new research on the lives of Ukrainian women in Georgia’s surrogacy boom
- Written by Olga Oleinikova, Associate Professor and Director of the SITADHub (Social Impact Technologies and Democracy Research Hub) in the School of Communication, University of Technology Sydney
“I didn’t come here to get rich. I came because I had no other way to keep my son safe and care for my displaced family”.
Anna is a 28-year-old woman from eastern Ukraine. She fled the country in 2023 after Russian troops invaded. Two years later, she agreed to become a surrogate in Georgia for wealthy foreign couples.
We met Anna, who was already pregnant, in a quiet apartment that had been rented for her by a surrogacy agency on the outskirts of the capital, Tbilisi.
Our multidisciplinary team was in Georgia to conduct a pilot research project examining the small country’s rapidly expanding surrogacy industry.
We conducted in-depth interviews with Ukrainian women to better understand their motivations for entering surrogacy arrangements, their experiences within the system, and the social, economic, and legal factors shaping their decision-making and wellbeing.
We also analysed publicly available policy and regulatory documents from the government to examine how the sector operates. We paid particular attention to emerging regulatory challenges, gaps in oversight and the state’s efforts to balance economic opportunity with ethical and human rights considerations.
The shifting geography of surrogacy
Surrogacy laws vary widely around the world. Some countries, including Australia, prohibit commercial surrogacy. Others allow it under specific conditions. These differences create cross-border markets, where intended parents travel abroad to access services that are restricted, expensive or unavailable at home.
Before Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine was one of the world’s largest commercial surrogacy hubs. Estimates suggest between 2,000 and 2,500 babies were born each year through surrogacy arrangements.
War disrupted the industry. Clinics closed or relocated. Travel became dangerous. Media outlets reported on intended parents struggling to reach newborns and surrogates displaced by fighting. Georgia became a safe alternative.
International surrogacy has been legal in Georgia since 1997. That’s when the country adopted legislation allowing both gestational (a woman carrying an embryo not genetically related to her) and traditional surrogacy (a woman carrying an embryo for another couple using her own egg). The first children were born through gestational surrogacy around 2007.
The country’s clear legal framework – recognising intended parents as the child’s legal guardians from birth and granting no parental rights to the surrogate – has been a key factor in its appeal.
Costs are also significantly lower than in the United States. As independent international surrogacy consultant Olga Pysana told us:
In the last year, surrogacy in Georgia cost approximately US$55,000 to $85,000 (A$78,000 to A$120,000), whereas surrogacy in the United States can cost as much as US$250,000 (A$350,000).
With international demand surging in the 2010s, Georgia (a small country of 3.7 million people) quickly became unable to meet the needs of so many parents with local women alone. So clinics began recruiting potential surrogates from abroad, including from Ukraine, Central Asian countries, Russia, Belarus, Thailand and the Philippines.
Mobile surrogates
Several of the women we interviewed had previously worked with Ukrainian agencies. After the invasion, recruiters contacted them again – this time offering placements in Georgia.
Displacement has produced a new and economically vulnerable workforce. We describe these women as “mobile surrogates”: women who move across borders to provide reproductive labour in response to war, economic crises or changing surrogacy laws. “If there was no war, I would never have left,” Anna told us.
Most of the women we interviewed had lost homes, jobs or partners. Many were supporting children and extended family members across borders. Anna had worked in a shop before the war, then cleaned houses in Poland. “Surrogacy in Georgia pays in nine months what I would earn in years,” she said.
Our research found that surrogates are typically paid around US$20,000 (A$35,500) in instalments. For families displaced by war, this amount of money can cover rent, relocation costs and schooling.
But the arrangements come with strict contractual conditions. Women may face limits on travel, their diets and daily routines. Some live in shared apartments organised by agencies.
Independent legal advice is rare. Anna signed a contract in a language she did not fully understand, but felt she had little alternative: “I just needed something stable. I couldn’t keep moving from place to place”.
Georgia’s legal framework says little about labour standards, housing conditions or long-term health support for surrogates after birth. The result is an imbalance: strong protections for intended parents, and weaker safeguards for the women carrying babies.
A draft bill was introduced in 2023 aimed at curbing paid surrogacy for foreigners, due to growing concerns about the commercialisation of the industry and potential exploitation of surrogate mothers. However, it is still pending. As of early 2026, surrogacy remains legal in Georgia for foreign heterosexual couples.
Three trends we are seeing
First, reproductive markets are highly responsive to crises. When Ukraine’s industry became unstable, demand shifted rapidly to Georgia. Global fertility markets operate like other transnational industries: when one site contracts, another expands.
Second, economic inequality shapes who participates. Displacement and financial insecurity increase women’s willingness to enter demanding reproductive arrangements.
Third, the surrogates bear the brunt of regulatory ambiguities and associated risks and challenges. This includes dealing with contracts and medical procedures in languages they don’t understand.
Reform is needed
In Georgia, clearer labour protections are essential: minimum housing standards, transparent payment schedules, and mandatory, independent legal advice in a language surrogates understand. Health coverage for the women should also extend beyond birth.
The major markets for surrogacy services, including China, the US, Australia, Israel, Germany and others, should also review how their citizens engage in overseas surrogacy. This includes stronger regulation of agencies marketing abroad and clearer ethical guidance for intended parents.
Finally, greater international coordination is needed. Shared standards for cross-border surrogacy would improve transparency and accountability in a rapidly expanding and loosely regulated global market.
As demand grows, the central question is not whether cross-border surrogacy will continue, but whether it can be governed in ways that safeguard fairness, transparency and the rights of the women whose bodies sustain it.
Authors: Olga Oleinikova, Associate Professor and Director of the SITADHub (Social Impact Technologies and Democracy Research Hub) in the School of Communication, University of Technology Sydney
