Prime Minister Andy Burnham has announced that the UK government is extending statutory bereavement leave entitlements to include early pregnancy endings.
Currently, the statutory entitlement to parental bereavement leave is limited to parents whose child under 18 has died, or who experience a stillbirth after 24 weeks of pregnancy. This enables them to take up to two weeks of paid leave. As of April 2027, the entitlement will be extended to “all types of pregnancy loss” that occur before 24 weeks – though in such cases this leave will be unpaid.
It’s positive that the government is taking pregnancy endings seriously as an employment issue. We especially welcome the breadth of pregnancy endings eligible under the new policy – including molar pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, unsuccessful IVF embryo transfers and “all terminations”.
Too often, pregnancy endings are treated as categorically different from each another, despite the fact, as our research shows, that a person’s experiences and their medical circumstances don’t always conform to such clear distinctions. A person may terminate a wanted pregnancy, for example, because of a risk to their health or a diagnosis of foetal anomaly. Another may miscarry an unwanted pregnancy just before a scheduled abortion appointment. These experiences show the distinctions we rely on aren’t always as clear cut as they might appear.
We’re also glad to see employees will be able to take the leave flexibly within 56 weeks of the pregnancy ending. The entitlement will also extend to partners and intended parents in a surrogacy arrangement.
But there’s a significant problem at the heart of this announcement: the leave is unpaid. This will determine who can afford to use the entitlement. For someone with savings, a secure household income or a generous employer, two weeks without pay may be manageable. But for those without these privileges, the leave will be inaccessible.
This may only widen the economic inequalities that already permeate experiences of pregnancy endings. Those who do not have the means to lose wages or risk disciplinary action may have no choice but to work through any pain, bleeding or emotional impacts they’re experiencing.
Organisations have similarly commented on this aspect of the entitlement. During the consultation, the Trades Union Congress warned that low-paid workers and people struggling financially may be unable to take unpaid leave. Sands, a charity that supports bereaved parents, highlighted the financial hardship that can follow a pregnancy ending when people can’t access paid time off.
Linked to this issue is that people will have to disclose a pregnancy ending to their employer in order to take the leave – something many may not wish to do. Those in precarious work may feel particularly unable to reveal a pregnancy ending.
But another key shortfall of the new policy is the “bereavement leave” framing itself.
fizkes/ Shutterstock
Throughout the government document, the changes are described as giving people time and space to grieve the “loss of a loved one”. Miscarriage UK has described the government’s announcement as “an important step in recognising pregnancy loss as a bereavement”.
There are many people for whom this language is appropriate – but grief is not the only response to a pregnancy ending. Our research shows how varied emotional responses can be. Some people feel intense sadness or grief. Others feel disappointed, unsettled or ambivalent. Some feel relief. Someone may be upset by a miscarriage without understanding it as baby loss or describing themselves as bereaved.
So what does the new entitlement mean for these people? They may still need time off for physical recovery and processing emotional responses, or space after an intense medical experience. There’s a risk here that people won’t claim the leave they need if they don’t define themselves as “bereaved”.
Sick leave is still an option, but defining experiences such as miscarriage as “sickness” only reinforces patriarchal views of women’s reproductive bodies as inherently defective and malfunctional. Early pregnancy endings are very common and don’t usually occur due to sickness. It’s problematic that people will have to choose between classifying their experience as either sickness or bereavement to take time off.
The core message from our research is there’s no single or right way to feel when a pregnancy ends. But our concern is that framing the new entitlement as “bereavement leave” may contribute to a growing cultural trend – in the UK and elsewhere – of redefining miscarriage as the loss of a baby. This language does feel right for some, and it’s vital their experiences are validated and supported.
But when used in a universalising way, the language of grief leaves no space for other experiences and understandings of miscarriage and other early pregnancy endings. This matters because language does more than describe experience: it can shape which experiences are recognised as “legitimate” and “normal”. This can deepen hierarchies, divisions and exclusions. Those feeling relief or ambivalence after a miscarriage, for example, may feel alienated by support communities centred entirely on loss and bereavement. They may even start questioning themselves – wondering if there’s something “wrong” with them for not feeling grief.
These new policy changes are a step in the right direction. The growing recognition that pregnancy endings can have serious emotional impact is a welcome correction to years of dismissal and minimisation. It’s good news that those who experience their pregnancy loss as bereavement will be supported in this way.
But recognition can become restrictive when it assumes bereavement is the only, or “right”, response. The next step should be recognising the diversity of emotional responses too, and ensuring that statutory leave is paid, genuinely accessible and inclusive of all who need time away from work, whatever their circumstances.
Susie Kilshaw receives funding from an Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Higher Education Innovation Fund.
Victoria Browne receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.
