This essay explores the intersection between social science, lawmakers and the courts decisions on the subject of same-sex parenthood.
It can be analysed in three parts. After a brief introduction on the juridical meaning of homoparenthood, the first part examines the different outcomes of the most prominent psychological theories and researches, both pro and contra, conducted on LGBT parenting. A third position, which supports the point of view that there is no real guarantee in claiming the categorical advantage or disadvantage of same-sex parenting, will also be taken into account.
The second part of the Essay will focus on a comparative and comprehensive analysis of the different choices made by lawmakers and by courts in several European countries, and in the United States, based on the outcome of those researches earlier examined. The target aim of this second part is to investigate how much sociological and psychological views have effectively influenced the juridical and political decisions in these countries. For example, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy - each for different reasons -
have used research in a limited way. On the contrary in other countries, such as Germany and France, parliamentary debates may have put directed
an overwhelming amount of attention on scientific outcomes.
In the third part, after having analyzed the interaction between science and law, the article concludes the importance of the procedural independence and the substantial reciprocal recognition and balancing in the law-making process.
