Rectifying data gaps in UK abortion statistics: possibilities and pitfalls

In this blog, postponed from September's Postdoc Appreciation Week due to the digital picket, Ruby Reed-Berendt discusses the need for national abortion statistics to include demographic data on incidence of abortion based on disability, sexuality, and gender identity. 

It is estimated that 1 in 3 women in the UK will need an abortion at some point in their life. This statistic speaks to the vital need for accessible abortion services. But although abortion is lawful, it is not available on request, and access remains tightly controlled. Indeed, in Scotland, England, and Wales, abortion can only be legally provided if two doctors certify that one of four ‘grounds’ within the Abortion Act 1967 are met. Under its terms, the vast majority of abortions are subject to a strict 24-week gestational time limit and can only be carried out through specific service providers. Anyone who carries out an abortion or who provides assistance for one to take place outside the terms of the Act may face criminal prosecution. In sum, abortion in the UK remains exceptionalised – it is subject to specific legal framework and more intense scrutiny than other medical procedures of comparable safety (Smyth, 2024). 

One form this scrutiny takes is the Act’s notification requirements. All abortions must be notified to the relevant Chief Medical Officer within 14 days of it taking place. Based on these notifications, the department of Health and Social care publishes annual statistics and commentary on abortion in England and Wales, with Public Health Scotland publishing comparable reports for Scotland. Most of these statistics focus on the abortion, and include: 

• The total number of abortions that took place in the previous year, which grounds were used, and abortion method (i.e., surgical or through use of medication)
• How many took place in a clinic or via telemedicine (i.e., the supply of medication for use at home) (Parsons & Romanis, 2021).
• How many abortions were carried out by 3rd sector organisations or in the NHS (in Scotland this is broken down into specific Health Boards) 

Certain demographic details are also reported in official statistics, including weeks’ gestation, the number of people who have accessed abortion or been pregnant before, and incidence of abortion based on age, residency, level of deprivation, and ethnicity. However, notably missing are demographic data on disability, sexuality, and gender identity. These data gaps are mirrored in a lack of research on the experiences of disabled and LGBTQ+ people in the UK who seek abortions. There are two key reasons that these data lacunae ought to be a cause for concern.

First, the little evidence that exists (in the UK and internationally) suggests that disabled and LGBTQ+ people experience numerous barriers when accessing abortion – barriers which are exacerbated where disability, sexuality, and gender identity intersect with one another, and/or with characteristics like race, class, and nationality  (Bowler et al., 2023; Engender et al., 2018; Flynn et al., 2023). Where data are not generated concerning these populations’ use of abortion services, inequalities in access are harder to evidence. For example, regional variation in abortion services is a significant problem for abortion-seekers living in deprived and rural areas, who may struggle to travel due to the time and cost of the journey, or indeed they may be unable to be away from work or existing dependents. These problems are reflected in Scottish statistics, which consistently indicate that women living in the most deprived areas of Scotland, as well as women from rural areas, are less likely to have terminations under 9 weeks gestation. Delays in access not only impact the lawfulness of abortion (in the context of the 24-week limit mentioned above), but also available options. For example, telemedical abortion, which can offer more privacy and ease of access, is only legally available up to 10 weeks’ gestation. These challenges are pertinent for disabled and LGBTQ+ people who are disproportionately likely to experience poverty and social deprivation (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2026; Matthews et al., 2024). Research also highlights that information providers offer about their services is not always available in accessible formats and tends to be targeted towards cisgender women (Engender et al., 2018; Flynn et al., 2023; Parker et al., 2025). Problems with accessible transport, appropriate equipment, or accessible clinic venues (such as no step-free access) also create additional burdens for disabled people. Data gathering could help indicate where delays in access lie, or higher instances of telemedical abortion arise. This kind of information can be used to think about how services could be made more accessible, and could also inform further research on the experiences of these populations.

Second, there is the matter of erasure and invisibility. Due to pervasive ableism and cis-heteronormativity, abortion-seekers are generally assumed to be able-bodied, heterosexual (cis)women, and these assumptions mean that services and research are often not planned and designed with other populations in mind (Greenfield et al., 2025). Indeed, individuals who access services can experience invisibility, stigma, and discrimination, which create further barriers to access (Engender et al., 2018; Parker et al., 2025). It should go without saying that disabled and LGBTQ+ people experience unwanted and wanted pregnancy and need abortion services. Whilst pregnancies certainly result from desired sexual relationships, it is worth noting that disabled and LGBTQ+ people experience increased instances of sexual abuse and violence and may be at increased risk of unplanned pregnancy. Recognising disability, sexuality, and gender identity in national statistics not only offers an opportunity to speak to these problems – it goes some way towards recognising their status as people who access and need abortion services, whatever the reason. 

There is a need to widen demographic data gathered as part of national abortion statistics. However, the ongoing stigma surrounding abortion means there is a need for caution. By drawing attention to particular populations’ use of abortion services, there is a risk that this can be used to reinforce problematic narratives that some individuals or groups make risky or inappropriate reproductive choices. There is also a danger that interventions might be developed which target them for increased surveillance and reproductive control. The purpose of gathering greater evidence should not be to target particular populations as problematic users of abortion services. Rather, it should be undertaken to consider how services can be more inclusive and more accessible to those who need them. 

This blog, and the problems of structural injustice it highlights, forms part of research done on the abortion case study in Medicine Without Doctors: reimagining care through voice and play. You can learn more about the project and the case study here. 

Author bio: DrRuby Reed-Berendt is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow on Medicine Without Doctors. Her research as part of this project focuses on issues of structural and epistemic injustice in abortion care, with a focus on disability. Ruby’s broader research lies in mental capacity and disability law, particularly in sexual and reproductive contexts. 

List of references

Bowler, S., Vallury, K., & Sofija, E. (2023). Understanding the experiences and needs of LGBTIQA+ individuals when accessing abortion care and pregnancy options counselling: A scoping review. BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 49(3), 192–200. 

Engender, Inclusion Scotland, & People First (Scotland). (2018). Our Bodies, Our Rights: Identifying and removing barriers to disabled women’s reproductive rights in Scotland. https://www.engender.org.uk/files/our-bodies,-our-rights-identifying-and-removing-barriers-to-disabled-womens-reproductive-rights-in-scoltand.pdf

Flynn, E., Dagg, J., Ní Fhlatharta, M., & Burns, E. Q. (2023). Re(al) Productive Justice: Final report. University of Galway. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13025/70jg-1s95

Greenfield, M., Luxion, K., Molloy, E., & Hinton, A.-A. (2025). A Guide to Providing LGBTQ+ Inclusive Reproductive Health Care: Pride in Birth (1st edn). Routledge. 

Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2026). UK Poverty 2026: The essential guide to understanding poverty in the UK. https://www.jrf.org.uk/understanding-poverty/uk-poverty-2026-the-essential-guide-to-understanding-poverty-in-the-uk

Matthews, P., Barnett, C., Formby, E., Gregory, L., Lambert, P., & Mann, S. (2024). LGBT+ Welfare and Assets in Great Britain – Main Public Output. Nuffield Foundation. https://lgbtqwelfare.stir.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/LGBT-Welfare-and-Assets-in-Great-Britain-Main-Public-Output.pdf

Parker, G., Miller, S., Baddock, S., Kerekere, E., & D’Cruz, C. (2025). ‘Just get a clearer idea of who I am’: LGBTQIA+ people’s experiences of abortion care in Aotearoa New Zealand following law reform. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 28(10), 1133–1148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2025.2520293

Parsons, J. A., & Romanis, C. E. (2021). Early Medical Abortion, Equality of Access, and the Telemedical Imperative.

Smyth, R. (2024). Abortion Exceptionalism in International Human Rights Law. Human Rights Quarterly, 46(4), 671–711.