Attitudes toward Abortion for Medical and Non-medical Reasons among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe – The Role of the Family and Societal Contexts
Attitudes toward Abortion for Medical and Non-medical Reasons
among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe – The Role of
the Family and Societal Contexts*
Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol
Abstract: This paper studies attitudes toward abortion among the second genera-
tion of Turkish migrants and their native counterparts in six western and northern
European countries. We focus on Turkish migrants because they not only constitute
one of the largest immigrant groups, but are also hypothesised to be culturally and
demographically very distinctive from the native group. We used data from the pro-
ject on “The Integration of the European Second Generation (TIES 2007-08)” from
Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. The sample
consisted of 4,761 respondents aged 18 to 35, 49.5 percent of whom were children
of Turkish migrants born in Europe and 51.5 percent belonged to the respective
non-migrant comparison groups. Unlike in other surveys, the question regarding at-
titudes toward abortion in the TIES questionnaire distinguished between “medical”
and “non-medical” reasons for abortion, with the possible answers being “never”,
“in specifi c cases” and “always”. We carried out multinomial logistic regression
analyses and investigated three research questions: 1) Departing from assimilation
theory, we examined whether the attitudes of migrant descendants differed from
those of their non-migrant counterparts. Our results show that both groupings un-
der study expressed a range of attitudes, and that abortion for medical reasons
was more accepted than abortion for non-medical reasons. However, second-gen-
eration Turks were more likely than the natives to say that they would never accept
abortion. 2) We investigated the extent to which the societal climate and the inte-
gration context of the respondents infl uenced their attitudes toward abortion, while
assuming that we would fi nd cross-country variation in these attitudes. Our results
reveal that among natives, levels of acceptance of abortion are lowest in Germany
and highest in Sweden and France. We found a similar country pattern for women
and men of the second Turkish generation. 3) We explored the degree to which the
respondents’ family contexts (childhood backgrounds as well as current socio-de-
mographic variables) infl uenced their attitudes toward abortion. While these factors
Comparative Population Studies
Vol. 43 (2018): 307-342 (Date of release: 18.03.2019)
Federal Institute for Population Research 2019 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de
DOI: 10.12765/CPoS-2019-05en
URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2019-05en1
* This article belongs to a special issue on migrant fertility.
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol308
partially explained the variation within the Turkish second generation and within the
native comparison group, the country differences remained signifi cant. We con-
clude that attitudes toward abortion in the Turkish second generation are infl uenced
by their family backgrounds, but also by their socialization experiences in European
receiving countries. These fi ndings suggest that cultural assimilation processes are
occurring, but not to the point where the attitudes of migrant descendants have
converged with the attitudes of natives in the respective destination country.
Keywords: Abortion · Attitudes · Second generation · TIES · Turkish migrants
1 Introduction
With recent political shifts, the topic of abortion appears back on the agenda in Eu-
ropean public debates. As we still lack suffi cient knowledge of the determinants of
attitudes toward abortion, particularly in the face of migration (Rydgren 2005), our
paper studies attitudes toward abortion among the second generation of Turkish
migrants living in six western and northern European countries and the respective
native majority group members.
The demographic behaviour and the structural and cultural integration of Turk-
ish migrants and their descendants in Europe have been intensely studied (Kulu/
Gonzalez-Ferrer 2014). This research interest has been explained by demographic
characteristics of this group: it is a large group; its members live in almost all west-
ern European countries; and its members come from a country that has entered the
second demographic transition later than western European countries (van de Kaa
1987). The family demographic patterns and the religious backgrounds of Turkish
migrants differ from those of European non-migrant populations (e.g. Nauck 1997;
Milewski 2007, 2010a/b, 2011; Garssen/Nicolaas 2008; Cifuentes et al. 2013; Krapf/
Wolf 2015). While the fertility behaviour of Turkish migrants and their descendants
has received considerable scholarly attention, reproductive health as one aspect of
family planning among migrants remains an understudied subject. Little is known
about international migrants’ family planning, reproductive health practices or at-
titudes toward induced abortion (Carol/Milewski 2017; Agadjanian/Yoo 2018) – in
part because these topics are sensitive, and therefore hard to study (Bankole et al.
1998). Thus, the study of attitudes toward abortion is relevant from a demographic
perspective, but also from the perspective of assimilation theory. As an indicator of
cultural integration, these attitudes are most resistant to change along with family
and gender values (Norris/Inglehart 2012). Therefore, we attempt to explain these
attitudes focusing on Turkish descendants in Europe.
There is considerable cross-country variation in the prevalence of induced abor-
tion as well as in the norms towards it. Many immigrant groups in Europe originate
from the MENA region and neighbouring countries with above or close-to replace-
ment fertility, such as Turkey. On the one hand, patriarchal family systems and high-
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 309
er levels of religiosity foster anti-abortion norms in these countries (Norris/Inglehart
2012). On the other hand, the acceptance, availability and usage of contraceptives
are lower in these countries than in Europe (Haub 2007; Ribbert 2009; Helfferich et
al. 2011). Hence, in some of these migrant-origin contexts, abortion may be the sole
– though not always legal – method of birth control (Bankole et al. 1998); and the
prevalence of abortion may be higher than in Western Europe – despite lower levels
of acceptance (Sedgh et al. 2016).
Regardless of the actual abortion practices of a population, people’s attitudes to-
ward abortion can be framed from different perspectives. As these attitudes refl ect
norms regarding life and death and the rights of the unborn, they are highly inter-
twined with religiosity. In addition, because views on abortion touch on the ques-
tion of women’s self-determination, they refl ect norms regarding gender equality
and sexual liberalisation. Moreover, they trigger questions about state interference
in individual decisions (Gerhards/Rucht 2000).
For international migrant groups, attitudes and values regarding gender equal-
ity, marriage, fertility and sexuality are indicators of cultural assimilation processes
(Kalmijn/Kraaykamp 2017). As many immigrant groups in Europe originate from
countries that differ from Europe in their prevailing attitudes toward religion, gen-
der equality and sexual liberalisation (Norris/Inglehart 2012), these indicators are
central to debates about immigrant integration in Europe (Koopmans 2015).
Studies of Turkish migrants have shown that they tend to transmit the culture
of origin across generations. Moreover, compared to their non-migrant counter-
parts, Turkish migrants maintain higher levels of religiosity (e.g. Van Tubergen/Sin-
dradóttir 2011), are less likely to promote gender equality (e.g. Röder 2014), and
have higher fertility rates (Kulu/González-Ferrer 2014). These fi ndings suggest that
the second generation should also differ considerably from the majority population
at destination in their attitudes toward abortion, i.e. they should be less likely to ac-
cept abortion. However, assimilation theory would lead us to expect that attitudes
toward abortion in the second generation would resemble those of natives (Gordon
1964). Educational achievement, which is considered a driver of integration in other
life domains, is usually higher in the second than the fi rst generation (Alba et al.
2011). Having a higher education is typically associated with having more egalitarian
values (Röder/Mühlau 2014), using contraception and engaging in family planning
– behaviours that may in turn be linked to increased acceptance of abortion (e.g.,
Milewski 2011; Helfferich et al. 2011).
To investigate these contrasting perspectives, we employed data from the pro-
ject ”The Integration of the European Second Generation (TIES 2007-08)”, which
targeted Turkish migrant descendants of the second generation, i.e. those children
who were born in the country of destination to one or two immigrant parents from
Turkey. The countries of residence included in our sample are Austria, France, Ger-
many, Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands. We investigated three research
questions: 1) Departing from assimilation theory, we asked whether the attitudes
toward abortion of Turks belonging to the second generation differed from those
of their native-born counterparts. 2) Based on the assumption that the country of
residence and its institutional context, policies and cultural norms affect the inte-
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol310
gration processes of immigrants and their descendants, we tested the role of the
societal climate (Almond/Verba 1989) and the integration context (Crul et al. 2012)
by examining cross-country variation in attitudes toward abortion. 3) We explored
to what extent the characteristics of the context of the current family and of the
family of origin can explain individual- and group-level attitudes toward abortion.
Previous research mainly captured the current situation of the respondents (Carol/
Milewski 2017).
In addition to addressing a rarely researched topic, our study contributes to the
literature by using two dependent variables: namely, medical and non-medical rea-
sons for abortion. The majority of previous surveys and studies tended to ask more
about attitudes in general, thus producing bias. The answers in the TIES survey
were not collected on a continuous scale, but in three categories. This approach al-
lowed us to depart from the common practice of analysing the mean when attitudes
are measured on a metric scale. Previous authors have argued that the distribution
in attitudes toward abortion may have changed despite a rather stable mean over
the decades (Jelen/Wilcox 2003). Thus, our study can produce a much more differ-
entiated picture based on the reason for abortion for both study populations.
2 Theoretical background
In the following sections, we will outline our arguments as to why migrants and
natives might differ in their attitudes toward abortion. In order to explore potential
group differences, we draw attention to the reasons for abortion (Section 2.1). While
abortion on the basis of medical reasons is widely granted, including in immigrants’
countries of origin (Shapiro 2014), non-medical reasons are more contested. We
therefore expect that the divide between natives and descendants will be strongest
in the case of abortion for non-medical reasons. The main mechanisms explaining
the preservation of restrictive attitudes toward abortion are ethnic and religious
socialisation and the transmission of values through parents originating in Turkey
(Section 2.2) and religious institutions (Section 2.4). However, counterinfl uence
might stem from the country of residence (Section 2.3) where persons of Turkish
origin have attended school and where they have been exposed to a different so-
cio-political climate with regard to abortion. According to assimilation theory, they
should hold attitudes that resemble those of natives. Accordingly, the gap between
descendants and natives should be small. We will elaborate on these contrasting
perspectives in the following sections.
2.1 Reasons for abortion
Previous studies on attitudes toward abortion have found large differences across
regions. People in the Arabic countries of Asia and North Africa are less likely to
approve of abortion than people in Western Europe and North America (Adamc-
zyk 2013; Jelen/Wilcox 2003; Jelen 2014; Bahr/Marcos 2003), even though abortion
rates are higher in the former than in the latter group of countries (Sedgh et al.
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 311
2016). These broad regional differences are associated with different religious tra-
ditions, which are in turn correlated with gender equality and sexual liberalisation.
People living in Western, largely Christian societies express more support for gen-
der equality and sexual liberalisation than people living in Muslim-majority coun-
tries (Norris/Inglehart 2012). Among Muslim countries, Turkey has relatively liberal
abortion policies. Nonetheless, the legality of induced abortion in Turkey depends
on the timing and type of abortion being sought, as well as the reasons for the abor-
tion (Loeber 2008).
Even in Europe, individual attitudes and societal norms do not always foster
tolerance of abortion. However, most developed countries have policies that allow
induced abortion under certain circumstances. While social reasons for seeking an
abortion are permitted, in most cases the woman seeking an abortion must give
a medical/physical reason for an abortion, such as a serious threat to her physical
or mental health. The social reasons a woman seeking an abortion can cite include
that her family does not have enough money to support a (or another) child, that the
child would be illegitimate, that she is under 16 years of age, or that the pregnancy
resulted from a sexual crime. Often, the reason given for the abortion depends on
the duration of the pregnancy, as the legal time frame for seeking an abortion for
medical reasons is longer than the legal time frame for seeking an abortion for social
reasons (Levels et al. 2014; Clements 2015; Ankara 2017).
Just as national policies differentiate between medical and non-medical reasons
for abortion, individuals also differentiate between these reasons in their attitudes
toward abortion. Clements (2015) reported that in a survey conducted in Great Brit-
ain in 1993, levels of approval of abortion varied greatly depending on the reason
for the abortion. Relatively small percentages of respondents said they disapprove
of abortion in cases in which the health/life of the mother was endangered by the
pregnancy (ranging from 0 percent to 1 percent among Protestants to 9 percent
among Roman Catholics), and when the foetus was at risk of deformation (3 per-
cent to 22 percent). By contrast, much larger percentages of respondents said they
disapprove of abortion for social reasons, such as fi nancial constraints (39 percent
to 65 percent). For the US, Bumpass (1997) investigated how the design of such sur-
veys – i.e. the phrasing and the order of the questions – infl uenced the responses.
Overall, however, he also found that around 80 percent of respondents said they ap-
prove of abortion for limited reasons only: namely, if the woman’s health is endan-
gered, if the foetus has a serious impairment, or if the pregnancy resulted from rape.
In line with Clements’ (2015) fi ndings, he reported that only 41 percent to 46 per-
cent of respondents said they approve of a woman having an abortion because
she wants no more children, has fi nancial constraints, or is unmarried (i.e. for more
inclusive reasons); and that slightly smaller percentages of respondents agreed that
a woman should be able to obtain an abortion for any reason at all (Bumpass 1997).
Unfortunately, most (cross-nationally comparative) datasets do not assess atti-
tudes in such a detailed fashion, or they present the information in a summary scale
(Rosenhouse-Persson/Sabagh 1983). The study by Clements (2015) is an exception
in differentiating attitudes toward abortion by reasons for the abortion. The focus
of the vast majority of surveys and studies has been more on asking about attitudes
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol312
in general, thus mixing different reasons and producing bias, and within-country
variation by migrant background or ethnicity has hardly been considered in the pre-
vious literature.
2.2 Migrant socialisation
While natives and migrants alike are exposed to political socialisation in their coun-
tries of residence, it is not clear whether they are affected similarly or differently
by it. On the one hand, we can assume that they are equally infl uenced. The ap-
proximation of cultural patterns, including the values of minorities and natives, is
regarded as one indicator in a two-sided understanding of immigrant integration
(Alba/Nee 1997). Classical assimilation theory would suggest that migrant genera-
tions gradually adopt the attitudes and behaviours of the natives at the destination
(Gordon 1964). On the other hand, empirical evidence does not show such a clear
pattern (Alba/Nee 2003), and migrants and natives might be socialized differently. In
their socialisation, compared to natives immigrant children can draw upon various
resources, i.e. their ancestors’ culture and that of the society at destination, which
means that they are exposed in addition to political socialisation in their parents’
countries of origin or their communities, parents or families that transmit values
from their countries of origin. Women and men of subsequent migrant generations
need to manoeuvre throughout their childhood and adolescence by choosing from
or between elements of two cultural heritages under societal circumstances that
may clash with these cultural traditions. Foner (1997) calls this process “bicultural
adjustment.” Previous literature has tended to portray the second generation as be-
ing “exposed to competing pressures” (Kalmijn/Kraaykamp 2017: 2), based on the
assumption that the family of origin has more conservative values than the majority
group in the destination country.
The fi ndings on the demographic behaviour and the processes of structural and
cultural integration among Turks in Europe are confl icting. Like other Muslim minori-
ties, Turks lag behind in their socio-economic integration (Koenig et al. 2016) are
more likely to be religious (e.g. Diehl/Koenig 2009; Jacob/Kalter 2013), and experi-
ence more discrimination than other migrant groups (Weichselbaumer 2016). The
social distance between Turks and non-migrants is also relatively large (Sniderman/
Hagendoorn 2007). While we might expect to fi nd that the second generation is
better integrated than the fi rst (e.g. Diehl/Koenig 2009; Van Tubergen/Sindradóttir
2011), it is also possible that attitudinal differences persist because of the intergen-
erational transmission of religiosity (e.g. Diehl/Koenig 2009; Jacob/Kalter 2013) or of
norms, values and attitudes. There is also evidence that immigrants from Turkey in
several European countries tend to maintain their family formation behaviour (i.e.
number of children, early marriage and low rates of extramarital births) across gen-
erations (e.g. Milewski 2011; Baykara-Krumme/Milewski 2017). Only a few previous
studies based on descriptive statistics have examined abortion practices among
immigrants. These studies found that fi rst-generation Turkish women in the Neth-
erlands (Loeber 2008) and in Germany (Helfferich et al. 2011) have higher abortion
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 313
rates than the majority group in the country of residence, in line with the differences
in abortion rates between European countries and Turkey.
Regarding attitudes toward family and marriage, sexuality and gender equality,
the previous literature has produced a diverse picture. While considerable variation
within the immigrant groups persists, there is evidence that assimilation processes
are occurring, but that a native-immigrant gap remains in the second generation.
For example, Soehl (2017) found acculturation in attitudes toward homosexuality
among immigrant descendants living in Europe, with levels of acceptance increas-
ing with duration of stay and among the second generation. Kalmijn/Kraaykamp
(2017) reported similar results for several attitudes toward marriage and sexuality.
With regard to attitudes toward abortion, Carol/Milewski (2017) found that im-
migrants from Muslim countries were less likely to accept abortion than members
of the respective majority groups in several western European destinations. Con-
trolling for socio-demographic characteristics and several indicators of religiosity,
the study showed that attitudes toward abortion were even less tolerant among the
second than the fi rst generation.
Based on these considerations, we derive our fi rst working hypothesis on the
effect of the migrant background: We compare members of the second Turkish
generation to their native counterparts, i.e. those who have non-migrant parents,
and expect to fi nd that the second generation are, on average, less accepting of
abortion because of their socialisation in their ancestors’ culture of Turkey, which
has more restrictive abortion policies, less egalitarian gender values, lower levels
of acceptance of abortion, and higher religiosity than European countries. We start
to test this hypothesis for the whole sample of six countries, which compared the
Turkish second generation on average to the natives’ cross-country average in joint
models. In addition, we estimate the group difference within each single country by
preparing separate models for each country in order to check whether the second
generation and the native comparison group show similar differences (if any) in
each country. We distinguish between the reasons for abortion, and assume that
the migrant-native gap in acceptance is smaller for medical reasons than for non-
medical reasons because the regulations regarding medical reasons are more simi-
lar between Europe and Turkey than those regarding non-medical reasons. In addi-
tion, we investigate in more detail the impact of the compositional differences of the
groups under study. We assume that any differences between the second genera-
tion and the natives will decrease or vanish when we control for socio-demographic
variables that mediate the effect of nativity status on attitudes toward abortion (sex,
age, education). Additional variables that capture the respondents’ individual char-
acteristics are marital status and parenthood.
2.3 European cross-country differences
Our second working hypothesis concerns the infl uence of the countries of resi-
dence. Multiple studies have shown that policies can affect immigrants’ integra-
tion (e.g. Goodman/Wright 2015), religiosity (Ersanilli/Koopmans 2011; Carol et al.
2015), union formation (Hamel et al. 2012; Carol et al. 2014), and fertility patterns
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol314
(Andersson/Scott 2005; Milewski 2007). Moreover, in line with theories on political
socialisation through school, work or the media (Almond/Verba 1989) we expect to
fi nd that the societal climate (e.g. the climate created by abortion policies and their
implementation, and the general level of gender equality) infl uences the attitudes
of a country’s residents.
European countries share a rather long history where induced abortion has been
subject to public and political discourses and to legislation. Abortion has been legal
in the European countries included in our study since the 1970s at the latest. Despite
their proximity, European countries have different histories and contents of abor-
tion policies and permit different methods of abortion.1 Countries vary in the extent
to which they allow abortion. For example, a woman may be permitted to seek an
abortion if her life is at risk, if her physical or mental health is at risk, if she was
raped, if there are foetal abnormalities, or if she is suffering from socio-economic
deprivation or distress (Levels et al. 2014; see also Table A1 in the Appendix).
The cross-country variation in medical reasons for an abortion is smaller than
the variation in non-medical reasons. Abortion to save a woman’s life or to preserve
her physical health is permitted in all of the countries included in our study. Abor-
tion in response to foetal abnormalities is allowed in Austria, France and the Nether-
lands, but not in Germany, Sweden or Switzerland. Abortion for mental health rea-
sons is permitted in Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Abortion on the grounds of
a sexual crime is legal only in Germany (until week 12) and Sweden (until week 24).
The woman’s socio-economic circumstances are considered in Germany. Abortion
for reasons of distress is legal in France, Germany, Switzerland (until week 12) and
in the Netherlands (until week 22), but not in Austria and Sweden (Levels et al. 2014).
Germany ranks as the most tolerant country in terms of the number of legal
grounds for abortion. But the Netherlands may be the least restrictive country over-
all because a woman is permitted to have an abortion on the grounds of distress
– which encompasses several reasons – until relatively late in her pregnancy. The
countries also vary in the implementation of these policies. Despite the rather large
number of legal grounds for abortion, Germany is clearly restrictive in the practice
of abortion. For instance, the medical abortion pill (Mifepristone) is much harder to
obtain in Germany than in other European countries, especially in France, Switzer-
land and Sweden (Arisi 2003). Also, women in Germany needed a prescription to
obtain emergency contraception until 2015, while the morning-after pill has been
widely available for a much longer time in Sweden, France, Austria and Switzerland
than in Germany (ESHRE Capri Workshop Group 2015).
Scholars have frequently argued that feminism shapes abortion policies (Levels
et al. 2014). Thus, the topic is often connected to gender equality. Just as there
1 Of the countries included in our sample, the Netherlands was the fi rst to legalise abortion; in
1886 abortion became legal in order to save life. Austria, Germany and Switzerland followed
in the 1930s. Abortion became legal in Sweden in 1946 and in France in 1955. Until the 1970s,
medical reasons were the only grounds for legal abortion in these countries. Rape and distress
were only subsequently introduced (except in Sweden and the former German Democratic Re-
public) (Levels et al. 2014).
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 315
is cross-national variation in abortion policies, there is cross-national variation in
gender equality norms. Among the countries included in our study, survey fi ndings
indicate that support for gender equality is highest in Sweden, followed by France; it
is lowest in Germany, and it is moderate in the Netherlands and Switzerland (Norris/
Inglehart 2012; Austria was not included here).
Compared to people in other countries with Muslim traditions, people in Turkey
tend to express greater support for gender equality (Inglehart/Norris 2003; Norris/
Inglehart 2012). This stance on gender equality is also refl ected in the regulation of
abortion, which is less restrictive in Turkey than in other Muslim-majority countries
(Hedayat et al. 2006; Loeber 2008; Shapiro 2014)
To our knowledge, there are only a few quantitative studies that have investigat-
ed attitudes toward sensitive topics like abortion and sexuality in international mi-
grant groups across European receiving countries. Ersanilli (2012) examined various
values, including beliefs about abortion, among Turkish migrants in several coun-
tries. The author also found less support for abortion in Germany than in France.
Looking at attitudes toward abortion, Carol/Milewski (2017) found signifi cant coun-
try variation across both the majority and the Muslim-minority populations, with
those in France being the most accepting and those in Germany the least accepting
of abortion. These fi ndings suggest that the wider policy and societal climate as well
as norms regarding gender equality may be better predictors of attitudes toward
abortion than abortion laws.
Our study adds to the previous literature by focusing on the within-group com-
parison of second-generation Turks in six European countries. More importantly,
we can differentiate between attitudes toward abortion for medical and non-med-
ical reasons and draw on a retrospective measure of religiosity during childhood,
which is superior to current religiosity. Based on the considerations outlined above,
we formulated our working hypothesis on country variation as follows: We expect
to fi nd differences between the natives in the destination countries and between
the individuals of the Turkish second generation living in these countries. More pre-
cisely, we expect to fi nd the highest levels of acceptance of abortion in Sweden,
the Netherlands and France; the lowest levels in Germany; and moderate levels in
Switzerland and Austria.
2.4 Family context and religiosity
The third aspect we investigate in more detail are the within-group differences
among the second generation and among natives. We focus on the main factors
likely to affect attitudes toward abortion because they are related to gender equali-
ty, i.e. religiosity and variables associated with the family context. We include meas-
ures that refer to the family background and childhood of the respondents, as well
as to their current living situations, in order to disentangle direct and indirect effects
of the family background in the socialisation process on present-day attitudes of the
migrant children (Kalmijn/Kraaykamp 2017).
Individual values and attitudes are mainly formed during a person’s primary pe-
riod of socialisation, with parents serving as models or direct instructors (Bandura
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol316
1977). Alternatively, parents may indirectly infl uence the social contacts of their
children by determining their educational paths (Bozon/Héran 2006). In addition,
religious institutions are likely to infl uence attitudes toward abortion. The role of
religion has been well documented in previous studies (e.g. Adamczyk 2013; Lewis/
Kashyap 2013). For example, religious institutions may cite religious scriptures that
teach that life is given and taken by God alone, and that humans have no right to
interfere in this process (Almond et al. 2013; Jelen 2014; Shapiro 2014). Although
abortion is widely condemned by various denominations, levels of condemnation
vary. Jelen (2014) found that disapproval is signifi cantly higher among Muslims than
among members of other denominations. Our data allow us to consider whether the
respondents were raised in a religious family; and, for Muslims, whether they at-
tended Koran lessons. Nevertheless, there is also signifi cant opposition to abortion
in Christian churches (Clements 2015). Thus, we expect to observe the lowest levels
of acceptance of abortion among Muslims and Christians and the highest levels of
acceptance of abortion among those without religious education.
We assume that the infl uence of religious education in childhood is mediated by
the current level of religiosity. Religiosity can take different forms (believing, bond-
ing, behaving and belonging (Saroglou 2011)), which have different infl uences on at-
titudes (Jelen 2014). Here, we consider answers to the question of whether religion
is an important part of the respondent’s life. We assume that highly religious people
are less likely to approve of abortion than those who have no religious affi liation or
see religion as unimportant (Carol/Milewski 2017).
Families with relatively high educational levels and status may be especially
likely to transmit knowledge and goals that go beyond family formation, and may
thus discourage (early) childbearing (Murphy/Wang 2001). In fertility research, fi nd-
ings on the infl uence of parental education have been mixed. It seems likely that
the impact of the parents’ education is mediated by the individual’s own education
(Baykara-Krumme/Milewski 2017). As an indicator of gender equality and the inte-
gration of the fi rst generation, we use labour market activity of the mother when
the respondent was aged 15. We assume that if the mother was participating in the
labour force, the respondent would have a higher degree of structural integration
and more liberal gender attitudes, which would in turn be associated with greater
acceptance of abortion.
Another family background variable we consider is the number of siblings. A
higher number of siblings coincides with higher own fertility among Turkish women
(Nosaka/Chasiotis 2010; Baykara-Krumme/Milewski 2017), which may suggest more
conservative family values. Thus, we would expect to observe less acceptance of
abortion if the family of origin was relatively large.
In addition, we use the presence of a third person at the interview as a control
because it has been shown to bias the responses to sensitive questions. The type
of third party present ranged from the parents of the respondents (mainly for those
who still lived with their parents) to the partner or the children. Therefore, the third-
party presence could be seen as refl ecting the social control of the parents or the
pressure to engage in social modelling. For example, a respondent who was inter-
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 317
viewed in front of her/his spouse may have sought to appear to be conforming to
the norm (Milewski/Otto 2017).
3 Data, variables and methods
3.1 Data
We analysed data from the survey ”The Integration of the European Second Genera-
tion (TIES 2007-08)”.2 TIES is a European comparative survey that targeted migrant
descendants who were born in their parents’ country of destination, i.e. the second
generation. The survey was designed to specifi cally study the transitions of migrant
youth during early adulthood, with a focus on school and work trajectories. Around
10,000 children of immigrants from Turkey, Morocco and the former Yugoslavia, as
well as a native comparison group, were interviewed in 15 cities in eight European
countries. An urban sample frame was chosen because most immigrants and their
descendants throughout Europe live in cities. The sample size was approximately
500 respondents per city, with half belonging to the second generation and half be-
longing to the native comparison group. We selected Turks because they were sam-
pled in seven of the eight countries, whereas the other two minority groups were
sampled in a few countries only. Respondents were sampled as Turkish second
generation if they were born in the country where the survey was held, and at least
one of their parents was born in Turkey. The respondents were aged 18-35. A stand-
ardised questionnaire was used in the survey (Groenewold/Lessard-Phillips 2012).
For our analyses, we selected all country datasets that included the Turkish second
generation, as well as responses to the question on abortion. Our sample included
data from 11 cities in six countries: Vienna and Linz in Austria, Paris and Strasbourg
in France, Berlin and Frankfurt in Germany, Stockholm in Sweden, Zurich and Basle
in Switzerland, and Amsterdam and Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
3.2 Variables
The last module of the TIES questionnaire contained a range of sensitive questions,
including questions on attitudes and partnership history. There were two questions
on abortion, which were introduced with a joint phrase: “Please tell me for each of
the following statements whether you think it is always acceptable, acceptable in
some specifi c cases, or never acceptable: … abortion for medical reasons and abor-
tion for non-medical reasons.”
2 The TIES survey plays a pioneer role in data collections that allow the comparison of one or
more origin groups in different destinations. Other projects, such as EURISLAM, do not contain
such detailed information on attitudes toward abortion. Besides the age of the TIES data, we
believe the uniqueness of the survey information is a reason to use it.
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol318
Compared to qualitative in-depth interviews or special surveys on family plan-
ning and reproductive health (Bumpass 1997; Clements 2015), these two questions
seem rather broad. For some respondents, the term “acceptable” may have cap-
tured such attitudes in general, while for others it may have referred to the question
of whether abortion should be legal. Moreover, we cannot know how the respond-
ents interpreted the term “medical reasons”; they may have thought about com-
plications caused by the pregnancy for the mother, or about the health problems
of the child, or both (Clements 2015). It is, however, unusual for a social science
survey targeting international migrant groups to contain questions on family plan-
ning and reproductive health. Compared to the data from the general questions
included in, for example, the EURISLAM survey (which sampled migrants from Mus-
lim countries in several European destinations) about whether abortion was justifi -
able (Carol/Milewski 2017), the TIES data allow for a more differentiated analysis
of such attitudes because they distinguish between “medical” and “non-medical”
reasons. In addition, the answers were not collected on a continuous scale, but in
three categories (1= “never acceptable”, 2= “acceptable in specifi c cases”, 3 = “al-
ways acceptable”).
Table 1 provides a descriptive overview of the variables used in the multivariate
analyses by migrant status.
The fi rst set of explanatory variables that are assumed to mediate the effect of
the migrant status on attitudes toward abortion capture socio-demographic charac-
teristics of the respondents at the time of the survey. “Marital status” distinguished
between non-married and married individuals. Similarly, the “number of children”
was combined to a dummy indicating parenthood. “Educational attainment” was
measured using six categories that were constructed for a comparison across the
TIES countries, which have different educational systems (Crul et al. 2012). It refers
to the highest educational degree obtained. Because of the age structure of the
sample, about a quarter of the respondents in both groups were still in education; in
these cases, the education variable indicates the type of school attended. We then
used an indicator for “religiosity”. In the TIES survey, the respondents were asked
to totally agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or totally disagree with
the statement: “Being Muslim/Christian… is an important part of myself.” We re-
duced these categories to three, and added another for respondents who did not
indicate any religious affi liation.
The second set of variables takes into account variables of the respondents’ fam-
ily background and childhood. “Father’s education” was made comparable across
the destination countries and Turkey. We also employed the information about the
“mother’s labour market activity” when the respondents were aged 15. We recoded
the original variables into two broad categories: “not active” were those who did
not work outside the household (this captures the original answers working in the
home or the family business) and “active” were those who had participated in paid
employment at some point (i.e. employed, unemployed, or no longer working due
to disability or retirement). For the “number of siblings”, we used the categories
“none,” “1 or 2,” and “3+.” The variable on “religious upbringing” is a combination
of several questions. The respondents were asked whether they were raised ac-
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 319
Variable Native compa- Turkish second
rison group generation
N % N %
Attitudes toward abortion
Acceptance for medical reasons***
Never acceptable 68 2.8 343 14.6
Acceptable in specifi c cases 661 27.5 1072 45.5
Always acceptable 1676 69.7 941 39.9
Acceptance for non-medical reasons ***
Never acceptable 346 14.4 1167 49.5
Acceptable in specifi c cases 1093 45.4 817 34.7
Always acceptable 966 40.2 372 15.8
Country of residence***
Austria 467 19.4 441 18.7
France 351 14.6 500 21.2
Germany 503 20.9 503 21.3
Netherlands, the 480 20.0 428 18.2
Sweden 182 7.6 130 5.5
Switzerland 422 17.5 354 15.0
Socio-demographic characteristics
Sex
Woman 1256 52.2 1248 53.0
Man 1149 47.8 1108 47.0
Age*** (mean) 26,9 24,4
Marital status ***
Not married 1908 79.3 1539 65.3
Married 492 20.5 816 34.6
Divorced 5 0.2 1 0.0
Children in household***
No 1995 83.0 1696 72.0
Yes 410 17.0 660 28.0
Education ***
Primary 31 1.3 88 3.7
Lower secondary 172 7.2 434 18.4
Apprenticeship 460 19.1 600 25.5
Upper secondary 631 26.2 664 28.2
Tertiary 1105 45.9 560 23.8
mv 6 0.2 10 0.4
Tab. 1: Descriptive overview of the sample, by migrant status
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol320
Variable Native compa- Turkish second
rison group generation
N % N %
Religion is important ***
Agree 356 14.8 1535 65.2
Neither nor 173 7.2 171 7.3
Disagree 151 6.3 80 3.4
na/mv 1725 71.7 570 24.2
Family background
Siblings***
None 447 18.6 115 4.9
1 or 2 1516 63.0 1183 50.2
3+ 342 14.2 1035 43.9
mv 100 4.2 23 1.0
Religious upbringing***
Christian 1265 52.6 92 3.9
Muslim/no Koran school 755 32.0
Muslim/attended Koran school 1118 47.5
Other religion or none 1140 47.4 391 16.6
Father’s education
Primary 68 2.8 1046 44.4
Secondary 1417 58.9 888 37.7
Tertiary 785 32.6 210 8.9
mv 135 5.6 212 9.0
Mother’s labour market activity (respondent aged 15)***
Not active (house wife) 737 30.6 1109 47.1
Not active (unpaid work in family business) 54 2.2 74 3.1
Active (unemployment/retirement/disability) 78 3.2 138 5.9
Active (employment/enrolment in education) 1474 61.3 927 39.3
mv/na 62 2.6 108 4.6
Third-person presence***
Yes 437 18.2 708 30.1
No 1786 74.3 1518 64.4
mv 182 7.6 130 5.5
Total 2405 100 2356 100
Tab. 1: Continuation
Note: ***p<0.001 via chi2 test for the association between the categorical variable/t-test
for the metric variable and migrant status.
mv=missing values, na=not applicable.
Source: Own calculations based on TIES 2007-08. N=4761
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 321
cording to a certain religious tradition, and, if so, which. In addition, Muslims were
asked whether they attended Koran lessons during their childhood. Although the
questionnaire distinguished between several Muslim and Christian denominations,
we combined them to form the categories “Muslim” for Turks and “Christian” for the
natives because of the small numbers in most of the original categories.
Finally, we used the “presence of a third person” at the interview as a dummy
(Milewski/Otto 2017; note that third-party presence was not included in the Swedish
TIES questionnaire).
3.3 Analytical strategy
First, we address the hypothesis that attitudes toward abortion for medical and
non-medical reasons differ between the Turkish second generation and the native
comparison group. We give a descriptive overview of the attitudes toward abortion
by type of reason, migrant background and sex (Fig. 1). We then present the results
of the multivariate analyses based on multinomial logistic regression techniques3
for the whole sample and then for the six countries separately, comparing the sec-
ond generation to the native comparison group (Fig. 2A and 2B; Table A2 in the Ap-
pendix). The results are displayed as average marginal effects (AME, Mood 2010).
In the second part, we focus on the cross-country comparison and within-group
variation by carrying out separate models for the Turkish second generation and na-
tives. A descriptive overview is presented in Figures 3A-D; followed by the multivar-
iate models in Tables 2A and 2B (Fig. 4A-D). The objective here is to test our second
working hypothesis on cross-country variation and the impact of the comparative
integration context on the migrant group. If the country of residence plays a role
in the attitudes of the migrant children, then they should exhibit a cross-country
variation similar to that of the native comparison group across countries (a similar
research design was employed to test this hypothesis e.g. in Milewski 2011).
In order to test our third hypothesis on the impact of the childhood and family
background within the groups, the three groups of independent variables were used
as controls; these are country of residence and sex, family background and child-
hood variables, current socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents as
well as third-party presence at the interview.
3.4 Sample and data quality
Although the attitudes under study are of a sensitive nature, the response rates to
the questions regarding attitudes toward abortion were rather good. For a compari-
3 Multinomial regression analyses was preferred over ordered logistic regression because the
assumption of proportionality in the odds was violated (Brant test). A multinomial model al-
lows an estimate of the differences in change between the answer categories, not the average
change.
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol322
son, Clements’ study on Britain does not indicate non-responses; the percentages
of respondents answering “don’t know” ranged from about 3 percent to 11 per-
cent (Clements 2015: 131-133). In our TIES sample, the non-response (including a
small number of cases with non-valid responses) on attitudes toward abortion was
about 11 percent. The share of non-responses did not vary much between the two
reasons given; most of the respondents answered both questions, and only a few
answered one question only. Therefore, we included all those cases in which the
respondent answered both questions in our analyses. However, the non-response
rates varied between the groups under study: with about 11 percent, the rate was
almost twice as high among the Turkish second generation than among the native
comparison groups (less than 6 percent). Moreover, there was some variation by
country of residence: in France and Germany, the non-response rate was zero –
most likely because this module was a written questionnaire in these countries. The
non-response or non-valid response rates in the other countries were moderate:
below 3 percent in Austria, about 10 percent in the Netherlands, and about 15 per-
cent in Switzerland. The highest non-response rates for attitudes toward abortion
were in Sweden (about 38 percent in total, 27 percent among natives, and 47 per-
cent among the second generation).
To check the data quality of the sample used, we compared the socio-demo-
graphic composition of the sample used (N=4,761) and the sample that only in-
cluded the cases with non-responses and was not used in our analyses (N=450).
For both groupings, we found that the percentages of highly educated respondents
and of respondents with no religious upbringing were slightly higher in the non-
response group, which suggests that we may be underestimating the effects of
higher education and secularism on attitudes. Given the otherwise high degree of
compositional similarity between our sample and the non-response group and the
high overall response rate, we are rather confi dent of the data quality in our sample.
Our fi nal sample consisted of 4,761 respondents, 49.5 percent of whom belonged to
the second generation and 51.5 percent to the native comparison group.
4 Results
In the whole sample, abortion for medical reasons was more accepted than abor-
tion for non-medical reasons (results not shown). Less than 9 percent of the TIES
respondents said they would never accept abortion for medical reasons, whereas
about 32 percent said they would never accept abortion for non-medical reasons.
While 55 percent said they would always accept abortion for medical reasons,
28 percent said they would always accept abortion for non-medical reasons. For
both reasons, more than one-third said they would accept abortion in specifi c cases.
By sex, we did not fi nd signifi cant differences in the attitudes in the whole sam-
ple. The only minor difference was that women would be slightly more likely to
“never” accept abortion for non-medical reasons, but answer “in specifi c cases”
more often than men.
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 323
4.1 Migrant background and the reason for abortion
We fi rst test our working hypothesis of the migrant background, comparing the
Turkish second generation to the native comparison group.
Fig. 1: Attitudes toward abortion, by reason, sex and migrant status (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
in percent
Native comparison group
Turkish second generation
Native comparison group
Turkish second generation
16 43 41
51 34 16
3 28 69
14 46 40
N
o
n
-m
e
d
ic
al
re
as
o
n
s
M
e
d
ic
al
re
as
o
n
s
A - Women
0 20 40 60 80 100
in percent
Native comparison group
Turkish second generation
Native comparison group
Turkish second generation
12 48 40
48 36 16
3 27 71
15 45 40
Never acceptable Acceptable in specific cases Always acceptable
N
o
n
-m
e
d
ic
al
re
as
o
n
s
M
e
d
ic
al
re
as
o
n
s
B - Men
Source: Own calculations based on TIES 2007-08
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol324
For both reasons for abortion, we found large signifi cant differences by migrant
status, with persons of the second Turkish generation being less accepting (Fig. 1A
for women and 1B for men). Among women, just 3 percent of the native comparison
group, but about 14 percent of the second-generation group, said they would never
accept abortion for medical reasons. The percentage of those women who said they
would never accept abortion for non-medical reasons was about 16 percent among
the natives and 51 percent among the second-generation group. The rather low
levels of disapproval of abortion among the natives suggest that the non-migrant
populations in Europe have more liberal attitudes toward abortion than immigrants
from Turkey, and particularly toward abortion for medical reasons. We should, how-
ever, keep in mind that the TIES sample is urban, and at least half of these country
samples were drawn in the respective capitals. As inhabitants of cities have been
shown to have more “liberal” values than those living in rural areas, the analysis
may overestimate the acceptance of abortion among non-migrants. However, the
low percentage of those who would never accept abortion does not imply a full ac-
ceptance of abortion, even for medical reasons. The attitudes among native women
may be described as “plural”: about 69 percent said they would always accept abor-
tion for medical reasons, and 28 percent said they would accept it in specifi c cases;
while 41 percent said they would always accept abortion for non-medical reasons,
and 43 percent said they would accept it in specifi c cases.
Among the women of the Turkish second generation, the attitudes toward abor-
tion were rather plural, too, but the acceptance levels were lower overall. This was
not only because more respondents said they would never accept abortion, but also
because fewer of these respondents said they would always accept it (40 percent
for medical and 16 percent for non-medical reasons).
Compared to women, hardly any differences were found for men within either
grouping. The fi nding of no-sex difference is consistent with the literature (Carol/
Milewski 2017).
The overall differences between the Turkish migrant children and the native
comparison group diminished in the multivariate analyses, but remained signifi cant
when analysing the whole sample of six countries (Fig. 2A and 2B as well as Table
A2 in the Appendix show the marginal effects for Turkish descendants relative to
those for the comparison group). With regard to abortion for medical reasons, the
biggest difference was found in the category “always” acceptable. Individuals of the
second Turkish generation were about 11 percentage points less likely to say they
always accept abortion for medical reasons, and were 8 percentage points more
likely to say they accept it in certain cases only (M.m3 in Tab. A2). By contrast, with
regard to abortion for non-medical reasons, the biggest difference was that Turks
were 10 percentage points more likely to say they never accept abortion (holding all
other variables constant/M.n 3 in Tab A2).
It is important to note, however, that the native comparison group may be rather
heterogeneous here in their attitudes toward abortion because of the country vari-
ation in policies as described in Section 2.3. Women and men of the Turkish sec-
ond generation differ in their attitudes from the average of the European natives.
According to the literature, however, this is because the citizens in each European
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 325
Fig. 2: Attitudes toward abortion in Turkish second generation relative to
native comparison group, by reason and country
Results of multinomial logistic regression models, reference: native comparison group.
Controlled for sex, siblings, mothers‘ LFP, father‘s education, religious education, age, education,
marital status, parenthood, religiosity, third-party presence.
Bars in black frames indicate signifi cant differences at 5 percent.
Source: Own calculations based on TIES 2007-08
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
W
ho
le
sa
m
pl
e
Au
str
ia
Fr
an
ce
Th
e N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Ge
rm
an
y
Sw
ed
en
Sw
itz
er
lan
d
A - Medical reasons
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
W
ho
le
sa
m
pl
e
Au
str
ia
Fr
an
ce
Th
e N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Ge
rm
an
y
Sw
ed
en
Sw
itz
er
lan
d
Never acceptable Acceptable in specific cases Always acceptable
B - Non-medical reasons
Average marginal effects (AME)
Average marginal effects (AME)
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol326
country hold more liberal values toward abortion as well as to sexual liberalization
and gender equality compared to those in other regions of the world, despite some
variation between European countries (Norris/Inglehart 2012).
When we explored the comparison between the second generation and natives
within each individual country, the overall patterns were found in all six analyses
(Fig. 2A and 2B): The chances that second-generation Turks would never accept
abortion for medical reasons hardly varied from the attitude of natives. But Turks
were more likely to say “in specifi c cases” and less likely to say “always” than na-
tives. With regard to abortion for non-medical reasons, second-generation Turks
were more likely to never accept abortion. It must be noted, however, that much of
the group differences could be explained by the additional explanatory variables
and by the fact that the sample size of the single countries is rather small. This cer-
tainly also contributed to rather large confi dence intervals. Therefore, we refrain
from overinterpreting these results.
4.2 Country variation
Second, we test our working hypothesis of cross-country variation within the sec-
ond generation and within natives separately.
Figures 3A-D display the country variation in attitudes by reason for abortion
and migrant background (the countries were ordered by the highest level of “al-
ways” accepting for medical reasons in the native comparison group). In each coun-
try and in both groupings, we found greater acceptance of abortion for medical
than for non-medical reasons. Overall, the highest levels of “always” acceptance of
abortion for medical and non-medical reasons were found in Sweden and France,
corresponding to the lowest percentage of “never” acceptance. The lowest levels
of “always” and the highest shares of “never” acceptance were found in Germany
and in Switzerland.
In the second generation, country variation did appear but was less clear-cut.
The percentages of Turkish women and men who said they always accept abortion
followed roughly the same pattern as that of natives, albeit on a lower level: The
second-generation Turks in Sweden and France were the most likely to say they
always accept abortion for medical and for non-medical reasons; but the trends
were similar in Switzerland when it comes to abortion for medical reasons. The
attitudes expressed by Turkish migrant children in Germany were closer to those
of their counterparts in Austria and the Netherlands. While the variation of “never”
acceptance of abortion was moderate regarding medical reasons, it was larger for
non-medical reasons. Again, the lowest percentage was found in Sweden; the high-
est rates of rejection were found in the second generation living in Germany, Austria
and in the Netherlands.
Figures 4A and 4B provide the results of the multivariate analyses (AME) for
medical reasons in which we study the second Turkish generation and the native
comparison group separately. As it has the lowest levels of acceptance, Germany
serves as the reference category. In the native comparison group, the respondents
in all six countries show no signifi cant difference in their “never” acceptance, when
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 327
we control for all other explanatory variables. The respondents in France and Swe-
den and – to a somewhat lesser degree – those in the Netherlands and Austria were
signifi cantly less likely to answer “in specifi c cases”, but more likely to “always” ac-
cept abortion for medical reasons.
Looking at the second generation, we found a small but signifi cant variation in
the category “never”, with those in Sweden, France, Austria and Switzerland less
likely to reject abortion than those in Germany and in the Netherlands. Compared
to the women and men of Turkish ancestry living in Germany, those in the other fi ve
countries answered “always” more often.
Fig. 3: Attitudes toward abortion, by reason, migrant status and country (%)
A - Medical reasons
Native comparison group
B - Medical reasons
Turkish second generation
C - Non-medical reasons
Native comparison group
D - Non-medical reasons
Turkish second generation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S
w
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
A
u
st
ri
a
S
w
itz
er
la
n
d
G
er
m
an
y
0
6
95
2
12
87
4
19
78
3
30
67
3
37
60
4
44
52
Never acceptable Acceptable in specific cases Always acceptable
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S
w
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
A
u
st
ri
a
S
w
itz
er
la
n
d
G
er
m
an
y
5
30
65
11
33
56
26
41
33
9
57
34
8
46
46
20
55
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S
w
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
A
u
st
ri
a
S
w
itz
er
la
n
d
G
er
m
an
y
1
25
74
4
33
63
12
45
43
16
44
40
11
65
23
30
46
24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S
w
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
A
u
st
ri
a
S
w
itz
er
la
n
d
G
er
m
an
y
26
35
39
35
39
26
55
33
12
63
25
12
35
52
13
64
28
8
in percent in percent
in percent in percent
Source: Own calculations based on TIES 2007-08
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol328
Figures 4C and 4D display the country results of the multivariate analyses for
non-medical reasons. Compared to Germany, the persons in all other countries
were signifi cantly less likely to “never” accept abortion. Sweden and France stood
out as having high shares of respondents who said they would always accept abor-
tion; and there was less likelihood of “never” and “in specifi c cases” than in the
other countries.
Fig. 4: Attitudes toward abortion, by reason, migrant status and country (AME)
A - Medical reasons
Native comparison group
B - Medical reasons
Turkish second generation
C - Non-medical reasons
Native comparison group
D - Non-medical reasons
Turkish second generation
Average marginal effects (AME) Average marginal effects (AME)
Average marginal effects (AME) Average marginal effects (AME)
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
S
w
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
A
u
st
ri
a
S
w
itz
er
la
n
d
Never acceptable Acceptable in specific cases Always acceptable
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
S
w
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
A
u
st
ri
a
S
w
itz
er
la
n
d
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
S
w
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
A
u
st
ri
a
S
w
itz
er
la
n
d
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
S
w
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
A
u
st
ri
a
S
w
itz
er
la
n
d
Results of multinomial logistic regression models, reference: Germany.
Controlled for sex, siblings, mothers‘ LFP, father‘s education, religious education, age, education,
marital status, parenthood, religiosity, third-party presence.
Bars in black frames indicate signifi cant differences at 5 percent.
Source: Own calculations based on TIES 2007-08
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 329
In the second Turkish generation, the country variation was less pronounced. A
similarity to the patterns of the native comparison group was that those in France
and Sweden were less likely to say “never” and more likely to say “always”. Also
second generation Turks in the other three countries were more “liberal” than those
in Germany – either by stating “in specifi c cases” more often (as is the case with
those in Switzerland), or by being more likely to answer “always” (as is the case with
those in the Netherlands or Austria).
4.3 The role of the explanatory variables
Coming back to our third hypothesis, we look at the effects of the socio-demograph-
ic controls and the socialisation context of the family. The independent variables did
not contribute much to explaining the variation within the groupings under study,
neither between the native comparison group and the second Turkish generation
(Table A2 in the Appendix) nor within natives or Turks (Tables 2A and 2B).
In the Turkish second generation, religious upbringing (Koran school attendance)
had an infl uence on attitudes toward abortion for medical reasons and non-medical
reasons, i.e. lower “in specifi c cases” and “always” acceptance. Having 3+ siblings
and the father’s primary education were associated with lower acceptance of abor-
tion.
Among the variables referring to the respondents’ socio-economic situation at
the time of the interview, tertiary education was associated with higher acceptance
and primary education with lower acceptance of abortion for both types of reasons,
compared to secondary schooling. Those who considered themselves religious
said less often that they accepted abortion “in specifi c cases” or “always”. Being
married and carrying out the interview in the presence of a third person were also
associated with lower levels of acceptance. These trends were similar to those in
the native comparison group, albeit with smaller coeffi cient sizes.
5 Discussion
We analysed attitudes toward abortion among Turkish descendants living in six Eu-
ropean countries, and compared them to the attitudes of their counterparts with
non-migrant parents. Based on the assimilation theory, we had hypothesised that
we would observe a gap between the second Turkish generation and the native
comparison group. We did indeed fi nd such a gap in our results: overall, the migrant
descendants were less approving of abortion than the natives. But, as expected, the
size of this gap varied depending on the reason for abortion. The differences be-
tween the second generation and the comparison group were smaller for abortion
for medical reasons than for non-medical reasons. Moreover, we had hypothesised
that this gap would diminish when we controlled for the socio-demographic compo-
sition of the groupings and further variables of the family background and childhood
of the respondents. Our results only partially supported this hypothesis, because
the differences between the groupings could be partially explained by the controls.
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol330
N
a
ti
v
e
c
o
m
p
a
ri
so
n
g
ro
u
p
Tu
rk
is
h
s
e
co
n
d
g
e
n
e
ra
ti
o
n
“N
e
v
e
r”
“I
n
s
p
e
ci
fi
c
“A
lw
ay
s”
“N
e
v
e
r”
“I
n
s
p
e
ci
fi
c
“A
lw
ay
s”
ca
se
s”
ca
se
s”
C
o
u
n
tr
y
o
f
re
si
d
e
n
ce
(
R
e
f=
G
e
rm
a
n
y)
A
u
st
ri
a
-0
.0
1
-0
.1
5
**
*
0
.1
6
**
*
-0
.1
1
**
*
-0
.0
1
0
.1
2
**
*
F
ra
n
ce
-0
.0
2
°
-0
.2
9
**
*
0
.3
1
**
*
-0
.0
7
°
-0
.2
3
**
*
0
.3
0
**
*
N
e
th
e
rl
a
n
d
s,
t
h
e
0
.0
0
-0
.1
9
**
*
0
.1
9
**
*
0
.0
4
-0
.1
7
**
*
0
.1
3
**
*
S
w
e
d
e
n
-0
.0
4
**
*
-0
.3
7
**
*
0
.4
0
**
*
-0
.1
0
*
-0
.2
1
**
*
0
.3
0
**
*
S
w
it
ze
rl
an
d
-0
.0
1
-0
.0
4
0
.0
6
-0
.0
9
**
-0
.0
8
°
0
.1
7
**
*
S
e
x
(R
e
f=
m
a
n
)
W
o
m
a
n
0
.0
0
0
.0
1
-0
.0
1
-0
.0
2
0
.0
1
0
.0
0
S
ib
li
n
g
s
(R
e
f=
1
o
r
2
)
N
o
n
e
-0
.0
1
°
-0
.0
2
0
.0
3
-0
.0
3
-0
.0
2
0
.0
4
3+
0
.0
1
0
.0
5
°
-0
.0
6
*
0
.0
0
0
.0
5
*
-0
.0
4
*
M
o
th
e
r’
s
la
b
o
u
r
m
a
rk
e
t
a
ct
iv
it
y
(R
e
f=
n
o
)
A
c
ti
v
e
-0
.0
1
0
.0
0
0
.0
1
-0
.0
2
0
.0
2
0
.0
0
F
a
th
e
r’
s
e
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
(
R
e
f=
se
co
n
d
a
ry
)
P
ri
m
a
ry
-0
.0
2
°
0
.0
1
0
.0
1
0
.0
4
**
-0
.0
3
-0
.0
1
Te
rt
ia
ry
-0
.0
1
-0
.0
6
**
0
.0
7
**
0
.0
3
-0
.1
3
**
0
.1
0
*
R
e
li
g
io
u
s
u
p
b
ri
n
g
in
g
(R
e
f=
C
h
ri
st
ia
n
)
(R
e
f=
M
u
sl
im
/n
o
K
o
ra
n
s
ch
o
o
l)
M
u
sl
im
/a
tt
e
n
d
e
d
K
o
ra
n
s
ch
o
o
l
n
a
n
a
n
a
0
.0
4
*
0
.0
4
°
-0
.0
8
**
N
o
n
e
/o
th
e
r
-0
.0
1
0
.0
4
°
-0
.0
3
0
.0
3
-0
.0
1
-0
.0
2
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
(
R
e
f=
lo
w
e
r
se
co
n
d
a
ry
)
P
ri
m
a
ry
0
.0
3
0
.0
2
-0
.0
4
0
.0
9
°
0
.0
2
-0
.1
1
*
A
p
p
re
n
ti
ce
sh
ip
-0
.0
2
0
.0
6
°
-0
.0
5
-0
.0
3
0
.0
4
-0
.0
1
U
p
p
e
r
se
co
n
d
a
ry
-0
.0
2
0
.0
2
0
.0
0
-0
.0
6
*
0
.0
2
0
.0
4
Te
rt
ia
ry
-0
.0
4
*
-0
.0
3
0
.0
7
°
-0
.0
9
**
*
-0
.0
2
0
.1
1
**
M
a
ri
ta
l
st
a
tu
s
(R
e
f=
n
o
t
m
a
rr
ie
d
)
M
a
rr
ie
d
/d
iv
o
rc
e
d
0
.0
0
0
.0
1
-0
.0
1
0
.0
6
**
-0
.0
1
-0
.0
6
°
T
a
b
.
2
A
:
A
tt
it
u
d
e
s
to
w
a
rd
a
b
o
rt
io
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
ic
a
l r
e
a
so
n
s
–
m
u
lt
in
o
m
ia
l l
o
g
is
ti
c
re
g
re
ss
io
n
(
A
M
E
),
b
y
m
ig
ra
n
t
st
a
tu
s
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 331
N
a
ti
v
e
c
o
m
p
a
ri
so
n
g
ro
u
p
Tu
rk
is
h
s
e
co
n
d
g
e
n
e
ra
ti
o
n
“N
e
v
e
r”
“I
n
s
p
e
ci
fi
c
“A
lw
ay
s”
“N
e
v
e
r”
“I
n
s
p
e
ci
fi
c
“A
lw
ay
s”
ca
se
s”
ca
se
s”
C
h
il
d
re
n
i
n
h
o
u
se
h
o
ld
(
R
e
f=
n
o
)
Y
e
s
0
.0
1
0
.0
3
-0
.0
4
-0
.0
2
0
.0
1
0
.0
1
R
e
li
g
io
n
i
s
im
p
o
rt
a
n
t
(R
e
f=
n
e
it
h
e
r
n
o
r)
A
g
re
e
0
.0
1
0
.1
0
*
-0
.1
2
**
0
.1
1
**
*
-0
.0
4
-0
.0
7
°
D
is
a
g
re
e
0
.0
0
-0
.0
8
0
.0
8
0
.0
2
-0
.0
7
0
.0
5
A
g
e
0
.0
0
-0
.0
1
**
0
.0
1
**
-0
.0
1
**
*
-0
.0
1
*
0
.0
1
**
*
T
h
ir
d
-p
e
rs
o
n
p
re
se
n
ce
(
R
e
f=
n
o
/m
v)
Ye
s
0
.0
2
0
.0
1
-0
.0
2
0
.0
2
0
.0
3
-0
.0
4
*
C
ra
g
g
-U
h
le
r/
N
a
g
e
lk
e
rk
e
R
2
0
.2
15
0
.2
2
6
B
IC
’
-6
.1
-7
8
.5
N
2
4
0
5
2
3
5
6
T
a
b
.
2
A
:
C
o
n
ti
n
u
a
ti
o
n
N
o
te
:
**
*p
<
0
.0
0
1
,
**
p
<
0
.0
1
,
*p
<
0
.0
5
,
°p
<
0
.1
.
C
o
n
tr
o
lle
d
f
o
r
ag
e
;
m
is
si
n
g
v
al
u
e
s
n
o
t
d
is
p
la
y
e
d
;
n
a=
n
o
t
ap
p
lic
ab
le
.
S
o
u
rc
e
:
C
al
cu
la
ti
o
n
s
b
as
e
d
o
n
T
IE
S
2
0
0
7
-0
8
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol332
N
a
ti
v
e
c
o
m
p
a
ri
so
n
g
ro
u
p
Tu
rk
is
h
s
e
co
n
d
g
e
n
e
ra
ti
o
n
“N
e
v
e
r”
“I
n
s
p
e
ci
fi
c
“A
lw
ay
s”
“N
e
v
e
r”
“I
n
s
p
e
ci
fi
c
“A
lw
ay
s”
ca
se
s”
ca
se
s”
C
o
u
n
tr
y
o
f
re
si
d
e
n
ce
(
R
e
f=
G
e
rm
a
n
y)
A
u
st
ri
a
-0
.1
4
**
*
-0
.0
5
0
.1
9
**
*
-0
.0
2
-0
.0
3
0
.0
4
*
F
ra
n
ce
-0
.2
4
**
*
-0
.1
6
**
*
0
.4
0
**
*
-0
.2
5
**
*
0
.0
9
**
0
.1
7
**
*
N
e
th
e
rl
a
n
d
s,
t
h
e
-0
.1
2
**
*
-0
.0
2
0
.1
5
**
*
-0
.1
1
**
0
.0
4
0
.0
7
**
S
w
e
d
e
n
-0
.2
6
**
*
-0
.2
0
**
0
.4
6
**
*
-0
.2
6
**
*
0
.0
4
0
.2
2
**
*
S
w
it
ze
rl
an
d
-0
.1
6
**
*
0
.1
6
**
*
0
.0
0
-0
.2
1
**
*
0
.1
9
**
*
0
.0
2
S
e
x
(R
e
f=
m
a
n
)
W
o
m
a
n
0
.0
3
-0
.0
5
*
0
.0
2
0
.0
2
-0
.0
2
0
.0
0
S
ib
li
n
g
s
(R
e
f=
1
o
r
2
)
N
o
n
e
0
.0
2
-0
.0
8
**
0
.0
6
*
0
.0
1
-0
.0
3
0
.0
2
3+
0
.0
4
*
-0
.0
4
-0
.0
1
0
.0
2
0
.0
3
-0
.0
5
**
*
M
o
th
e
r’
s
la
b
o
u
r
m
a
rk
e
t
a
ct
iv
it
y
(R
e
f=
n
o
)
A
c
ti
v
e
0
.0
0
0
.0
1
-0
.0
1
0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
.0
0
F
a
th
e
r’
s
e
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
(
R
e
f=
se
co
n
d
a
ry
)
P
ri
m
a
ry
0
.0
2
-0
.0
2
0
.0
0
0
.0
9
**
*
-0
.0
8
**
*
-0
.0
1
Te
rt
ia
ry
-0
.0
3
°
-0
.0
2
0
.0
4
*
-0
.0
3
-0
.0
1
0
.0
5
°
R
e
li
g
io
u
s
u
p
b
ri
n
g
in
g
(R
e
f=
C
h
ri
st
ia
n
)
(R
e
f=
M
u
sl
im
/n
o
K
o
ra
n
s
ch
o
o
l)
M
u
sl
im
/a
tt
e
n
d
e
d
K
o
ra
n
s
ch
o
o
l
n
a
n
a
n
a
0
.1
3
**
*
-0
.0
7
**
-0
.0
5
**
N
o
n
e
/o
th
e
r
-0
.0
3
°
-0
.0
3
0
.0
6
**
-0
.0
1
-0
.0
1
0
.0
2
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
(
R
e
f=
lo
w
e
r
se
co
n
d
a
ry
)
P
ri
m
a
ry
0
.0
3
-0
.0
2
-0
.0
1
0
.1
4
**
-0
.1
1
*
-0
.0
3
A
p
p
re
n
ti
ce
sh
ip
0
.0
0
-0
.0
1
0
.0
1
-0
.0
1
-0
.0
1
0
.0
2
U
p
p
e
r
se
co
n
d
a
ry
-0
.0
2
-0
.0
1
0
.0
3
-0
.0
3
0
.0
1
0
.0
2
Te
rt
ia
ry
-0
.0
6
*
-0
.0
2
0
.0
8
*
-0
.1
5
**
*
0
.0
7
*
0
.0
8
**
M
a
ri
ta
l
st
a
tu
s
(R
e
f=
n
o
t
m
a
rr
ie
d
)
M
a
rr
ie
d
/d
iv
o
rc
e
d
0
.0
3
°
-0
.0
3
0
.0
0
0
.1
2
**
*
-0
.0
5
°
-0
.0
6
**
T
a
b
.
2
B
:
A
tt
it
u
d
e
s
to
w
a
rd
a
b
o
rt
io
n
f
o
r
n
o
n
-m
e
d
ic
a
l r
e
a
so
n
s
–
m
u
lt
in
o
m
ia
l l
o
g
is
ti
c
re
g
re
ss
io
n
(
A
M
E
),
b
y
m
ig
ra
n
t
st
a
tu
s
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 333
N
a
ti
v
e
c
o
m
p
a
ri
so
n
g
ro
u
p
Tu
rk
is
h
s
e
co
n
d
g
e
n
e
ra
ti
o
n
“N
e
v
e
r”
“I
n
s
p
e
ci
fi
c
“A
lw
ay
s”
“N
e
v
e
r”
“I
n
s
p
e
ci
fi
c
“A
lw
ay
s”
ca
se
s”
ca
se
s”
C
h
il
d
re
n
i
n
h
o
u
se
h
o
ld
(
R
e
f=
n
o
)
Y
e
s
0
.0
5
**
0
.0
1
*
-0
.0
6
*
0
.0
1
-0
.0
3
0
.0
2
R
e
li
g
io
n
i
s
im
p
o
rt
a
n
t
(R
e
f=
n
e
it
h
e
r
n
o
r)
A
g
re
e
0
.1
4
**
*
-0
.0
7
-0
.0
7
°
0
.1
7
**
*
-0
.0
8
*
-0
.0
9
**
D
is
a
g
re
e
-0
.0
1
-0
.0
7
0
.0
9
°
0
.0
1
-0
.0
1
0
.0
0
A
g
e
0
.0
0
*
0
.0
0
0
.0
0
°
-0
.0
1
**
*
0
.0
1
*
0
.0
0
**
T
h
ir
d
-p
e
rs
o
n
p
re
se
n
ce
(
R
e
f=
n
o
/m
v)
Y
e
s
0
.0
3
°
0
.0
1
-0
.0
4
0
.0
1
0
.0
0
-0
.0
1
C
ra
g
g
-U
h
le
r/
N
a
g
e
lk
e
rk
e
R
2
0
.2
7
0
.3
13
B
IC
’
-2
17
.3
9
-3
0
9
.9
N
2
4
0
5
2
3
5
6
T
a
b
.
2
B
:
C
o
n
ti
n
u
a
ti
o
n
N
o
te
:
**
*p
<
0
.0
0
1
,
**
p
<
0
.0
1
,
*p
<
0
.0
5
,
°p
<
0
.1
.
C
o
n
tr
o
lle
d
f
o
r
ag
e
;
m
is
si
n
g
v
al
u
e
s
n
o
t
d
is
p
la
y
e
d
;
n
a=
n
o
t
ap
p
lic
ab
le
.
S
o
u
rc
e
:
C
al
cu
la
ti
o
n
s
b
as
e
d
o
n
T
IE
S
2
0
0
7
-0
8
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol334
However, as signifi cant differences remained, we cannot conclude that ideational
assimilation occurred within one migrant generation.
Our second working hypothesis referred to country variation. We had expected
to fi nd that the respondents in Sweden, France and the Netherlands were the most
accepting of abortion, and that those in Germany were the least accepting. Indeed,
the respondents of the native comparison group by and large followed this pattern.
Moreover, the patterns among the second generation were similar, although the
differences between the countries were less pronounced. These results imply that
the societal context plays a role in shaping the cultural assimilation processes of
immigrants and their descendants.
The family of origin and the socio-demographic characteristics of the migrants
and the subsequent generations were, however, important. Among the explanatory
variables we used, education and religiosity stood out as determinants of attitudes
toward abortion. The higher the education of the respondents, the more accepting
they were of abortion. The religious education received during childhood exerted
an infl uence on current attitudes, even when controlling for present religiosity. The
higher the level of religious education was during childhood – i.e. when Turkish
descendants attended Koran school in addition to receiving religious education at
home – the lower their acceptance of abortion. These fi ndings indicate that the so-
cialisation context of the family of origin has a long-lasting impact on the ideational
assimilation of migrant descendants.
It appears that compared to the pace at which they adopt other attitudes, such as
attitudes regarding gender equality, second-generation migrants acculturate rather
slowly to the dominant views on abortion in the destination country. One of the rea-
sons might be that Turkish descendants lack a clear reference group. The topic of
abortion does not lead to tension between the migrants’ countries of origin and of
destination; attitudes toward abortion are also among the most controversial issues
within societies. Our results demonstrate that even among the native comparison
groups in European countries, attitudes toward abortion vary widely. For example,
while only a very small percentage of natives said they would never approve of
abortion for medical reasons, the remainder were divided into one-third who said
they would accept it in specifi c cases and two-thirds who said they would always ac-
cept it. The natives’ levels of acceptance of abortion for non-medical reasons were
lower overall, and the percentages of those who said they would accept it in specifi c
cases or always were almost equal. We should also bear in mind that because the
TIES sample was drawn from cities only, the levels of acceptance of abortion among
natives may be overestimated. Hence, in this context, fi nding the reference point for
adaptation processes among immigrants in Europe is not as straightforward as it
is for indicators of structural integration and modernisation such as education. The
group to which the second generation adapts therefore remains open.
Another reason for the comparatively slow pace of cultural assimilation may be
that the signals sent in the receiving contexts are contradictory. In some societies,
such as Germany, the policies regulating abortion may not fully align with public
discourse about these issues. Germany has the most liberal abortion regulations
among the countries we studied when it comes to reasons for abortion, and it is
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 335
one of the countries in our sample where abortion is legal for non-medical reasons.
In practice, however, access to abortion is highly contested in Germany, as women
are required to seek counselling, and doctors who perform abortions are discred-
ited in the political/public debate. While it is legal to perform abortions, physicians
are not allowed to publicly list “abortion” among their services. If they do, they are
punished – as the present-day debate shows.4
Knowledge of abortion options is, however, crucial to women’s health. Such in-
formation is even more important for immigrants, as their knowledge of the host
country’s language and health care institutions and regulations may be less than
that of the majority population. In the countries in our study where religiosity is
lower and support for sexual liberalisation and gender equality is higher (France,
Sweden, the Netherlands) – and these attitudes are refl ected in policies – the views
on abortion of migrant descendants were more liberal as those of natives.
A higher overall level of acceptance of abortion does not, however, mean that
the residents of Europe generally approve of abortion. While few reject abortion
in all cases, the remainder are divided over whether they would “always” accept
it, or “in specifi c cases” only. We may speculate here that given the availability of
modern methods of family planning and contraception, abortion is seen as the very
last option for fertility control. Abortion and contraception have been found to be
complementary (Miller/Valente 2016). Hence, future research on migrant fertility
and integration should also look at knowledge about and the use of contraception.
Access to both contraception and abortion are reproductive rights that are central
to women’s self-determination and gender equality. If migrant women – especially
those from countries with patriarchal family systems – are to gain access to equal
opportunities (even gradually over generations), this topic deserves special atten-
tion in policies, education and research on gender equality and public health.
Thus, if we want to understand processes of cultural integration among mi-
grants, we should also pay attention to the topic of abortion, which is crucial to
maternal and perinatal health (Canning/Schultz 2012). Because of socio-economic
inequalities in the prevalence of induced abortion and its health risks (Ankara 2017),
abortion is also an issue that arises in discussions of inequality between social/
ethnic groups.
References
Adamczyk, Amy 2013: The effect of personal religiosity on attitudes toward abortion, di-
vorce, and gender equality – does cultural context make a difference? In: EurAmerica:
A Journal of European and American Studies 43,1: 213-253.
Agadjanian, Victor; Yoo, Sam H. 2018: Migration, legality, and fertility regulation: Abor-
tion and contraception among migrants and natives in Russia. In: Demographic Re-
search 38,42: 1277-1302 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2018.38.42].
4 http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/jens-spahn-ueber-abtreibungen-es-geht-um-unge-
borenes-menschliches-leben-a-1198661.html, SPIEGEL online, 11 April 2018.
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol336
Alba, Richard; Kasinitz, Philip; Waters, Mary C. 2011: The kids are (mostly) alright:
Second-generation assimilation. In: Social Forces 89,3: 763-774 [doi: 10.1353/
sof.2011.0024].
Alba, Richards; Nee, Victor 1997: Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immi-
gration. In: The International Migration Review 31,4: 826-874 [doi: 10.2307/2547416].
Alba, Richard; Nee, Victor 2003: Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and
contemporary immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Almond, Douglas; Edlund, Lena; Milligan, Kevin 2013: Son preference and the persis-
tence of culture: Evidence from South and East Asian immigrants to Canada. In: Popu-
lation and Development Review 39,1: 75-95 [doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00574.x].
Almond, Gabriel A.; Verba, Sidney 1989: The civic culture: Political attitudes and de-
mocracy in fi ve nations. New ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Andersson, Gunnar; Scott, Kirk 2005: Labour-market status and fi rst-time parenthood:
the experience of immigrant women in Sweden, 1981-97. In: Population Studies 59,1:
21-38 [doi: 10.1080/0032472052000332683].
Ankara, Hasan Giray 2017: Socioeconomic variations in induced abortion in Turkey. In:
Journal of Biosocial Science 49,1: 99-122 [doi: 10.1017/S0021932016000158].
Arisi, Emilio 2003: Changing attitudes towards abortion in Europe. In: The European
Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 8,2: 109-121 [doi: 10.1080/
ejc.8.2.109.121].
Bahr, Stephen J.; Marcos, Anastasios C. 2003: Cross-cultural attitudes toward abortion.
In: Journal of Family Issues 24,3: 402-424 [doi: 10.1177/0192513X02250892].
Bandura, Albert 1977: Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor 1998: Reasons why women have
induced abortions: Evidence from 27 countries. In: International Family Planning Per-
spectives 24,3: 117-127 & 152.
Baykara-Krumme, Helen; Milewski, Nadja 2017: Fertility patterns among Turkish women
in Turkey and abroad: The effects of international mobility, migrant generation, and
family background. In: European Journal of Population 33,3: 409-436 [doi: 10.1007/
s10680-017-9413-9].
Bozon, Michel; Héran, Francois 2006: La formation du couple: textes essentiels pour la
sociologie de la famille. Paris: La De ćouverte, coll. Grands Repè res. Classiques.
Bumpass, Larry L. 1997: The measurement of public opinion on abortion: The effects of
survey design. In: Family Planning Perspectives 29,4: 177-180 [doi: 10.2307/2953382].
Canning, David; Schultz, Paul 2012: The economic consequences of reproductive health
and family planning. In: The Lancet 380: 165-171 [doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60827-7].
Carol, Sarah; Ersanilli, Evelyn; Wagner, Mareike 2014: Spousal choice among the chil-
dren of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in six European countries: Transnational
spouse or co-ethnic migrant? In: International Migration Review 48,2: 387-414 [doi:
10.1111/imre.12068].
Carol, Sarah; Helbling, Marc; Michalowski, Ines 2015: A struggle over religious rights?
How Muslim immigrants and Christian natives view the accommodation of religion in
six European countries. In: Social Forces 94,2: 647-671 [doi: 10.1093/sf/sov054].
Carol, Sarah; Milewski, Nadja 2017: Attitudes toward abortion among the Muslim minor-
ity and non-Muslim majority in cross-national perspective: Can religiosity explain the
differences? In: Sociology of Religion 78,4: 456-491 [doi: 10.1093/socrel/srx015].
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 337
Cifuentes, Isabel Valdés; Wagner, Michael; Naderi, Robert 2013: Heirat und Familien-
gründung bei Deutschen und türkischstämmigen Personen in Deutschland. In: Kölner
Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 65,3: 479-504 [doi: 10.1007/s11577-
013-0214-9].
Clements, Ben 2015: Religion and public opinion in Britain: Continuity and change. Bas-
ingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crul, Maurice et al. 2012: School careers of second-generation youth in Europe. Which
education systems provide the best chances for success? In: Crul, Maurice; Schnei-
der, Jens; Lelie, Frans (Eds.): The European second generation compared. Does the
integration context matter? Amsterdam: AUP: 101-158 [doi: 10.1515/9789048516926-
006].
Diehl, Claudia; Koenig, Matthias 2009: Religiosität türkischer Migranten im Genera-
tionenverlauf: Ein Befund und einige Erklärungsversuche. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie
38,4: 300-319 [doi: 10.1515/zfsoz-2009-0403].
Ersanilli, Evelyn; Koopmans, Ruud 2011: Do immigrant integration policies matter? A
three-country comparison among Turkish immigrants. In: West European Politics
34,2: 208-234 [doi: 10.1080/01402382.2011.546568].
Ersanilli, Evelyn 2012: Model(ling) citizens? Integration policies and value integra-
tion of Turkish immigrants and their descendants in Germany, France, and the
Netherlands. In: Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 10,3: 338-358 [doi:
10.1080/15562948.2012.693336].
ESHRE CapriWorkshop Group 2015: “Emergency contraception. Widely available and
effective but disappointing as a public health intervention: A review.” In: Human Re-
production 30,4: 751-60 [doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev019].
Foner, Nancy 1997: The immigrant family: Cultural legacies and cultural change. In: The
International Migration Review 31,4: 961-974 [doi: 10.2307/2547420].
Foner, Nancy; Alba, Richards 2008: Immigrant religion in the U.S. and Western Europe:
Bridge or barrier to inclusion? In: International Migration Review 42,2: 360-392 [doi:
10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.00128.x].
Garssen, Joop; Nicolaas, Han 2008: Fertility of Turkish and Moroccan women in the
Netherlands: Adjustment to native level within one generation. In: Demographic Re-
search 19,33: 1249-1280 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.33].
Gerhards, Jürgen; Rucht, Dieter 2000: Öffentlichkeit, Akteure und Deutungsmuster: Die
Debatte über Abtreibungen in Deutschland und den USA. In: Gerhards, Jürgen (Ed.):
Die Vermessung kultureller Unterschiede. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissen-
schaften: 165-188 [doi: 10.1007/978-3-322-90239-9_9].
Goodman, Sara W.; Wright, Matthew 2015: Does mandatory integration matter? Effects
of civic requirements on immigrant socio-economic and political outcomes. In: Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41,2: 1885-1908 [doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2015.1042434].
Gordon, Milton M. 1964: Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and
national origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Groenewald, George; Lessard-Phillips, Laurence 2012: Research methodology. In:
Crul, Maurice; Schneider, Jens; Lelie, Frans (Eds.): The European second genera-
tion compared. Does the integration context matter? Amsterdam: AUP: 39-56 [doi:
10.1515/9789048516926-004].
Hamel, Christel et al. 2012: Union formation and partner choice. In: Crul, Maurice; Sch-
neider, Jens; Lelie, Frans (Eds.): The European second generation compared. Does the
integration context matter? Amsterdam: AUP: 225-284 [doi: 10.1515/9789048516926-
008].
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol338
Haub, Carl 2007: Kontrazeption weltweit [http://www.berlin-institut.org/fi leadmin/user_
upload/handbuch_texte/pdf_Haub_Kontrazeption_weltweit.pdf, 17.04.2018].
Hedayat, Kamyar M.; Shooshtarizadeh, P.; Raza, Mohsin 2006: Therapeutic abortion in
Islam: Contemporary views of Muslim Shiite scholars and effect of recent Iranian leg-
islation. In: Journal of Medical Ethics 32,11: 652-657 [doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.015289].
Helfferich, Cornelia; Klindworth, Heike; Kruse, Jan 2011: Frauen Leben: Familienplanung
und Migration im Lebenslauf. Eine Studie im Auftrag der Bundeszentrale für gesund-
heitliche Aufklärung (BZgA). Köln.
Inglehart, Ronald F.; Norris, Pippa 2003: Rising tide. Gender equality and cultural
change around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [doi: 10.1017/
CBO9780511550362].
Jacob, Konstanze; Kalter, Frank 2013: Intergenerational change in religious salience
among immigrant families in four European countries. In: International Migration 51,3:
38-56 [doi: 10.1111/imig.12108].
Jelen, Ted G. 2014: The subjective bases of abortion attitudes: A cross national com-
parison of religious traditions. In: Politics and Religion 7,3: 550-567 [doi: 10.1017/
S1755048314000467].
Jelen, Ted G.; Wilcox, Clyde 2003: Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward
abortion: A review and research agenda. In: The Western Political Quarterly 56,4: 489-
500 [doi: 10.1177/106591290305600410].
Kalmijn, Matthijs; Kraaykamp, Gerbert 2017: Determinants of cultural assimilation in the
second generation. A longitudinal analysis of values about marriage and sexuality
among Moroccan and Turkish migrants. In: Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
44,5: 697-717 [doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2017.1363644].
Koenig, Matthias; Maliepaard, Mieke; Güveli, Ayse 2016: Religion and new immi-
grants’ labor market entry in Western Europe. In: Ethnicities 16,2: 213-235 [doi:
10.1177/1468796815616159].
Koopmans, Ruud 2015: Religious fundamentalism and hostility against out-groups: A
comparison of Muslims and Christians in Western Europe. In: Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 41,1: 33-57 [doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2014.935307].
Krapf, Sandra; Wolf, Katharina 2015: Persisting differences or adaptation to German fer-
tility patterns? First and second birth behavior of the 1.5 and second generation Turk-
ish migrants in Germany. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie
67, Supplement 1: 137-164 [doi: 10.1007/s11577-015-0331-8].
Kulu, Hill; González-Ferrer, Amparo 2014: Family dynamics among immigrants and their
descendants in Europe: Current research and opportunities. In: European Journal of
Population 30,4: 411-435 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-014-9322-0].
Levels, Mark; Sluiter, Roderick; Need, Ariana 2014: A review of abortion laws in West-
ern-European countries. A cross-national comparison of legal developments between
1960 and 2010. In: Health Policy 118,1: 95-104 [doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.06.008].
Lewis, Valerie A.; Kashyap, Ridhi 2013: Are Muslims a distinctive minority? An empirical
analysis of religiosity, social attitudes, and Islam. In: Journal for the Scientifi c Study of
Religion 52,3: 617-626 [doi: 10.1111/jssr.12044].
Loeber, Olga 2008: Sexual and reproductive health issues of Turkish immigrants in the
Netherlands. In: The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care
13,4: 330-338 [doi: 10.1080/13625180802303626].
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 339
Milewski, Nadja 2007: First child of immigrant workers and their descendants in West
Germany: Interrelation of events, disruption, or adaptation? In: Demographic Re-
search 17: 859-896 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.29].
Milewski, Nadja 2010a: Immigrant fertility in West Germany: Is there a socialization ef-
fect in transitions to second and third births? In: European Journal of Population 26,3:
297-323 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-010-9211-0].
Milewski, Nadja 2010b: Fertility of Immigrants. A two-generational approach in Ger-
many. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag [doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03705-4].
Milewski, Nadja 2011: Transition to a fi rst birth among Turkish second-generation mi-
grants in Western Europe. In: Advances in Life Course Research 16,4: 178-189 [doi:
10.1016/j.alcr.2011.09.002].
Milewski, Nadja; Otto, Danny 2017: The presence of a third person in face-to-face inter-
views with immigrant descendants: Patterns, determinants, and effects. In: Bolzman,
Claudio; Bernardi, Laura; Le Goff, Jean-Marie (Eds.): Situating children of migrants
across borders and origins. A methodological overview. Dordrecht: Springer: 77-96
[doi: 10.1007/978-94-024-1141-6_4].
Miller, Grant; Valente, Christine 2016: Population policy: Abortion and modern con-
traception are substitutes. In: Demography 53,4: 979-1009 [doi: 10.1007/s13524-016-
0492-8].
Mood, Carina 2010: Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and
what we can do about it. In: European Sociological Review 26,1: 67-82 [doi. 10.1093/
esr/jcp006].
Murphy, Michael; Wang, Duolao 2001: Family-level continuities in childbear-
ing in low-fertility societies. In: European Journal of Population 17,1: 75-96 [doi.
10.1023/A:1010744314362].
Nauck, Bernhard 1997: Sozialer Wandel, Migration und Familienbildung bei türkischen
Frauen. In: Nauck, Bernhard; Schönpfl ug, Ute (Eds.): Familien in verschiedenen Kul-
turen. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag: 162-199.
Norris, Pippa; Inglehart, Ronald F. 2012: Muslim integration into Western cultures: Be-
tween origins and destinations. In: Political Studies 60,2: 228-251 [doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9248.2012.00951.x].
Nosaka, Akiko; Chasiotis, Athanasios 2010: Parental infl uence on fertility behavior of
fi rst generation Turkish immigrants in Germany. In: Journal of Immigrant and Minority
Health 12,1: 60-67 [doi: 10.1007/s10903-008-9172-0].
Ribbert, Bärbel 2009: Erfahrungen aus dem Familienplanungszentrum Hamburg: Mi-
grantinnen aus westafrikanischen Herkunftsländern. In: Bundeszentrale für gesund-
heitliche Aufklärung (Ed.): Migration und Gesundheitsförderung. Ergebnisse einer
Tagung mit Expertinnen und Experten. Köln: 101-115.
Röder, Antje 2014: Explaining religious differences in immigrants’ gender role attitudes:
the changing impact of origin country and individual religiosity. In: Ethnic and Racial
Studies 37,14: 2615-2635 [doi: 10.1080/01419870.2013.854919].
Röder, Antje; Mühlau, Peter 2014: Are they acculturating? Europe’s immigrants and gen-
der egalitarianism. In: Social Forces 92,3: 899-928 [doi: 10.1093/sf/sot126].
Rosenhouse-Persson, Sandra; Sabagh, Georges 1983: Attitudes toward abortion among
catholic Mexican-American women: The effects of religiosity and education. In: De-
mography 20,1: 87-98 [doi: 10.2307/2060903].
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol340
Rydgren, Jens 2005: Is extreme right-wing populism contagious? Explaining the emer-
gence of a new party family. In: European Journal of Political Research 44,3: 413-437
[doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2005.00233.x].
Saroglou, Vassilis 2011: Believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: The big four re-
ligious dimensions and cultural variation. In: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
42,8: 1320-1340 [doi: 10.1177/0022022111412267].
Sedgh, Gilda et al. 2016: Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional,
and subregional levels and trends. In: The Lancet 388,10041: 258-267 [doi 10.1016/
S0140-6736(16)30380-4].
Shapiro, Gilla K. 2014: Abortion law in Muslim-majority countries: An overview of the
Islamic discourse with policy implications. In: Health Policy and Planning 29,4: 483-
494 [doi: 10.1093/heapol/czt040].
Sniderman, Paul M.; Hagendoorn, Louk 2007: When ways of life collide: Multicultural-
ism and its discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Soehl, Thomas 2016: From origins to destinations: acculturation trajectories in migrants‘
attitudes towards homosexuality. In: Journal of ethnic and Migration Studies 43,11:
1831-1853 [doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2016.1246178].
Van de Kaa, Dirk J. 1987: Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin
42,1: 1-59.
Van Tubergen, Frank; Sindradottir, Jórunn Í. 2011: The religiosity of immigrants in Eu-
rope: A cross-national study. In: Journal for the Scientifi c Study of Religion 50,2: 272-
288 [doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01567.x].
Weichselbaumer, Doris 2016: Discrimination against female migrants wearing head-
scarves. In: IZA Discussion Paper Series 10217: 1-27.
Date of submission: 25.04.2018 Date of acceptance: 20.12.2018
Prof. Dr. Nadja Milewski (). University of Rostock, Institute of Sociology and
Demography. Rostock, Germany. E-mail: nadja.milewski@uni-rostock.de
URL: https://www.isd.uni-rostock.de/en/isd/lehrstuhl/jp-demo/milewski/
Prof. Dr. Sarah Carol. University of Cologne, Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology
(ISS). Cologne, Germany. E-mail: carol@wiso.uni-koeln.de
URL: https://www.iss-wiso.uni-koeln.de/en/institute/staff/c/prof-dr-sarah-carol/
Attitudes toward Abortion among the Turkish Second Generation in Europe • 341
A
p
p
e
n
d
ix
T
a
b
.
A
1:
C
ro
ss
-n
a
ti
o
n
a
l c
o
m
p
a
ri
so
n
o
f
d
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
ts
o
f
le
g
a
lit
y
o
f
a
b
o
rt
io
n
in
s
e
le
c
te
d
E
u
ro
p
e
an
c
o
u
n
tr
ie
s
an
d
T
u
rk
e
y
b
e
tw
e
e
n
1
9
6
0
a
n
d
2
01
0
C
o
u
n
tr
y
Y
e
a
r
R
e
st
ri
c
ti
o
n
s
to
m
e
d
ic
a
l r
e
a
so
n
s
R
e
st
ri
c
ti
o
n
s
to
n
o
n
-m
e
d
ic
a
l r
e
a
so
n
s
O
n
r
e
q
u
e
st
A
d
o
p
te
d
In
f
o
rc
e
S
a
fe
l
if
e
P
h
y
si
c
a
l
F
e
ta
l
M
e
n
ta
l
R
a
p
e
S
o
ci
o
-e
co
n
o
m
ic
D
is
tr
e
ss
h
e
a
lt
h
im
p
a
ir
m
e
n
t
h
e
a
lt
h
re
a
so
n
s
A
u
st
ri
a
19
3
7
19
3
7
x
x
19
74
19
7
5
x
x
x
x
12
,
w
h
e
n
u
n
d
e
r
a
g
e
1
4
F
ra
n
ce
19
5
5
19
5
5
x
19
74
19
7
5
x
x
10
19
7
9
19
8
0
x
x
10
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
x
x
x
12
G
e
rm
a
n
y
19
3
3
19
3
4
x
x
x
G
e
rm
a
n
y
(
G
D
R
)
19
5
0
19
5
0
x
x
x
19
6
5
19
6
5
12
12
12
12
12
12
19
7
2
19
7
2
x
12
G
e
rm
a
n
y
(
F
R
G
)
19
7
6
19
7
6
x
x
2
2
x
12
12
G
e
rm
a
n
y
(
a
ft
e
r
re
u
n
ifi
c
a
ti
o
n
)
19
9
2
19
9
2
x
x
2
2
x
12
19
9
5
19
9
5
x
x
x
12
x
12
N
e
th
e
rl
a
n
d
s,
t
h
e
18
8
6
18
8
6
x
19
8
1
19
8
4
x
x
2
2
S
w
e
d
e
n
19
4
6
19
4
6
x
x
2
4
2
4
2
4
19
74
19
7
5
x
x
18
S
w
it
ze
rl
a
n
d
19
3
7
19
4
2
x
x
x
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
x
x
x
12
Tu
rk
e
y
19
8
3
19
8
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
o
te
s:
a
n
u
m
b
e
r
in
d
ic
at
e
s
th
e
w
e
e
k
u
p
t
o
w
h
ic
h
a
n
a
b
o
rt
io
n
is
le
g
al
.
S
o
u
rc
e
:
A
d
o
p
te
d
f
ro
m
L
e
ve
ls
e
t
a
l.
(
2
0
1
4
);
h
tt
p
:/
/w
w
w
.u
n
.o
rg
/e
n
/d
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t/
d
e
sa
/p
o
p
u
la
ti
o
n
/p
u
b
lic
at
io
n
s/
p
d
f/
p
o
lic
y
/W
o
rl
d
A
b
o
rt
io
n
P
o
lic
ie
s2
0
1
3
/
W
o
rl
d
A
b
o
rt
io
n
P
o
lic
ie
s2
0
1
3
_W
al
lC
h
ar
t.
p
d
f.
• Nadja Milewski, Sarah Carol342
Tab. A2: Attitudes toward abortion in the Turkish second generation relative to
native comparison group – multinomial logistic regression (AME)
For medical reasons For non-medical reasons
M.m 1 M.m 2 M.m 3 M.n 1 M.n 2 M.n 3
Six countries (pooled sample)
(N=4761)
Never acceptable 0.12*** 0.06*** 0.03* 0.35*** 0.16*** 0.10***
Acceptable in specifi c cases 0.18*** 0.12*** 0.08** -0.11*** -0.05* -0.04
Always acceptable -0.30*** -0.18*** -0.11*** -0.24*** -0.11*** -0.05**
Single-country analyses
Austria
Never acceptable 0.06*** 0.01 0.00 0.47*** 0.17* 0.12°
Acceptable in specifi c cases 0.27*** 0.11 0.08 -0.19*** -0.12° -0.10
Always acceptable -0.33*** -0.12° -0.08 -0.28*** -0.11*** -0.02
France
Never acceptable 0.09*** 0.06** 0.04 0.31*** 0.15** 0.10*
Acceptable in specifi c cases 0.21*** 0.10° 0.04 0.06° 0.02 -0.03
Always acceptable -0.31*** -0.16** -0.08 -0.37*** -0.05 -0.07
Netherlands, the
Never acceptable 0.22*** 0.16*** 0.10* 0.43*** 0.22*** 0.09
Acceptable in specifi c cases 0.22*** 0.16* 0.05 -0.12*** 0.01 0.05
Always acceptable -0.44*** -0.31*** -0.14* -0.31*** -0.23*** -0.14*
Germany
Never acceptable 0.16*** 0.00 0.00 0.34*** 0.09 0.09
Acceptable in specifi c cases 0.11*** 0.13° 0.12 -0.18*** -0.02 -0.04
Always acceptable -0.28*** -0.13* -0.12° -0.16*** -0.07 -0.06
Sweden
Never acceptable 0.05** 0.04 0.04 0.25*** 0.13** 0.05
Acceptable in specifi c cases 0.24*** 0.18** 0.08 0.09° 0.03 -0.03
Always acceptable -0.29*** -0.22 -0.12 -0.35*** -0.16* -0.03
Switzerland
Never acceptable 0.05** -0.04 -0.05 0.24*** 0.13* 0.09°
Acceptable in specifi c cases 0.09* 0.07 0.04 -0.13*** -0.12° -0.09
Always acceptable -0.14*** -0.03 0.01 -0.11*** -0.01* 0.00
Note: ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, °p<0.1.
Model 1 controlled for sex.
Model 2 additionally controlled for country of residence, siblings, mothers’ LFP, father’s education,
religious education.
Model 3 additionally controlled for age, education, marital status, parenthood, religiosity, third-party
presence.
Results of the Models 3 are displayed in Figures 2A and 2B.
M.m. = modell for medical reasons
M.n. = modell for non-medical reasons
Source: Own calculations based on TIES 2007-08
Published by
Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider
Federal Institute for Population Research
D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany
2018
Managing Editor
Dr. Katrin Schiefer
Copy Editor
Dr. Evelyn Grünheid
Dr. Katrin Schiefer
Editorial Assistant
Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs
Wiebke Hamann
Layout
Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs
E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de
Scientifi c Advisory Board
Karsten Hank (Cologne)
Michaela Kreyenfeld (Berlin)
Marc Luy (Vienna)
Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz)
Nikola Sander (Wiesbaden)
Zsolt Spéder (Budapest)
Rainer Wehrhahn (Kiel)
Comparative Population Studies
www.comparativepopulationstudies.de
ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet)
Board of Reviewers
Martin Abraham (Erlangen)
Laura Bernardi (Lausanne)
Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn)
Claudia Diehl (Konstanz)
Andreas Diekmann (Zurich)
Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock)
Jürgen Dorbritz (Wiesbaden)
Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin)
E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld)
Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Vienna)
Beat Fux (Salzburg)
Joshua Goldstein (Berkeley)
Sonja Haug (Regensburg)
Hill Kulu (Liverpool)
Aart C. Liefbroer (The Hague)
Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz)
Emma Lundholm (Umeå)
Nadja Milewski (Rostock)
Dimiter Philipov (Vienna)
Roland Rau (Rostock)
Tomáš Sobotka (Vienna)
Jeroen Spijker (Barcelona)
Olivier Thévenon (Paris)
Helga de Valk (Brussels)
Heike Trappe (Rostock)
Michael Wagner (Cologne)