents

The 10–12-year-old children and their parents were asked how often they dine together, talk about what’s happened that day, how often the child participates in household work, how often the parent helps the child with homework, and how often they spend time together as a family (scale ranging from 6–7 days a week (1) to less than once a week (5)). The statements and scales measuring family functioning were identical to those in the SHPS.

The 13–18-year-old adolescents and their parents rated on a 4-point scale how often the adolescent can talk about his/her issues with his/her parents. The scale was often, rather often, sometimes, and almost never, as in the SHPS.

The children, the adolescents and their parents were asked whether the child has a curfew, the child hides things from his/her parents, they quarrel with each other, the parents talk to their child’s friends, and the parents support and encourage their child (scale ranging from often (1) to seldom or never (5)). Additionally, we asked the 10–12-year-old children and their parents how often the parents ask about the child’s school day, and the 13–18-year-old adolescents and their parents how often they talk about what’s happened during the day. The statements and 5-point scales were identical to those in the SHPS. The scale in the parents’ questionnaire ranged, by mistake, from often (1) to nearly never (4).

Experiences of adolescents living with a transgender parent

The 13–18-year-old adolescents who were living with a transgender parent were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale from totally disagree to totally agree how they had reacted to their parent’s gender experience or transition. An example of the six statements was:” I have a positive attitude towards my parent’s gender experience or transition”.

Analyses

Descriptive analyses were conducted. Due to low numbers of participants in different respondent groups (e.g., children whose parents have or have not separated) and differences in the demographics of the participants in the Rainbow Family study and School Health Promotion Study in Finland, we refrained from statistical analyses, and stress that reported differences between the groups were evaluated approximately and are directional. As the purpose of the study was to chart the situation of LGBTQ+ families in Finland for the first time in a descriptive study, comparing answers item by item gave the most accurate information.

Participants

Surveys of children and adolescents

The child survey had 41 respondents, average age 11 years, 16 girls, 24 boys, and 1 did not report gender, and the adolescent survey had 47 respondents, average age 15 years, 27 girls and 20 boys (one of the boys reported being transmale) (Table 1). Approximately half of the participants had a sibling who also participated in the study.

Table 1. Demographics of Rainbow Family study and national survey.

	10–12-year-old children in Rainbow Family study	Children in national survey	13–18-year-old adolescents in Rainbow Family study	Adolescents national survey	Parents in Rainbow Family study
N	41	2 797	47	36 203	80
Girls /juridically women, % Boys/juridically men, % Gender not specified /transgender, %	39 59 2	41.1 58.5 0.4	57 43 0	56.4 43.6 Not Inquired	93 7 11
Average age, years	11	11*	15	14–18**	41
Residence In Southern Finland, %	68	19	61	44	71
Parent’s tertiary education, %	62	19	59	36.9	74
Living with two parents, %	32	73.7	47	67.1	–

National Survey = SHPS School Health Promotion Study.

*5th graders, age not known but approximately 11 years.

**8th graders, high school students and vocational school students, age unknown but 8th graders (62.9%) are approximately 14 years old, high school students (30.3%) and vocational school students (6.8%) between 15 and 18 years.

Two thirds of children and adolescents had experienced the separation of the parents they had at birth (different-sex or same-gender). Half of the children and one third of the adolescents had been born to LGBTQ+ parents, while half of the children and two thirds of the adolescents had been born to a different-sex couple before either one of the parents came out as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning.

Currently, two thirds (27 of 41) of the children and around half (22 of 47) of the adolescents reported having more than two parents. Of these, most were living partly with two mothers and partly with their father; only 7 were living partly with a male couple. Around one third of the participants (13 children and 17 adolescents) reported having two mothers. Five adolescents reported having a mother and a father, and one child and two adolescents were living with a single mother. Around half of the children and adolescents lived in one home and half of the children lived in two homes (two adolescents had three or four homes; home was defined as home of parents that the child meets regularly). In some cases, there were LGBTQ+ parents in both homes and in some cases in one home only. One adolescent lived independently and reported on his/her childhood family. The number of participants was sufficient considering the number of children and adolescents living in LGBTQ+ families in Finland and the time constraint to reach them within a few months.

Parental survey

In total 80 parents, who were on average in their early 40s, filled out a survey about their children aged 7–18 years (103 children, separate surveys for each child, around 75% of these children also participated in the study). Most parental respondents were biological mothers: 63% of the parents of children and 76% of the parents of adolescents were biological mothers in relation to the child on whom they filled out the survey. 93% were juridically women, 7% men, and 11% were transgender. 71% resided in Southern Finland (including Helsinki metropolitan area) and the others resided around Finland. 60% had tertiary education (Table 1). This high proportion of highly educated parents can be a result of our sampling technique, but also likely to reflect real differences in the educational and geographic characteristics of rainbow families compared to national averages (Bos & van Balen, 2008; Crouch et al., 2014)

Nationwide comparison data

The comparison data for the 10–12-year-old children in rainbow families comprised of Finnish 5th graders (average age 11 years) who participated in the electronic School Health Promotion pilot study in spring 2013 (SHPS, Kanste et al., 2017). Altogether, 2 797 participants were selected to get an equal per centage of boys (58.5%), girls (41.1%), and children who did not specify their gender (0.4%), as was in the data gathered for this study (Table 1). Their parents had also filled out surveys (N = 1626) and reported that 19% of their families lived in Southern Finland (including Helsinki Metropolitan area) and others were evenly distributed around Finland (Kanste, Halme, & Perälä, 2016). More than half of the SHPS parents lived in the countryside, which is more than in Rainbow Family study. Only 20% of the SHPS parents had a university degree, which is another major difference in comparison to the data of this study since many rainbow family parents were highly educated. Three of four of the children lived in a nuclear family with two parents, one in ten with a single parent, and one in ten in a blended family. Only 0.2% of these parents lived with a registered same-gender partner. Since the data from children and their parents were separate, it was not possible to form a comparison group of children in order to balance the children’s place of residence and their parents’ education between the study group and comparison group.

The comparison group for 13–18-year-old adolescents comprised of Finnish 8th graders (around 14 years old), high school students (around 15–17 years old), and vocational school students (around 15–17 years old) who participated in an electronic School Health Promotion study in spring 2015. Altogether, 36,203 participants were selected to get an equal per centage of boys (43.6%) and girls (56.4%) who were equally distributed into 8th graders (62.9%), high school students (30.3%), and vocational school students (6.8%) as was in this study (Table 1). Of the comparison sample, 44% of the participants lived in Southern Finland (including Helsinki Metropolitan area) and others lived around Finland; 67% resided with mother and father, 6.5% had a blended family, and others resided with a mother or a father, or both in turn. Participants with LGBTQ+ parents cannot be separated from the sample but are estimated to comprise less than one per cent of these participants. Of the participants, 39.5% had a mother with a university degree. Because it was impossible to combine the data of children and their parents, it was decided that the study group and the comparison group would not be balanced with regard to place of residence and parental education but that these variables would be taken into separate consideration in the analysis and conclusions.

Results

Relationships between children and parents

Our first research question concerned the quality of parent-child relations. Results indicate that children in rainbow families aged 10–12 years (N = 41) regarded their relationships to all their parents to be equally good, whether they rated the relationship to their mother (1.45), “other mother” (1.46), or father (1.48). Around 95% of them rated their parental relationships to be good (1) or very good (2) (Table 2). Children of similar age in the population-wide Finnish data (N = 2797) rated their relationship to their father (1.43) to be as good as and their relationship to their mother to be better (1.30) than the children in rainbow families. This indication of lower quality of mother relationship in LGBTQ+ families may relate to the high proportion of children who have experienced parental separation. In support of this assumption, children in LGBTQ+ families rated their relationship to their mother to be better when there was at least six years from their parents’ divorce (n = 13; 1.23; sd = 0.44; 1 = very good, 5 = very poor) than when less than six years had passed from the divorce (n = 10; 1.60; sd = 0.97).

Table 2. Quality of relationships between children/adolescents and parents; means, standard deviations, and N(n), a lower score indicates better relationship.

		Mother Mean (sd)	“Other mother” (Social mother or stepmother)	Father
Children	Rainbow families	1.45 (0.68) N = 40	1.46 (0.60) N = 39	1.48 (0.58) N = 27
	National survey	1.30 (0.58) N = 2774	-	1.43 (0.75) N = 2702
Parents Of Children, Rainbow Family Study		1.27 (0.45) N = 60	1.43 (0.47) N = 47	2.38 (1.26) N = 32
Adolescents	Rainbow families	1.15 (0.42) N = 47	1.29 (0.52) N = 34	1.48 (0.68) N = 31
	National survey	1.16 (0.42) N = 35,345	-	1.28 (0.54)* N = 33,988
Parents Of Adolescents, Rainbow Family Study		1.15 (0.43) N = 40	1.18 (0.39) N = 28	1.36 (0.58) N = 22

Rainbow Families = Rainbow Family Study, National Survey = SHPS School Health Promotion Study.

The scale in the surveys of 10–12-year-olds and their parents and the comparison group of 11-year-olds ranged from very good (1) to very poor (5).

The scale in the surveys of 13–18-year-olds and their parents and the comparison group of 14–18-year-olds ranged from good (1) to poor (3).

*Adolescents who do not live with “mother and father” (n = 9979), 1.44 (0.65).

Results were similar whether the responses of parents of 7–9-year-old children (n = 9) were taken into account or excluded.

Interestingly, parents in LGBTQ+ families (N = 62) regarded their 10–12-year-old child’s relationship to his/her biological mother (1.27) to be somewhat better, but their child’s relationship to the child’s father (2.38) to be much worse, than what the children themselves evaluated. The parents rated 100% of the relationships to mother to be good or very good while only 56% of the relationships to father were rated similarly. Children and parents in rainbow families rated the relationship between the child and the “other mother”, i.e., the social mother or stepmother, in similar ways: the vast majority, 95–96%, regarded the relationship to be good or very good (Table 2).

In interpreting the divergent ratings of children and parents, it is noteworthy that 69% of the respondents were biological mothers and that most of the mothers who rated the relationship between the child and his/her father had separated from the child’s father. Furthermore, all the negative evaluations for a child’s father relationship were given by mothers who also reported negative relationships with their ex-husband. Hence the parent’s assessment of the relationship between a child and the other parent appeared to be coloured by that parent’s own experiences about their former spouse. By contrast, all the parents whose child was born into a LGBTQ+ family rated their child’s relationship with their father to be good (n = 7).

Adolescents in rainbow families (N = 47) rated their relationship to be good to their mother in 87% of the cases, their relationship to their “other mother” in 74% of the cases, and their relationship to their father in 61% of the cases (Table 2). The result regarding the relationship to mother closely resembled that of adolescents of the same age in the national data (N = 36 203), but these peers rated their father relationship to be good more often, in 76.3% of the cases. Again, this may stem from the fact that more adolescents in LGBTQ+ families had experienced parental divorce. In support of this interpretation, when the father relationships of the adolescents in LGBTQ+ families were compared to the father relationships of their peers who do not live with their mother and father (but who lived with their mother only or both parents in turn; n = 9 979), the quality of father relationships was similar between rainbow families and all families.

The adolescents and their parents in LGBTQ+ families rated the relationships between the adolescent and all parents in rather similar ways, i.e., the relationships with biological mothers (1.15 both adolescents and parents), social mothers and stepmothers (1.29 adolescents, 1.18 parents), and biological fathers (1.48 adolescents, 1.36 parents). A few children (n = 3), adolescents (n = 7), and their parents (n = 8) rated the child’s or adolescent’s relationship to his/her ’other father’, that is, social father, stepfather, or previous mother who had transitioned his gender since the birth of this child. Most children/adolescents and all the parents rated this relationship to be good.

Functioning of the children’s family

Our second research question concerned family functioning. The Rainbow Family survey results indicate that 10–12-year-old children in LGBTQ+ families dine and spend time together with their families and participate in household chores as often as other Finnish children do (Table 3). Most dine and spend time together several times a week. Most children in rainbow families report that they discuss daily matters and their parents help them with homework on 4–7 days a week. This is more often than their peers do but it may relate to the higher educational level of the rainbow families in our study.

Table 3. Functioning of the family, children; means and standard deviations, lower score indicates higher frequency.

	Children in Rainbow Family study (N = 41)	Children in national survey (N = 2728–2755)	Parents of children in Rainbow Family study (N = 61–62)
Dine together	1.78 (1.13)	1.77 (1.08)	1.74 (0.89)
Spend time together as a family	2.41 (1.18)	2.34 (1.24)	2.00 (0.91)
Child participates on household work	2.54 (1.10)	2.42 (1.25)	2.64 (1.16)
Talk about daily matters	1.80 (0.98)	2.16 (1.34)	1.25 (0.51)
Parent helps the child with homework	2.29 (1.35)	2.61 (1.51)	2.48 (1.13)
Parents ask about school day	1.83 (1.00)	1.97 (1.11)	1.07 (0.25)
Parents talk to their child’s friends*	2.29 (1.19)	2.64 (1.35)	1.73 (0.90)
Child has a curfew*	1.79 (1.11)	2.04 (1.27)	1.18 (0.53)
Child hides things from parents*	4.54 (0.81)	4.40 (0.98)	3.89 (0.32)
Child and parent quarrel*	3.68 (0.97)	3.92 (1.02)	2.65 (0.70)
Parents support and encourage their child *	1.48 (0.68)	1.61 (0.90)	1.23 (0.42)

National Survey = SHPS School Health Promotion Study.

In Rainbow Family Study, the children were 10–12 years old and the parents replied on children aged 7–12. Results were similar whether the responses of parents of 7–9-year-old children (n = 9) were taken into account or excluded.

The scale ranges from 6–7 times a week (1) to less than once a week (5).

*In the children’s questionnaire, the scale ranged from often (1), rather often (2), sometimes (3), rather seldom (4) to seldom/never (5) and in the parents’ questionnaire from often (1), rather often (2), sometimes (3) to nearly never (4). Thus, the means of children and parents should not be compared with each other as such.

Parents rated the functioning of the family like their children did, except that parents reported more time spent together in the family and more talking, but less helping with homework (Table 3).

80% of children in rainbow families report that their parents ask about their school day often or rather often, which is approximately as often as Finnish children on average report being asked about their school day (Table 3). All LGBTQ+ parents reported asking about their child’s school day often or rather often.

Children reported that more than 60% of the LGBTQ+ parents talk to their child’s friends often or rather often and 20% do so sometimes, which is more frequently than the parents of other Finnish children do (Table 3). Even though the scale range in the parents’ survey was different than in the children’s survey, LGBTQ+ parents seem to report on their involvement in a rather similar way as their children do: 76% of the LGBTQ+ parents report talking to their child’s friends often or rather often, 20% sometimes and only 3% nearly never. In a similar way, two-thirds of the children in LGBTQ+ families agree often or rather often on a curfew when they go out, which seems to be more often than their peers do (Table 3). Almost all LGBTQ+ parents (97%) report that they have a curfew for their children often or rather often. Only fifteen per cent of the children in rainbow families hide from their parents what they do in the evenings and weekends, which seems slightly less often than other children do (Table 3). Their parents agree on this: only twelve per cent of them feel that their children hide things from them sometimes. 95% of the children report that their LGBTQ+ parents support and encourage them often or rather often, while slightly fewer, 86% of all the Finnish children report the same. All the LGBTQ+ parents view themselves as supportive and encouraging at least rather often. Taken together, these answers indicate higher parental involvement in the children’s lives in rainbow families, although as stressed above this is likely to relate to higher levels of parental education. Even though the scale ranges were different in children’s and parents’ questionnaires affecting the mean ratings, the children and their parents mostly selected the same options of “often” (1) and “rather often” (2), facilitating comparisons. The options at the end of the scale, namely “nearly never” (4) in parents’ survey and “rather seldom” (4) and “seldom/never” (5) in children’s survey, were not selected many times by either parents or children.

More than one-third of children sometimes quarrel with their LGBTQ+ parents, but less than ten per cent do so often or rather often. This seems, however, to be more often (3.68) than their peers quarrel with their parents (3.92) (Table 3). The LGBTQ+ parents have a different view on the frequency of quarrelling, as 63% of them report that their child quarrels with them sometimes and 32% of them report that their child quarrels with them often or rather often.

Functioning of the adolescents’ family

Family functioning appears to be better on many indicators as reported by adolescents in rainbow families compared to their peers (Table 4). Three quarters of the adolescents in LGBTQ+ families discuss daily matters with their parents and report that they rarely hide things from them, and their parents also talk to their friends often or rather often. Approximately half of the teenagers in rainbow families have a curfew, and three quarters say they can talk with their parents about their personal issues often or rather often.

Table 4. Functioning of the family, adolescents, means and standard deviations, lower score indicates higher frequency.

	Adolescents, Rainbow Family study (N = 44–47)	Adolescents in national survey (N = 35 579–35 854)	Parents of adolescents, Rainbow Family study (N = 41)
Adolescent able to talk with his/her parents*	1.89 (0.85)	2.05 (0.96)^a	1.56 (0.59)
Family talks about daily matters	1.88 (0.78)	2.05 (0.97)	1.32 (0.52)
Adolescent hides things from parents	3.65 (0.67)	3.41 (0.88)	3.75 (0.54)
Parents talk to their child’s friends	1.77 (0.98)	2.01 (0.99)	1.65 (0.83)
Adolescent has a curfew	1.84 (0.97)	2.44 (1.14)	1.33 (0.58)
Parents support and encourage their child	1.38 (0.57)	1.73 (0.86)	1.27 (0.45)
Adolescent and parents quarrel	3.11 (0.70)	3.11 (0.81)	2.93 (0.76)

National Survey = SHPS School Health Promotion Study.

Adolescents were 13–18 years old. Scale ranges from often (1), rather often (2), sometimes (3) to almost never (4) in both the adolescents’ and parents’ questionnaire.

*Scale ranges from often (1), rather often (2), occasionally (3) to almost never (4) for adolescents and parents.

^aComparison group of adolescents with a well-educated mother: 1.95 (0.93).

In interpreting these results it should again be noted that parents of rainbow families have higher educational level than the population at large. In the population-wide data, mothers who have higher than average education also discuss daily matters slightly more often with their adolescents and support and encourage them a bit more than other parents. Their adolescents also have a little easier to talk with their parents about their personal issues. However, mother’s educational level does not seem to be related to other variables of family functioning in the general population data.

Compared to their peers, adolescents in rainbow families appear to discuss daily events with their parents and have a curfew more often, their parents talk to their child’s friends more often, and the adolescents hide things from their parents less often. Almost all adolescents in LGBTQ+ families report that their parents support and encourage them, which is more often than their peers do. Adolescents in both LGBTQ+ families and other families seem to quarrel as often with their parents: only a quarter of adolescents quarrel rarely.

Almost every LGBTQ+ parent reports that their child can talk to them (95% often or rather often), that their family talks together (98% often or rather often), and the child often has a curfew (95% often or rather often) (Table 4). These reports are somewhat more optimistic than those of the adolescents themselves (75%, 75% and 80% selected the options often or rather often, respectively). Parents and adolescents report rather similarly on the frequency of quarrelling (26%/10% often or rather often and 51%/65% sometimes, respectively), parents talking to the children’s friends (78%/75% often or rather often, respectively), and parental support and encouragement (100%/96% often or rather often, respectively). Four LGBTQ+ parents out of five think that their child does not hide what they do in the evenings and on weekends from their parents, which is in accordance with the reporting of their children of whom three out of four report the same.

Experiences of adolescents living with a transgender parent

Finally, we present results regarding transgender parents. Out of the eight adolescents who were living with a transgender parent, six had a parent who had transitioned their gender. For most transitioned parents, the transition process had taken place 4–16 years ago when their children had been 2–12 years old. All the adolescents had a positive or very positive attitude towards their parent’s gender experience or the transition. Most of them (n = 6) were proud of their parent’s gender experience or gender transition, while a minority (n = 2) felt neutral about it. Half of them had felt puzzled by it. Three out of eight had found it hard to talk about the parent’s gender experience or transition with those close to them, while the rest had not. Five out of eight had found it hard to talk about the parent’s gender experience or transition with other people, and only one had not. When the adolescent’s parent had talked about their gender experience or transition with somebody in the presence of the adolescent, none of the adolescents had felt the situation challenging.

Out of the 42 parent relationships that children (n = 9) and adolescents (n = 8) living with a transgender parent evaluated, all but one relationship were rated to be good or very good.

Discussion

The Rainbow Family study gathered detailed survey responses from children, adolescents and parents living in LGBTQ+ families in Finland. The first of its kind in Finland, this descriptive study is also internationally unique in many ways. We included questions not investigated among rainbow families previously, such as curfews set for children and the frequency of parent-child discussions. We could also compare the experiences and assessments from both children and their parents through data linked on the family level, as well as compare the relationships of children in rainbow families with population averages.

Our results suggest that the family functioning and relationships of 10–18-year-old children in Finnish LGBTQ+ families resemble those of other Finnish children of the same age. This result is in line with the growing body of evidence from studies elsewhere in the Western world showing that rainbow families do not compromise child well-being (Adams & Light, 2015; Bos et al., 2016, 2018; Farr, 2017; Fedewa, Black, & Ahn, 2015).

Warm parental relationships in LGBTQ+ families have also been found in studies in other countries (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Bos et al., 2015). In our data, however, differences among rainbow and other families were found in the quality of relationships with the mother. The lower mother-child relationship quality seemed, however, to stem from the effects of parental divorce, which is known to be related to poorer parent-child-relationships (Anderson, 2014). Parents and children made similar assessments of the child’s relation to the biological mother, the social mother, and the social father, and these relationships were good overall. The high alignment of answers provided by parents and their children indicates involved parenting. Interestingly, the LGBTQ+ parents assess their 10–12-year-old children’s relationships to their biological fathers after divorce to be, on average, worse than the children themselves do. This seems to reflect difficulties in the relationship of some mothers with their ex-husbands.

10–12-year-old children in LGBTQ+ families assessed the functioning of the family in ways that mostly correspond the views of their parents. The resemblance of children’s and parents’ responses suggests that even children aged only 10 can report accurately on their family life in a questionnaire study.

Our results suggest several parenting strengths in rainbow families. Parents in Finnish LGBTQ+ families appear to have created even more trustful relationships with their children than parents in other families, and support and encourage their children a lot. Finnish LGBTQ+ families also appear to function at least as well as other Finnish families, which again is in line with studies from other countries which have shown that children and adolescents in different- and same-gender parent families have as warm relationships with their parents, get along as well with their parents, spend as much time together with their parents, and engage in family activities as often with their fathers (Perrin, Pinderhughes, Mattern, Hurley, & Newman, 2016; van Gelderen et al., 2012; Wainright & Patterson, 2008). Our results suggest that the 10–18-year-old children in LGBTQ+ families talk more often with their family about daily matters, are more open with their parents, agree more often on a curfew when they go out, and that the parents help their 10–12-year-old children with homework more often compared to their peers. This effect may be due to selection of our sample, in which residency in Southern Finland and highly educated parents were overrepresented. Parental education was, however, taken into consideration in the analyses when possible. It may also reflect selection effect in rainbow families, such as the high motivation for parenthood among single mothers by choice and same-gender parents, who decide to go through expensive and demanding fertility treatments, or motivation to show that they are at least as good parents as heterosexuals (Golombok et al., 2014; Malmquist, Björnstam, & Thunholm, 2019). It is also possible that the rainbow families with the most problems did not wish to participate in a study on family dynamics.

Previous results on quarrelling have been controversial, as aggressive behaviour has been either more (Bos, Gartrell, & van Gelderen, 2013) or less common (Gartrell & Bos, 2010) in adolescents living with two mothers. The 10–12-year-old children in rainbow families in our data reported more quarrels with their parents than their peers did, while the 13–18-year-old adolescents did not differ from their peers in the frequency of quarrelling with parents. Quarrelling may also relate to the overall higher involvement in children’s activities among rainbow families. Our mixed results indicate that more research is needed on this subject.

This is one of the first studies on the experiences of children with transgender parents (Stotzer et al., 2014; Veldorale-Griffin, 2014), and one of the first where underaged children’s voices have been heard regarding this experience (Dierckx et al., 2018; Imrie et al., 2021; Zadeh et al., 2021). Although the number of studied family units is very small, almost all the relationships between Finnish transgender parents and their children were good. Our results were as positive as in the study by Imrie and associates (2021), and more positive than in the study by Veldorale-Griffin (2014), which suggested that only two-thirds of the relationships between transgender parents and their adult children were better or unchanged after the parent’s transition. The difference between the latter results may reflect the age of the child at the time of the parent’s transition (Stotzer et al., 2014; Veldorale-Griffin, 2014) or the societal situation around the family. Finnish children of transgender parents reported feeling proud of their parent, in line with Dierckx et al. (2018). Still, a majority had found it difficult to talk about their experiences of having a transgender parent with other people. This may reflect fear of stigmatization, which has also been felt by all the participants in the study by Dierckx et al. (2018). Our results indicate a need for services and support to children and their families with a transgender parent.

The main limitation of our study is that to reach the study population we had to use a convenience sample. The participants are not representative of all Finnish LGBTQ+ families: some of them were reached via the organization of Rainbow families in Finland which arranges peer support and advances LGBTQ+-friendly legislation, making them a selected proportion of LGBTQ+ families. The sample structure and number of respondents limited the possibilities of analysis and the generalizability of the results, which should thus be interpreted as indicative. The sample gives a glimpse at the life of LGBTQ+ families in Finland and further studies would benefit from nationally representative samples. That said, register-based studies would restrict the sample in other ways, as the registers thus far have only included same-gender couples, not all kinds of LGBTQ+ families.

Inferential statistics were not conducted for reasons related to sample size, and since they would not have added much reliability to the findings due to the descriptive nature of the data. Also, we refrained from combined items or factor analysis, as we believe a descriptive analysis of each item separately helps in forming a first impression on the life of children and adolescents in rainbow families in Finland. Some variables were also used in a LGBTQ+ survey context for the first time, warranting separate reporting. Future studies should deepen our understanding by using more fine-grained methods. Nevertheless, this is to our knowledge the largest and most comprehensive study of children in rainbow families and their parents in any Nordic country.

Parental background characteristics may skew some results: respondents in the comparison groups were similar to the respondents of this study regarding age and gender but lived less often in Southern Finland and the capital area, had lower educational level, and lower rates of divorce. Hence, some of the differences between the groups are likely to reflect other things than sexual orientation or gender experience of the parents. However, these effects are likely to reflect not so much sample composition as the demographics among rainbow families (Bos & van Balen, 2008; Crouch et al., 2014).

It is also possible that the children and adolescents in rainbow families are prone to respond in a socially desirable way because of the stigma related to sexual and gender minorities (Crowl, Ahl, & Baker, 2008). The respondents did, however, report quarrels with parents and other negative aspects of family life in a similar way as their peers, which suggests that the responses were not distorted by social desirability. The Rainbow Family study was a cross-sectional self-report, so research with more participants and different methods is needed. Finally, the diversity of transgender parents should also be better considered: e.g., no transvestites or their children participated in this study.

Despite these limitations, our main result that the children of LGBTQ+ families and other families have similar family functioning and relationships, seems encouraging. Most of the negative differences detected could be related to the effects of parental divorce, the rates of which are likely to diminish as social acceptance towards LGBTQ+ people increases and more children are born directly into a rainbow family. As the data was gathered in 2015–2016, it is likely that the situation has already improved, as LGBTQ+ families are more often formed through giving birth to a biological child instead of forming a blended family compared to the situation in the past.

Conclusions

The family functioning and relationships of Finnish school-aged children and adolescents who live in a LGBTQ+ family have now been studied for the first time, and the results resemble those from other countries (Adams & Light, 2015; Bos et al., 2016, 2018; Farr, 2017; Fedewa, et al., 2015). Finnish LGBTQ+ families resemble other families in many ways, and they also exhibit some special strengths. Both children and adolescents and their parents were investigated, and their views are rather similar. This also provided new information on the experiences of children who live with a transgender parent, an understudied topic (Dierckx et al., 2018; Stotzer et al., 2014; Veldorale-Griffin, 2014; Zadeh et al., 2021). The findings of this study have implications for LGBTQ+ families, people who work with them, as well as legislators. Life with a transgender parent seems rather alike life with a cisgender parent, which is an important information when the reproductive and parental rights of trans people are considered.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the children, adolescents and parents who took part in the study, as well as the Steering Group of the Rainbow Family study who helped in planning the study and reporting it in Finnish: Juha Jämsä, Tytti Solantaus, Jari Kylmä, Taina Martiskainen and Marie Rautava.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The research project was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. The research was conducted in cooperation between the Population Research Institute at the Family Federation of Finland (Väestöliitto) and Rainbow Families in Finland (Sateenkaariperheet ry). The writing of this article was supported by the Otto A. Malm foundation.

Notes on contributors

Kia Aarnio

Kia Aarnio is currently a Researcher at Population Research Institute at Väestöliitto, the Family Federation of Finland. She has a PhD in psychology and has studied, e.g., the well-being of children living with LGBTQ+ parents. She is also an author of several psychology textbooks.

Anna Rotkirch

Anna Rotkirch is a Research Professor and Research Director at Population Research Institute at Väestöliitto, the Family Federation of Finland. A family sociologist and demographer, she has published extensively on family relations, fertility and population policies. Rotkirch served as the demographic rapporteur to the Prime Minister’s Office in 2020-21. Currently she is co-PI and PI of fertility research in the NetResilience strategic research consortium of the Academy of Finland.

Notes

1. The research plan received approval from the Ethics Committee of Youth and Childhood Studies (28/09/2015) and popularized research reports were published in Finnish (Aarnio, Kallinen, Kylmä, Solantaus, & Rotkirch, 2017; Aarnio, Kylmä, Solantaus, & Rotkirch, 2018).