隱形的非婚父母：戰後臺灣親子關係認定的女性主義法律史考察

本論文試圖從女性主義法學理論的角度，揭露戰後臺灣法律上父母身分認定機制中隱含的理想婚姻雙親意識形態，並藉由梳理父母身分認定制度的歷史發展，觀察不同群體在不同法律制度與社會脈絡下，如何對父母身分認定機制中的理想婚姻雙親意識形態進行抵抗及其侷限，進而思考「成為法律上父母」所涉及的婚姻地位、性別、性傾向與階級平等問題。　　首先，本文考察1945年到1985年民法親屬編首次修正前的父母身分認定機制及人工授精的論述與實踐，指出性別化的父母身分認定機制往往反映婚姻血親父母的優越性，控制女人的性與生育，更製造未婚媽媽、非婚生子女與收養家庭的污名。在1985年民法親屬編的修正過程中，真實血緣關係的重要性雖以「子女利益」之名受到強調，但其在很大程度上仍需讓步於婚姻家庭的維繫及對於女性的性道德規範，使得由婚姻中一父一母構成的理想雙親圖像難以被撼動。　　接著，本文呈現1985年至2007年間，涉及父母身分認定的民法及人工生殖規範的發展，指出制度的變遷仍未創造「成為父母」的機會平等，反而延續了過去主宰父母身分認定的異性戀婚姻雙親職預設，導致一父一母的雙親常規未受顛覆。在人工生殖規範的成形過程中，看似性別中立的意願標準與基因連結往往選擇性地被用來支持婚姻雙親職，不僅持續排除想成為父母的非婚伴侶及單身女性，也對非婚父母的養育及女性懷胎分娩的貢獻視而不見。在不涉及生殖科技的民法親屬編改革過程中，本文爬梳民主化後的婦運與同運修法動員、個人的司法訴訟動員及正式修法場域的論述，指出法律上對子女身分進行的婚生／非婚生區分未受挑戰，照顧事實的考量在父母身分認定的論辯中幾乎不見蹤跡，佔據重要性的往往是婚姻家庭完整性與血統真實之間的平衡，因而難以撼動法律中婚姻雙親作為理想父母的親職意識形態。 2007年後，婦運與同運開始組織「多元成家運動」，集體挑戰異性戀婚姻體制對於想成為父母但不想或無法步入婚姻者造成的限制與污名。本文分析「多元成家運動」的法律動員策略，指出其並未積極地挑戰以婚姻或類似婚姻關係作為父母身分基礎的法律制度，且在窄化為以同性婚姻合法化為目標的「婚姻平權運動」後，反而強化了婚姻親職的優越性。在司法院大法官公布釋字第748號解釋，宣告民法親屬編未能保障同性婚姻而違憲後，同志親職及人工生殖的立法改革仍反映婚內生育的常規，再次顯示非婚父母在取得父母身分上的邊緣性。　　在結論上，本文認為戰後臺灣父母身分的認定始終限於「非婚姻，即基因」的二元標準中，不僅持續維繫婚姻雙親的優越地位，無助於消除父母身分的性傾向不平等，更限制了非婚女性的母職自主性。在父母身分認定仍然不平等的今日，歷史性地考察法律如何形塑父母身分，能使我們看清婚姻、性別、性傾向與階級歧視交錯的樣貌，進而以這樣的歷史思維想像未來改寫法律上父母圖像的可能。

關鍵字

女性主義法學；女性主義法律史；非婚家庭；法律上父母身分；婚生推定；助孕科技

並列摘要

Through a feminist investigation into the history of parentage law in postwar Taiwan, this study reveals that the familial ideology premised on marriage and “natural” genetic ties still dominates questions of who is a parent. By situating the treatment of nonmarital families within the history of parentage law, it intends to explore how the presumption has relentlessly discounted and stigmatized the parent-child relationships formed by those who break from traditional norms of gender and sexuality as well as how and to what extent those deemed deviant have challenged the legal system and its underpinning assumption. Mapping regulation in this way shows how the recognition of some parents but not others reflects inequality based on marital status, gender, sexual orientation and class. This thesis first explores the regulation trajectory of parentage law (including the clinical practice of artificial insemination) prior the 1985 amendment of Taiwanese family law. It shows that the gendered nature of parentage law was deployed not only to meet the ideological goal of creating a heterosexual, nuclear, privatized family unit, which devalued single mothers, illegitimate children and adoptive families, but also to regulate women’s sex and reproduction. The 1985 amendment did create a stronger legal status for genetic parenthood. However, the law had interpreted the genetic tie’s significance to parentage in a way that preserved the patriarchal nuclear family. 　　The next part of the thesis reviews the history of the parentage law during the period from 1985 to 2007. In this period, both constitutional litigation and legislative lobbying was adopted to advance the amendment of family law. Moreover, reproductive technologies allowed for even greater possibilities concerning the fragmentation of parenthood. My argument of the historical development of the parentage law in this period, however, is that it was more conforming than liberating: It more often reinforced the traditional family configurations than challenged it. I first focuses on the law with respect to parental recognition in the context of ART, showing that the varying emphasis on genetic ties and intention had played key roles in supporting marital family. Against this backdrop, single women, lesbians, and gay men whom society regarded as unqualified to raise children still struggled for parental recognition. It is followed by an investigation into feminist legal advocacy in the 1990s, two parentage cases decided by the Taiwanese Constitutional Court (TCC) in the 2000s and the family law reform during this period. This investigation demonstrates that little reference was made to abolishing distinctions between children born within and outside marriage as well as the importance of care and nurture for all parents regardless of sex. Eventually, the increased sophistication of paternity testing had led family law to focus even more on ascertaining biological fatherhood. Yet, marriage persisted as a pathway to dual parentage, which resulted in the discrimination against nonmarital parents. Since 2007, a new wave of legislative attempts for diverse families began. Several women’s rights and LGBTQ rights NGOs jointly initiated the diverse-family movement, aiming at seeking legal recognition for the parent-child relationships formed in single parent families and same-sex-couple-headed families. By closely analyzing their legal strategies and lobbying process, this section demonstrates that they did not radically challenge fundamental assumption about marital status as determinants of legal parentage. With the countermovement’s profound opposition, the diverse-family movement limited its cause to the legalization of same-sex marriage. In this light, same-sex marriage movement failed to facilitate the model of parentage built on the basis of actual familial relationships, and instead reinforcing the superiority of marital parents. Moreover, after the TCC issued a landmark decision on the rights of gays and lesbians in Interpretation No. 748 in 2017, Taiwanese family law and the Human Reproduction Law’s continued focus on marital families was likely to favor marital parents over nonmarital parents─disparately affecting those families and individuals forming parent-child relationships outside of marriage. It is concluded that law has historically relied on either marriage or genetic tie to assign parentage, which may lead to the maintenance of the traditional family and the nonrecognition of unmarried couples and single parents. In a world where marriage still a privileged status, this historical perspective is crucial to understanding the intersectionality of marital status, gender and sexual orientation oppression. It also provides us an insight into the future path forward in the post-marriage equality world taking shape.