New study links Christian complementarianism to support for severe reproductive restrictions

A recent study published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion explores how a specific religious worldview about gender roles influences attitudes toward reproduction and the nation. The findings provide evidence that beliefs in divinely ordained roles for men and women are strongly tied to support for national population growth and restrictions on reproductive rights. This connection suggests that these religious views shape not only family dynamics but also preferences for government policies.

Brooklyn Walker, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Paul A. Djupe, director of the Data for Political Research program at Denison University, wanted to understand how a concept known as complementarianism affects political and social views. This ideology has gained relevance in recent political debates.

“In the religious spaces we study, we have seen a significant uptick in chatter about birth rates,” Walker and Djupe explained. “And the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, has reenergized public discussion about reproductive rights. A religious gender worldview called complementarianism seemed to be lurking in the background.”

Complementarianism is a theological perspective primarily found within conservative Christianity. “Complementarianism asserts that God created two sexes with distinct characteristics (men are aggressive, women are nurturing, etc.), that men lead in churches and families (and sometimes in business and politics), and that cultural health depends on men and women performing their respective gender roles,” the authors noted.

“No one had developed survey questions to measure complementarianism yet, and we were curious if complementarianism was related to attitudes about birth rates and reproductive rights, but also what kinds of babies people find desirable,” they said.

Free daily newsletter

To test these ideas, the researchers surveyed about 3,300 adults in the United States during September and October of 2025. They used a sample designed to match national demographics regarding age, gender, race, and region. The participants completed a series of questionnaires to measure their political and social views, alongside various demographic checks.

To measure complementarianism, the survey asked respondents to rate their agreement with six specific statements. The statements assessed whether participants believed men and women have fundamentally different but complementary roles. The researchers also measured the participants’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism to compare these psychological traits directly against the religious worldview.

The survey then asked about national pronatalism, which is the belief that a declining birth rate threatens the vitality of the country. Pronatalism is a movement or ideology that encourages human reproduction. The authors asked if people preferred population growth specifically from White or Christian couples.

Other questions focused on attitudes toward banning birth control, making the morning-after pill illegal, and stopping women from traveling across state lines for abortion care. Finally, an experiment tested abortion attitudes by asking different groups about abortion limits at various stages of pregnancy.

Walker and Djupe found that complementarian beliefs strongly predict a desire for national population growth. “Complementarianism matters more than just about any other variable, including religious service attendance, religious tradition, and party identification,” the authors told PsyPost.

People holding these views tend to feel alarmed by declining birth rates, viewing high fertility as a matter of national welfare. “For example, people who fully embrace complementarian beliefs are 30 percentage points more likely to express pronatalist attitudes than people who reject complementarianism entirely,” the researchers explained. “That’s after controlling for religious, political, and demographic factors.”

In addition to a general desire for more babies, complementarianism is linked to specific demographic preferences. “Complementarianism is strongly related to pronatalism, the belief that more children should be born in the US. But not just any children, White and Christian children specifically,” Walker and Djupe pointed out.

The authors observed that this religious worldview translates into support for strict government control over women’s fertility. “Complementarians are also more likely to oppose birth control access; to support abortion bans, regardless of the stage of pregnancy; and to support bans that would prevent women from traveling out of state to receive abortion care,” Walker and Djupe noted. “This is a worldview tailor-made to counter feminism and to yoke women to the home and reproduction.”

The researchers found that complementarianism operates differently than standard sexism. “We compared complementarianism to a couple of secular sexisms,” the authors said. “Hostile sexism is openly disparaging of women (‘Women seek to gain power by getting control over men’) while benevolent sexism locks women into traditional gender roles while seemingly casting women in a positive light (‘Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility’).”

While hostile sexism involves an antagonistic view of women and benevolent sexism frames women as pure but in need of male protection, complementarianism was a more potent predictor of policy preferences. “Complementarianism, while positively linked to both types of sexism, has a stronger relationship to pronatalism and reproductive rights than either of these sexisms,” they continued.

Interestingly, these effects were largely the same across genders. “Also, the effects of complementarianism are roughly the same for men and women, though men are slightly stronger adherents,” Walker and Djupe said. The religious worldview amplifies beliefs about government intervention almost equally for both male and female respondents.

When considering these findings, a potential misinterpretation is assuming that complementarianism is merely a lifestyle aesthetic. “It would be tempting to view this worldview as a throwback to earlier times, caricatured these days by ‘tradwives’ on Instagram,” the authors cautioned.

“But men and women adherents are fervent Christians, highly likely to be Christian nationalists, and think differently about social issues and not just about the value of making fresh sourdough,” they added. “Their views about women in politics, for instance, extend quite a bit outside the mainstream.”

One limitation of the study is that it relied on an opt-in online panel rather than a traditional probability sample. This means the respondents volunteered to take online surveys in exchange for rewards. While the scientists weighted the data to align with census estimates, this method can sometimes affect how perfectly the results represent the absolute entire public.

Looking ahead, the scientists plan to continue investigating this ideology. “We are in the initial stages of a book project to explore how complementarianism matters for political attitudes, including the repeal of the 19th Amendment, the use of political violence, political and social trust, and women’s roles in politics,” Walker and Djupe said. “We are also beginning to explore why complementarianism may be an attractive ideology for some men and women.”

The study, “Be Fruitful and Multiply? Complementarianism, Pronatalism, and Suppression of Reproductive Rights,” was authored by Brooklyn Walker and Paul A. Djupe.