placestats

Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion vs. Women in a union

Holds up after adjusting for income

Across 142 countries, Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion and Women in a union rise and fall together at r = +0.32 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). It holds up almost unchanged when only countries with similar income (GDP per person) are compared (r = +0.41, q = 0.025, allowing for the many pairs tested). Caution: direction is not consistent across regions.

Comparing countries across the middle half of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion, 31.4% to 58.5% of unintended pregnancies, women in a union is 4.68% of women aged 15-49 higher at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 5.51% of women aged 15-49.

Link before adjusting (r)+0.324p = 8.5e-5 · 142 countries
After adjusting for national income+0.411p = 4.1e-7 · likely range [+0.26, +0.54]
p, allowing for regions0.001standard error 0.074 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.025across 14,952 pairs

How to read these.r runs from −1 (one goes up as the other goes down) to +1 (they rise together), and 0 means no link. Adjusting for national income means comparing countries with the same GDP per person, so differences in wealth can’t explain the link. Income is used in percentage terms, since an extra $1,000 means more to a poor country than to a rich one. p is how likely a link this strong would be if there were really none. Below 0.05 means it is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 1.1e-32 means a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then 11, so very close to zero. The likely range is where the true figure probably lies, and a range that crosses zero means the link could easily be chance. Countries in the same region tend to resemble each other, so the third figure allows for that, which gives a fairer p. The standard error is the typical size of the error in r. Finally, testing this many pairs means some will look strong by luck alone. A q below 0.05 means this link is unlikely to be one of those.

Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion · % of unintended pregnancieslink with income +0.12 · independent
Women in a union · % of women aged 15-49link with income -0.44 · moderate

“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.

Every country as a dot

Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion · % of unintended pregnancies →Women in a union · % of women aged 15-49 →19.7%86.1%33.6%81.3%Angola: 28.1% of unintended pregnancies, 57.2% of women aged 15-49Albania: 59.2% of unintended pregnancies, 65.7% of women aged 15-49Argentina: 48.4% of unintended pregnancies, 49.7% of women aged 15-49Armenia: 81.8% of unintended pregnancies, 61.5% of women aged 15-49Australia: 43.1% of unintended pregnancies, 54% of women aged 15-49Azerbaijan: 77.6% of unintended pregnancies, 59.7% of women aged 15-49Burundi: 26.2% of unintended pregnancies, 58.2% of women aged 15-49Belgium: 37.1% of unintended pregnancies, 52.4% of women aged 15-49Benin: 36.9% of unintended pregnancies, 65.7% of women aged 15-49Burkina Faso: 40.6% of unintended pregnancies, 74.3% of women aged 15-49Bangladesh: 60.1% of unintended pregnancies, 80.6% of women aged 15-49Bulgaria: 35.7% of unintended pregnancies, 56.6% of women aged 15-49Bosnia and Herzegovina: 57.3% of unintended pregnancies, 65.3% of women aged 15-49Belarus: 56% of unintended pregnancies, 62.4% of women aged 15-49Belize: 45.2% of unintended pregnancies, 58% of women aged 15-49Bolivia: 36.3% of unintended pregnancies, 50.2% of women aged 15-49Brazil: 48.4% of unintended pregnancies, 56.9% of women aged 15-49Barbados: 58% of unintended pregnancies, 57.2% of women aged 15-49Bhutan: 67.9% of unintended pregnancies, 62% of women aged 15-49Botswana: 32.2% of unintended pregnancies, 41.5% of women aged 15-49Central African Republic: 30% of unintended pregnancies, 65.4% of women aged 15-49Canada: 36.8% of unintended pregnancies, 51.6% of women aged 15-49Switzerland: 25.5% of unintended pregnancies, 57.5% of women aged 15-49Chile: 52.5% of unintended pregnancies, 48.5% of women aged 15-49China: 77.9% of unintended pregnancies, 69.5% of women aged 15-49Cote d'Ivoire: 36.7% of unintended pregnancies, 62.7% of women aged 15-49Cameroon: 40.7% of unintended pregnancies, 58.1% of women aged 15-49Congo, Dem. Rep.: 27.9% of unintended pregnancies, 58.2% of women aged 15-49Congo, Rep.: 42.6% of unintended pregnancies, 55.3% of women aged 15-49Colombia: 43.2% of unintended pregnancies, 50.9% of women aged 15-49Comoros: 32.4% of unintended pregnancies, 63.1% of women aged 15-49Cabo Verde: 48.6% of unintended pregnancies, 45% of women aged 15-49Costa Rica: 41% of unintended pregnancies, 41.7% of women aged 15-49Czechia: 19.7% of unintended pregnancies, 53.7% of women aged 15-49Germany: 27.1% of unintended pregnancies, 54.4% of women aged 15-49Djibouti: 41.4% of unintended pregnancies, 46.5% of women aged 15-49Denmark: 38.9% of unintended pregnancies, 54.3% of women aged 15-49Dominican Republic: 44% of unintended pregnancies, 53.2% of women aged 15-49Ecuador: 35.1% of unintended pregnancies, 45.3% of women aged 15-49Spain: 43.1% of unintended pregnancies, 50.2% of women aged 15-49Estonia: 41.7% of unintended pregnancies, 54.1% of women aged 15-49Ethiopia: 31% of unintended pregnancies, 66.3% of women aged 15-49Finland: 24.8% of unintended pregnancies, 57.1% of women aged 15-49France: 49.5% of unintended pregnancies, 54.9% of women aged 15-49Gabon: 36.8% of unintended pregnancies, 48.5% of women aged 15-49United Kingdom: 36.2% of unintended pregnancies, 49.7% of women aged 15-49Georgia: 86.1% of unintended pregnancies, 65.3% of women aged 15-49Ghana: 35.9% of unintended pregnancies, 53.4% of women aged 15-49Guinea: 38.1% of unintended pregnancies, 70.9% of women aged 15-49Gambia, The: 31.1% of unintended pregnancies, 63% of women aged 15-49Guinea-Bissau: 58.5% of unintended pregnancies, 59% of women aged 15-49Greece: 45.8% of unintended pregnancies, 52.4% of women aged 15-49Guatemala: 30.1% of unintended pregnancies, 56.2% of women aged 15-49Guyana: 47.5% of unintended pregnancies, 59% of women aged 15-49Hong Kong SAR, China: 46.1% of unintended pregnancies, 49.8% of women aged 15-49Honduras: 30.6% of unintended pregnancies, 54.4% of women aged 15-49Croatia: 49.9% of unintended pregnancies, 50.1% of women aged 15-49Haiti: 35.5% of unintended pregnancies, 53.6% of women aged 15-49Hungary: 49.4% of unintended pregnancies, 52.3% of women aged 15-49Indonesia: 63% of unintended pregnancies, 70.3% of women aged 15-49India: 77.1% of unintended pregnancies, 72.3% of women aged 15-49Iceland: 39.1% of unintended pregnancies, 48.5% of women aged 15-49Italy: 67.1% of unintended pregnancies, 51.8% of women aged 15-49Jamaica: 43.9% of unintended pregnancies, 35.2% of women aged 15-49Japan: 30.1% of unintended pregnancies, 50% of women aged 15-49Kazakhstan: 82.1% of unintended pregnancies, 63.8% of women aged 15-49Kenya: 38% of unintended pregnancies, 53.2% of women aged 15-49Kyrgyz Republic: 79.2% of unintended pregnancies, 57.4% of women aged 15-49Cambodia: 65.3% of unintended pregnancies, 67.2% of women aged 15-49Korea, Rep.: 61.9% of unintended pregnancies, 49.8% of women aged 15-49Lao PDR: 68.3% of unintended pregnancies, 61.6% of women aged 15-49Liberia: 40.4% of unintended pregnancies, 51.4% of women aged 15-49St. Lucia: 54.6% of unintended pregnancies, 53.3% of women aged 15-49Sri Lanka: 72.3% of unintended pregnancies, 66.3% of women aged 15-49Lesotho: 23.9% of unintended pregnancies, 46.9% of women aged 15-49Lithuania: 27.7% of unintended pregnancies, 51.8% of women aged 15-49Latvia: 30.2% of unintended pregnancies, 49.6% of women aged 15-49Moldova: 70.6% of unintended pregnancies, 68.7% of women aged 15-49Madagascar: 62.8% of unintended pregnancies, 62.3% of women aged 15-49Maldives: 70.5% of unintended pregnancies, 68.4% of women aged 15-49Mexico: 50.9% of unintended pregnancies, 53% of women aged 15-49North Macedonia: 63.4% of unintended pregnancies, 66.1% of women aged 15-49Mali: 33.5% of unintended pregnancies, 79.2% of women aged 15-49Myanmar: 74.2% of unintended pregnancies, 58% of women aged 15-49Montenegro: 54.2% of unintended pregnancies, 57.6% of women aged 15-49Mongolia: 65.7% of unintended pregnancies, 60.2% of women aged 15-49Mozambique: 46.7% of unintended pregnancies, 64.8% of women aged 15-49Mauritania: 25.4% of unintended pregnancies, 66.1% of women aged 15-49Malawi: 27.4% of unintended pregnancies, 62.1% of women aged 15-49Namibia: 27.9% of unintended pregnancies, 33.7% of women aged 15-49Niger: 31.3% of unintended pregnancies, 81.3% of women aged 15-49Nigeria: 48.2% of unintended pregnancies, 67.6% of women aged 15-49Nicaragua: 27.5% of unintended pregnancies, 56% of women aged 15-49Netherlands: 40.8% of unintended pregnancies, 53.5% of women aged 15-49Norway: 31.7% of unintended pregnancies, 57.4% of women aged 15-49Nepal: 69.4% of unintended pregnancies, 75.1% of women aged 15-49New Zealand: 29.3% of unintended pregnancies, 57.7% of women aged 15-49Pakistan: 60.9% of unintended pregnancies, 63.4% of women aged 15-49Panama: 41.3% of unintended pregnancies, 53.2% of women aged 15-49Peru: 47.5% of unintended pregnancies, 52.7% of women aged 15-49Philippines: 50.5% of unintended pregnancies, 55.6% of women aged 15-49Papua New Guinea: 46.3% of unintended pregnancies, 66.9% of women aged 15-49Poland: 36.6% of unintended pregnancies, 58.6% of women aged 15-49Puerto Rico (US): 58.3% of unintended pregnancies, 40.9% of women aged 15-49Portugal: 32.4% of unintended pregnancies, 50.6% of women aged 15-49Paraguay: 51% of unintended pregnancies, 54.8% of women aged 15-49Romania: 71.2% of unintended pregnancies, 56% of women aged 15-49Russian Federation: 71.8% of unintended pregnancies, 57.6% of women aged 15-49Rwanda: 28.7% of unintended pregnancies, 49.9% of women aged 15-49Senegal: 25.1% of unintended pregnancies, 65.5% of women aged 15-49Singapore: 27.5% of unintended pregnancies, 43.8% of women aged 15-49Solomon Islands: 28% of unintended pregnancies, 64.5% of women aged 15-49Sierra Leone: 51.5% of unintended pregnancies, 61.5% of women aged 15-49El Salvador: 41.5% of unintended pregnancies, 50.7% of women aged 15-49Somalia, Fed. Rep.: 29.2% of unintended pregnancies, 62.4% of women aged 15-49Serbia: 60.8% of unintended pregnancies, 54.3% of women aged 15-49Sao Tome and Principe: 29.6% of unintended pregnancies, 53.1% of women aged 15-49Suriname: 46.5% of unintended pregnancies, 52.2% of women aged 15-49Slovak Republic: 26.2% of unintended pregnancies, 49.2% of women aged 15-49Slovenia: 24.4% of unintended pregnancies, 47.2% of women aged 15-49Sweden: 48.3% of unintended pregnancies, 53.6% of women aged 15-49Eswatini: 26.5% of unintended pregnancies, 36.4% of women aged 15-49Chad: 29.5% of unintended pregnancies, 72.6% of women aged 15-49Togo: 32.2% of unintended pregnancies, 63.7% of women aged 15-49Thailand: 64.4% of unintended pregnancies, 52.4% of women aged 15-49Tajikistan: 71% of unintended pregnancies, 68% of women aged 15-49Turkmenistan: 83.4% of unintended pregnancies, 65% of women aged 15-49Timor-Leste: 67.8% of unintended pregnancies, 56.4% of women aged 15-49Tonga: 52% of unintended pregnancies, 50.7% of women aged 15-49Trinidad and Tobago: 58% of unintended pregnancies, 42.7% of women aged 15-49Tanzania: 35.9% of unintended pregnancies, 59.2% of women aged 15-49Uganda: 29.7% of unintended pregnancies, 57.8% of women aged 15-49Ukraine: 75.9% of unintended pregnancies, 61.9% of women aged 15-49Uruguay: 27.6% of unintended pregnancies, 53.6% of women aged 15-49United States: 34.2% of unintended pregnancies, 52.1% of women aged 15-49Uzbekistan: 80.2% of unintended pregnancies, 74.7% of women aged 15-49Viet Nam: 74.5% of unintended pregnancies, 72.8% of women aged 15-49Vanuatu: 45.4% of unintended pregnancies, 68.6% of women aged 15-49Samoa: 64.5% of unintended pregnancies, 62% of women aged 15-49South Africa: 36.6% of unintended pregnancies, 33.6% of women aged 15-49Zambia: 28.2% of unintended pregnancies, 55.7% of women aged 15-49Zimbabwe: 24.8% of unintended pregnancies, 62.2% of women aged 15-49BGDINDJAMMLINAMNERPRISWZTCDTTOUZBZAF

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted+0.3248.5e-5142
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted+0.2800.001142
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income+0.4114.1e-7142
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income+0.3725.4e-6142

The rank version uses only each country’s place in line, from lowest to highest, so a few extreme countries count for less. The adjusted and unadjusted versions use the same 142 countries: those that report both measures and GDP per person. So the gap between them comes from the adjustment, not from a change in which countries are counted. Drop in the size of r after adjusting: -0.087 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.393 (without UZB) to +0.430 (without NER). The bar above shows that range on a scale from −1 to +1, with the solid line at the full result. The single country that moves r most: NER (+0.019).

Fragile: this link may not hold up.
  • direction is not consistent across regions

Within each region

Countries are not separate, unrelated cases, and neighbors share a lot. A link that holds inside each region is far more believable than one that shows up only when comparing regions.

nr
East Asia & Pacific21+0.34
Europe & Central Asia43+0.40
Latin America & Caribbean26-0.16
Sub-Saharan Africa42+0.08

By income third

If the link shows up only in the richest third of countries, it is a feature of rich countries, not a general pattern.

nr
Poorest third48+0.13
Middle third47+0.75
Richest third47+0.17

By largest religious group

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
Christians96+0.30
Muslims27-0.01

By last european coloniser

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
France21+0.14
Never a European colony16+0.59
Spain17-0.00
United Kingdom38+0.51

Without outliers (countries far outside the middle half of countries on either measure, by more than one and a half times the width of that middle half): r = +0.420 after dropping 4 countries.

Two series, one country

Both measures over the years for one country you pick. The two charts are stacked so they share only the years along the bottom.

Loading…

Over time, within countries

Everything above compares countries with each other at one moment. This section compares each country only with itself over 0years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.

Not enough history inside each country to look at this over time. That needs countries measured for several years in a row, and at least one of these measures is measured too rarely.

The data


% of unintended pregnancies
% of women aged 15-49		Years
Georgia GEO86.1%65.3%2019, 2018
Turkmenistan TKM83.4%65%2019
Kazakhstan KAZ82.1%63.8%2019, 2021
Armenia ARM81.8%61.5%2019, 2022
Uzbekistan UZB80.2%74.7%2019, 2022
Kyrgyz Republic KGZ79.2%57.4%2019, 2023
China CHN77.9%69.5%2019, 2021
Azerbaijan AZE77.6%59.7%2019
India IND77.1%72.3%2019, 2020
Ukraine UKR75.9%61.9%2019, 2012
Viet Nam VNM74.5%72.8%2019, 2021
Myanmar MMR74.2%58%2019
Sri Lanka LKA72.3%66.3%2019, 2016
Russian Federation RUS71.8%57.6%2019, 2021
Romania ROU71.2%56%2019, 2021

Bearak, J. M., Popinchalk, A., Beavin, C. et al. (2022), 'Country-specific estimates of unintended pregnancy and abortion incidence: a global comparative analysis of levels in 2015-2019', BMJ Global Health 7(3), e007151. Guttmacher Institute. Supplementary appendix, tables A3-A5.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: World Population Prospects 2024 and Estimates and Projections of Women of Reproductive Age Who Are Married or in a Union

Sources

Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion

Share of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion (model estimate, 2015-2019)

Guttmacher Institute (Bearak et al. 2022, BMJ Global Health) · CC BY-NC 4.0 · updated one edition (2015-2019 estimates, published 2022)

Of the unintended pregnancies in the abortion rate's model, the share that ended in abortion, averaged over 2015-2019 (Guttmacher Institute). The rest ended in a birth or a miscarriage. Like the other two, it is an estimate with a range. No "better" direction is set.

Women in a union

Share of women aged 15 to 49 who are married or in a union

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division · via Our World in Data · CC BY 3.0 IGO · updated biennial

A snapshot of how many women are in a union at one time, not a count of new unions each year. It counts couples living together as a union, which the OECD marriage rate does not. So the two can disagree without either being wrong, and their pair is worth reading for exactly that. The UN estimates it with a statistical model from survey and census data, for over two hundred countries. No "better" direction is set.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2011–2024. To adjust for income, each measure is first predicted from GDP per person (in percentage terms, on a log scale) with a straight-line fit. Only what is left over is then compared. This is called a partial correlation. The line is drawn the standard way (ordinary least squares), which picks the line that comes closest to all the countries at once. The error margins allow for countries in the same region resembling each other, using 7 World Bank regions. The q-value corrects for testing all 14,952 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated DYB 2024. How the country data works · explore Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion and Women in a union

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion changes Women in a union, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.

More links with Unintended pregnancies ending in abortion or Women in a union