The research team, led by Eliz Miu Yin Wong of The Education University of Hong Kong together with colleagues at the London School of Economics and The Chinese University of Hong Kong, designed a natural comparison. Taiwan and Hong Kong share deep cultural roots in Confucian family values, yet they diverge sharply on one policy: Taiwan enacted the Act for Implementation of J.Y. Interpretation No. 748 in 2019, granting same-sex couples legal recognition, while Hong Kong offers no such protection. By surveying comparable populations in both places, the researchers could isolate what difference the law makes—and what it does not.

The study draws on minority stress theory, a well-established framework holding that stigma, discrimination, and concealment impose unique psychological burdens on marginalized groups. But the researchers extended the theory to a couple-level analysis. Traditional minority stress research focuses on stressors individuals face because of their sexual identity. Couple-level minority stress, by contrast, captures pressures that arise because of the relationship itself—worrying that strangers will harm the couple for showing affection in public, or being asked by acquaintances not to display affection in their presence. These stressors cannot be reduced to individual identity; they target the partnership as a social unit.

The survey results revealed striking patterns. Respondents in Taiwan reported significantly higher parental acceptance than those in Hong Kong: half of Taiwanese respondents said their mother accepted their sexual orientation, compared with just 39.4 percent in Hong Kong. Acceptance from fathers was rarer everywhere—only a third of all respondents reported accepting fathers. Taiwanese respondents also reported lower levels of couple-level stigma and discrimination. When it came to relational well-being, the gap was clear: 75.8 percent of Taiwanese respondents felt satisfied with their relationship, versus 65.8 percent in Hong Kong, and the difference held even after adjusting for age, gender, income, education, and marital status.

Yet the picture for individual mental health was far more sobering. Nearly one in four respondents in both societies—22.7 percent in Taiwan and 22.6 percent in Hong Kong—met the criteria for probable clinical depression on the standardized nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire. That is roughly double the rates reported for the general populations of Taiwan and Hong Kong in earlier health surveys. Crucially, there was no significant difference in depression levels between the two societies. Living under legal recognition did not translate into lower depression, a finding the researchers describe as evidence that social stigma persists even after discriminatory marriage policy is lifted.

The authors point to Taiwan’s turbulent path to marriage equality as a possible explanation. In the 2018 referendum that preceded legalization, more than 7.7 million Taiwanese citizens—72 percent of voters—voted against same-sex marriage. Previous research has documented the toll of that campaign: a study of over 1,000 LGBT Taiwanese found that 12.6 percent attempted suicide during the referendum period, and suicidal ideation among non-heterosexual individuals was linked to perceived disapproval from family and friends. Exposure to negative campaign messages has been shown in both Taiwan and the United Kingdom to damage the psychological well-being of same-sex couples. The new survey, conducted less than two years after legalization, likely captures the short-term shadow of that hostility.

The statistical analysis, using hierarchical regression and mediation modeling with 5,000 bootstrap samples, teased apart the pathways connecting policy, family, and well-being. For depression, the model showed full mediation through couple-level stigma and discrimination: living in Taiwan was associated with less couple-level stigma, which in turn predicted lower depression. Parental acceptance played no significant mediating role for depression. For relationship satisfaction, the story was different. Both parental acceptance and couple-level discrimination partially mediated the link between society of residence and satisfaction—and parental acceptance contributed significant explanatory power beyond legal recognition itself.

This finding carries particular weight in Chinese cultural contexts. The researchers situate their results within the “coming home” model, first articulated by scholar Chow in 2001, which distinguishes sexuality politics in Chinese societies from Western coming-out narratives. Rather than explicitly disclosing their sexual orientation, many LGBQ+ people in Chinese societies bring their partners home, introduce them as close friends, and allow them to be gradually absorbed into the family as a “second son or daughter.” Family harmony often takes precedence over individual disclosure. The new data suggest this is not merely a cultural preference: parental acceptance has measurable, material consequences for the quality of adults’ romantic relationships, even when those adults have established independent lives.

The study also engages social safety theory, a recent reframing by psychologists Diamond and Alley arguing that the health consequences of stigma stem not only from active stressors but from the absence of reliable cues of social connection and protection. Affirmative laws, in this view, function as macro-level safety signals that allow the nervous system to downregulate chronic vigilance. The Taiwanese findings partially support this: legal recognition appears to reduce couple-level stigma and discrimination, creating a safer relational climate. But the persistence of depression at equal rates in both societies suggests that legal safety signals alone cannot fully counteract familial and interpersonal rejection.

The authors caution that their study has limits. It used non-probability sampling, relied on a single-item measure of parental acceptance, and captured only a snapshot in time less than two years after Taiwan’s law took effect—so the findings may reflect the proximal effects of a policy change rather than a completed social transformation. The sample skewed young, educated, and lower-income. Still, the researchers argue the work provides a critical baseline for the “post-marriage equality era,” and they call for longitudinal follow-up, qualitative research on how legal recognition reshapes family dynamics, and targeted mental health services addressing couple-level stressors. Their message to policymakers is equally direct: legal recognition matters for reducing discrimination, but supporting parents of LGBQ+ adult children—and helping couples navigate family rejection—may be just as essential to couples’ flourishing.

Subject of Research: Parental acceptance and couple-level minority stress in relation to the well-being of LGBQ+ individuals in same-sex relationships in Taiwan and Hong Kong

Article Title: Beyond Legal Recognition: Parental Acceptance and Couple-Level Minority Stress on Same-Sex Couples’ Well-Being in Chinese Societies

Article References: Wong, E. M. Y., Hildebrandt, T., Chan, R. C. H., & Suen, Y. T. (2026). Beyond Legal Recognition: Parental Acceptance and Couple-Level Minority Stress on Same-Sex Couples’ Well-Being in Chinese Societies. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-026-03539-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10508-026-03539-6

Keywords: same-sex couples, parental acceptance, minority stress, Taiwan, Hong Kong, marriage equality, depression, relationship satisfaction, LGBQ+ well-being, coming home, Chinese societies, Archives of Sexual Behavior