• Dickson v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 41
  • Evans v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 34
  • Paton v United Kingdom (1981) 3 EHRR 408
  • H v Norway  (1992) ECHR

Book chapters and Journal articles

  • Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn and Erika Rackley (eds), Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (Hart Publishing, 2010), ch 4
  • Nicolette Priaulx, ‘Rethinking progenitive conflict: why reproductive autonomy matters’ (2008) 16 Med L Rev 169
  • Mary Ford, ‘Evans v United Kingdom: what implications for the jurisprudence of pregnancy’ (2008) 8 HRL Rev 171
  • Rosy Thornton, ‘European Court of Human Rights: consent to IVF treatment’ (2008) 6 IJCL 317
  • Marleen Eijkholt, ‘The right to procreate is not aborted’ (2008) 16 Med L Rev 284
  • A. Moreham, ‘The right to respect for private life in the European Convention on Human Rights: a re-examination’ (2008) 1 EHRL Rev 44
  • Case Comment, ‘Prisoners’ rights: prisoner and wife seeking artificial insemination – right to found a family’ (2008) 2 EHRL Rev 282
  • Case Comment, ‘In vitro fertilisation – consent of both parties – withdrawal of consent’ (2007) 4 EHRL Rev 457
  • Lorenzo Zucca, ‘Evans v United Kingdom: frozen embryos and conflicting rights’ (2007) 11 Edin L Rev 446


Essay help: – This should be discussed in order to critically assess the essay

Preparing for and answering these questions should make it easier for you to engage with the essay title on this topic.

  • Does the right to respect for family life in Article 8 include the right to have a biological family?  Even if the reason preventing this relates to the imprisonment of one of the intended parents?  Does it make any difference whether the prisoner is the intended mother or father?  If the prisoner had had a learning disability?  If the prisoner had been seeking to adopt rather than conceive?
  • Does the right to respect for family life in Article 8 include the right to not have a family?  Compare Evans and Paton.


  • Do these cases suggest there could be a right to procreate in Article 8? Why or why not?




  • Do these cases approach these issues from an inherently gendered perspective?


In Evans the law did not consider the position of infertile women, but instead adopts a male approach to the issue – as it focuses more on whether the male partner would like to be a parent with her. A man in this situation would simply freeze his sperm and they would not be required to freeze their embryo – so therefore the man would remain in control of their reproductive future

There would not be another party involved in the decision making

This would negatively impact women who are faced with the same position




  • Would adopting a feminist perspective make a difference here?


Baroness Harris Short in her feminist judgement of the Evans suggest that  if it was the last possible chance for the women to have her own genetically related children – this should override the necessity for consent of both parents, and the fact that you need consent would consist as a disappropriate  interference with article 8 (1) rights.



Human Rights essay 2 (2000 words)

Critically assess whether Article 8 ECHR supports the right to procreate.


Your answer should demonstrate a breadth of reading and engagement with the above cases, as well as those which you encounter during your independent research.


Read the points below and above question to aid in writing the essay

  • Focused on a few judgements – there are many more and should be used
  • How to approach? Look at diff elements – what does the right to procreate mean? Or the right not to? Are they part of the same thing? Do they give positive obligations or negative obligation?
  • Critical and comparative analysis – is the best way to go
  • Address all points and compare and be critical about them
  • Address competing issues
  • There are interconnected rights to other ones e.g art2 – and bring it back to the question