There is no official or universal definition for the concept of ‘family’. The absence of EU legislative competence in the substantive family law field means that there is no ‘EU family law’. Thus it is the individual EU legal instruments in different policy areas and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU that demarcate, on an ad-hoc basis, the contours of the concept of ‘family’ and of related concepts for the purposes of EU law. The chapter argues that in recent years, increasing focus has been directed towards the way EU law addresses diverse family constellations in its laws and policies and how it manages the interaction of different national family law regimes in situations which fall within the scope of application of EU law. It is explained that the EU legislature and, especially, the Court have been faced with a plethora of complicated questions involving family-related matters and – as a result – with the unenviable task of carving out a solution that can be tolerated by all Member States. After identifying some pertinent questions, the chapter proceeds to explain how the chapters in this volume engage with these issues.

This chapter explores the questions of what is a ‘family’ in EU law and whether EU policies sufficiently address family diversity and its consequences. The chapter departs from the premise that the prevalence of the nuclear family model has traditionally meant that the only valid form of family in EU law was one consisting of an adult man and an adult woman who live together in a single-state context and produce their own biological children. This model is, also, based on the sexual division of labour: the man is the main breadwinner, whilst the woman is the homemaker. Nonetheless, in recent years there is growing evidence of diversity in family forms. Moreover, there is an increasing departure from the traditional sexual division of labour. Although many EU Member States are already acknowledging this changing landscape of family life in their law and policy, the important question is whether the EU has been influenced by this: does EU law now sufficiently address family diversity and its consequences? In this chapter, this main question is analysed by examining the concept of ‘family’ employed across a spectrum of fields of substantive EU law.

This chapter explores the definition of the notion of ‘family’ from an EU law perspective. The chapter first acknowledges the variable geometry of the family, and the absence of a uniform category of ‘family’ in EU legal norms. The chapter then shows that, despite the fragmentation of sources and the modulation of family circles, the way in which the EU characterises a person as a ‘family member’ obeys a form of logic and expresses a certain rationality. Borrowing from the work of Morgan and his notion of ‘doing family’, the chapter demonstrates that in addition to the de jure family members, other persons are counted as family members on the basis of them ‘behaving’ like family members. Barbou des Places concludes that ‘family members’ is a defined category of EU law: it designates the groups of people who are assumed to perform – or asked to prove that they do perform – different functions like education, care, protection and socialisation. It is subsequently emphasised that these roles are central because they contribute to a broader ambition, namely, participating in the cohesion of the whole of European society.

In Chapter 10, we begin by summarising the key areas of focus and concepts addressed within this book, exploring our analytic focus on juxtapositions between expectations and reality, and our conceptual focus on social flesh and feelings as a way that institutions are internalised. We then turn to consider how the participants experienced the process of being involved in the qualitative longitudinal study. Specifically, we look at whether or not participants shared their experiences of being interviewed with their partner, and what that meant for the couple relationship. We also look at what the participants felt they had gained from being involved in the study, which emphasised participation as a way to remember things that might be forgotten, and a way to reflect on the reality of new parenthood. The chapter concludes by considering what the study can tell us about future research on family diversity.