By: Henry Stafford, Mir Gossom & Olivia Hines
What is a nuclear family and where did it come from?
The nuclear family—typically defined as two parents and their children—was once considered the standard American household. But according to Steve Ruggles, a history professor at the University of Minnesota and director of the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series project, this model only dominated family life for a short time.
French sociologist Frédéric Le Play first described the average family unit in the 19th century. At that time, most families were multigenerational, with extended relatives living together under one roof.
Ruggles said the rise of the nuclear family in the United States was largely driven by the economic conditions following World War II.
“There’s really a very brief period where this type of family predominated—the male breadwinner family, where you have a wage-earning husband, a housekeeping wife and children,” Ruggles said. “That only represented a majority of the population from about 1940 to 1970.”
Ruggles said the postwar boom enabled many families to afford single-family homes, creating conditions favorable to the nuclear household. Stable wage labor for men and limited economic opportunities for women outside of marriage were key factors behind the rise of the model, he said.
But by the 1970s, shifting legal and economic conditions began to change the landscape. Women entered the workforce in increasing numbers, aided by new legal protections and evolving cultural expectations. Divorce rates also rose sharply, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.
Today, families look different from the nuclear model for many reasons. There is greater diversity in family structures, including more single-parent homes and fewer married couples with children.
Are nuclear families financially viable?
According to MIT, the total annual costs for a family of 4 with one working parent is around $76,931 in Minnesota. However, the median annual salary in Minnesota was only $45,533 in 2023, according to the US Census.
The rest of the US seems to follow similar trends, with costs in Wisconsin being $72,528 annually for a 1 income family, according to MIT. The median salary was only $41,645 in 2023, according to the US Census.
What if both parents work? Would a nuclear family be financially viable then?
The main difference in expenses between one parent and two parents working is the cost of childcare. One parent working implies the other would be looking after and taking care of the children, making childcare costs approximately $0.
However, with both parents working, childcare will have to be paid for. In Minnesota, the cost of childcare is around $31,396 per year for two children, according to MIT. In Wisconsin the cost is a bit less at around $26,095.
This increases the total annual expenses of the family to $108,327 and $98,623 in Minnesota and Wisconsin respectively. However, the median household income in 2023 was only $85,086 in Minnesota and $74,631 in Wisconsin, according to the US Census.
Young adults are seeking sterilization at increasing rates
On June 24, 2022 the United States Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion established by the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.
The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, also known as the Dobbs decision, permitted states to further restrict or ban abortion. As of 2024,14 states completely banned abortion with no exceptions.
In two studies, researchers found the Dobbs decision directly impacted people’s decision to seek permanent contraception, or surgical procedures that irreversibly prevent pregnancy. Instead of an intrauterine device or birth control pill, women sought tubal ligation at higher rates than before.
Tubal ligation is a surgical procedure that blocks the fallopian tube, which connects the ovaries to the uterus, by clipping or removing the tubes ultimately preventing an egg from being fertilized. For men, they receive a vasectomy, a simple, non-invasive surgery that seals the tubes carrying sperm.
Jacqueline Ellsion, a health service researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, found over 22 million people sought permanent contraception post-Dobbs decision.
Of those procedures, roughly 63% were women receiving tubal litigations, and nearly 37% were men receiving vasectomies.
Her study used regularly updated medical record data collected from academic medical centers and affiliated clinics across the United States.
Using the monthly total of tubal ligations and vasectomies recorded, Ellision found roughly 100,000 people, both women and men, between the ages of 18 to 30 years old received permanent contraceptive surgeries.
Her calculations also included visits for evaluation and management, tubal sterilization, and vasectomy procedures, Ellison said.
Similarly, Julia Strausser, the director of the Jacob’s Institute at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, found in her study tubal sterilization and vasectomy visits increased after the Dobbs decision among participants ages 19–26.
Before the Dobbs decision the monthly permanent contraception rate was three procedures and one procedure per 100,000 among female and male patients, respectively.
There was an immediate increase of 58 procedures for women following the Dobbs decision, and a steady increase of 5 procedures per month thereafter, Ellison said. Among men, there was an immediate increase in 27 procedures, but no significant change in the number of procedures per month.
“The increase in procedures for female patients was double that for male patients,” Ellison said. She added these patterns offer insights into the gendered dynamics of permanent contraceptive use.
These findings reflect the disproportionate health, social, and economic consequences of compulsory pregnancy on women, Ellison said.
The study did not include where the permanent contraception procedures took place, so it’s unclear if changes in abortion policy and bans influenced people’s decision-making process.
“Additionally, our findings do not provide insight into the differential experiences of Black, Indigenous, Hispanic, disabled, immigrant and low-income women,” Ellison said, “who disproportionately encounter interference and coercion in their contraceptive decision-making.”
Ellison said based on her findings, it’s clear Dobbs increased a sense of urgency among individuals who were interested in permanent contraception before the decision.
These changes in contraceptive decision-making must be considered to understand the short- and long-term implications of Dobbs on reproduction, Ellison said.