In 2024, the Russian Federation passed legislation prohibiting the “promotion of a childfree lifestyle.” Behind the vaguely worded ban lies more than demographic concerns—it is about cultural control, ideology, and silencing freedom of choice.
When the state decides on motherhood
In October 2024, a legislative proposal was passed in the Russian Federation banning the so-called promotion of a childfree lifestyle. This step is another piece in the mosaic of growing pressure on women to fulfill the traditional role of motherhood and submit to the state-defined idea of proper citizenship and gender order. The law is not based solely on demographic concerns, but primarily on the ideological need to consolidate the hegemony of “traditional values” in the public sphere and marginalize alternative life scenarios.
The law, which passed the State Duma in October 2024, prohibits the dissemination of information that “deliberately and positively portrays a childless lifestyle as a valid choice.” It is the first law of its kind to explicitly criminalize voluntary childlessness (childfree by choice), rather than childlessness due to medical reasons. From a legal point of view, this is not a classic ban, but the introduction of fines and other sanctions for individuals and legal entities—from the media to influencers to experts who share alternative views on motherhood as part of their work.
The rhetoric accompanying this legislative move is telling. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly described childfree attitudes as a “dangerous Western import” and “a form of nihilism that undermines the future of the nation.” The Russian Orthodox Church also refers to childfree as “spiritual degeneration” that is contrary to the natural mission of women. This not only delegitimizes childfree attitudes, but also stigmatizes them and associates them with moral decay. It is a return to the pro-natalist ethos of the Soviet era, updated with nationalist and religious elements.
“Do you have children? No? Shut up.”
Public statements such as “I don't want children, but I'm happy anyway” may thus become the subject of administrative proceedings. Blogs, podcasts, and interviews that portray childlessness as a lifestyle choice risk having their content deleted, receiving heavy fines, or being banned. Individuals could face fines of up to 400,000 rubles (about $5,600) and companies up to 5 million rubles (about $75,000) for violating the law. Experts warn that if the law comes into force, psychologists who consider voluntary childlessness a legitimate choice in their practice could face administrative or professional sanctions.
Source: Photo by Suhyeon Choi on Unsplash
According to lawyers and human rights organizations, the wording of the law is deliberately vague, allowing for broad and selective interpretation. It is precisely this vagueness that makes the legal instrument an effective means of silencing critical voices. Lawyer Maxim Olenichev from the organization First Department points out that: “The wording of the law is vague and unclear, which could lead to numerous abuses.” The law thus effectively opens the door to censorship and self-censorship, as it is unclear what exactly constitutes sharing a personal opinion and what constitutes promotion.
Children as a duty
The ban on promoting childlessness cannot be understood in isolation. It is part of a broader trend in which the Russian state regulates women's reproductive rights, whether through restricting access to abortion, controlling contraceptive pills, or strengthening the moral and educational framework in which motherhood is seen as the only fulfilling role for women. Measures such as awarding titles such as “heroic mother” to women with ten or more children or “family of the year” to large families, or mandatory counseling before abortion, are expressions of an effort to define female subjectivity through reproductive function. These steps portray motherhood not as an individual choice, but as a civic and moral duty of women towards the state.
Reproduction or repression?
Nevertheless, the debate on this law often repeats the cliché that it is only a symbolic act. But symbols are not neutral. It is precisely in the symbolic space that public norms are formed—what is considered normal, valuable, and right. If the state, through laws, the media, and the spiritual framework, creates an image that a woman without children is incomplete or socially suspect, then this is not mere ideology. It is practical politics that limits life choices, stigmatizes difference, and legitimizes discrimination.
While the official discourse relies on the demographic crisis, beneath the surface there is a struggle for control over women's bodies, public space, and the very meaning of autonomy. The ban on promoting childfree lifestyles is therefore not just a legislative novelty—it is a symptom of authoritarian modernity, in which the state controls not only bodies but also the narratives we are allowed to tell about them.
That is precisely why neither European democracies, journalists, nor experts should remain silent on this issue. Silence about alternative lifestyles is not neutral. It creates a climate in which women's personal decisions become a political battleground. And if we remain silent, we will become part of the narrative that takes this choice away from them.
Copyright: European Journalism Observatory (EJO)
The Institute of Communication Studies (ICS) is a member of the European Journalism Observatory (EJO). The views expressed on this page are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies and positions of the EJO and ICS.
