The thesis is grounded in empirical research using mixed methodology to examine the way in which commissioning couples report their experiences of international surrogacy to the courts. International surrogacy is the process by which couples travel abroad to enter in to an arrangement for another woman to carry and/or conceive a child for them with the expectation that the child will be handed over to the commissioning couple following the birth. The original contribution made by this thesis is that it seeks, by re-examining witness statements, reports and court judgments to argue that reported experiences of international surrogacy can have an effect within the judicial system through a knowledge exchange that is capable of providing an equilibrium within the family unit through judicial policy. The dichotomy of the private and public sphere of sexual relationships assumes a new and unintended political osmosis that moves the discourse away from exploitation to one of mutual dependency, welfare and family formation. Commissioning couples become autodidactic during their risk aversion choices but their self-acquired knowledge has benefits in promoting social change and calls for action leading to an oriented judicial attack on the statutory provisions assigning legal parentage status through parental orders.