Makeup 5

Vol.:(0123456789)

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-025-00902-9

RESEARCH

Whose children matter? Multigenerational family complexity and late-life divorce in Sweden

Linda Kridahl1 · Ann-Zo"e Duvander1,2  · Jani Turunen3

Received: 10 March 2025 / Accepted: 27 November 2025 © The Author(s) 2025

Abstract In many Western countries, divorce among older age groups has slowly increased. One potential explanation is the increase in the diversity of family structures, such as a blend of joint children, stepchildren and stepgrandchildren. We investigate the association between multigenerational family complexity and late-life divorce in Sweden (60 +). Multigenerational family complexity includes a couple’s joint children/grandchildren and any children/grandchildren to whom one of the partners is a parent/grandparent, i.e. when the female partner, male partner or both partners have children/grandchildren from previous unions. Using Swedish register data, we find that couples with step relationships are more likely to divorce than those with only biological ties, that couples with only joint children or grandchildren have the lowest late-life divorce risk, and that couples with two sets of stepchildren face a higher risk than those with one. We also find that joint children in stepfamilies lower divorce risk among couples where the female partner has children from previous unions and for couples with both joint and step grandchildren, regardless of the stepchild’s parental lineage. Lineage patterns of family complexity in the third generation operate somewhat differently than those in the second generation do. We provide novel insights into how biological and stepties as well as maternal and paternal lineages across generations are related to divorce risk later in life.

Keywords Late-life divorce"· Family structure"· Stepties"· Older unions"· Gender

Introduction

Divorce among older age groups has increased in Western countries in recent decades (Australian Institute of Family Studies 2023; Brown and Lin 2012, 2022; Solaz 2021; Tosi and van den Broek, 2020). One potential explanation, yet not examined, for the development of late-life divorce is the increasing diversity in family structures (Brown et"al. 2021). Repartnering often brings together biological and nonbiological children, stepchildren and even stepgrand- children. Stepfamilies often face additional challenges when children from different unions are brought into the new union by either the mother or the father, making the

partner a stepparent (Stewart 2005). Compared with intact families, stepfamilies have been argued to be ‘incomplete institutions’, without the institutionalized solutions of every- day family life (Cherlin 1978; Coleman et"al. 2015), includ- ing relationships with grandchildren (Gangong and Coleman 2012). Despite being common, stepfamilies still lack clear (gendered) norms and expectations.

Although research on stepfamilies and late-life divorce is limited, studies show that remarried older couples in the U.S. face higher divorce risk (Brown and Lin 2012), reflect- ing the adverse ‘repartner effect’ on couple stability found in the general population (Zahl-Olsen 2022). Related to family, Lin et"al. (2018a, b) expected that couples aged 50 + with stepchildren would be more likely to divorce than couples with joint children and childless couples would be, but their US-based study did not confirm this. Since family dynam- ics and the meaning of step relationships may differ in other contexts, for example, in European Nordic countries, further research is needed.

These family dynamics in ageing families have also been linked to ties in the third generation; for example, grandchil- dren have been shown to decrease the risk of late-life divorce

* Linda Kridahl linda.kridahl@sociology.su.se 1 Department of"Sociology, Stockholm University, Stockholm,

Sweden 2 Department of"Humanities and"Social Sciences, Mid Sweden

University, Östersund, Sweden 3 Social Sciences, Södertörn University, Stockholm, Sweden

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 6 Page 2 of 16

among older American and European couples (Brown et"al., Alderotti et"al. 2022), whereas stepgrandchildren have been shown to increase divorce risk, at least in the U.S. context (Brown et"al. 2021). There are two main pathways to step- grandparenthood (Ganong and Coleman 2004; Steinbach and Silverstein 2020): when an adult child partners with someone who has children (i.e. inherited stepgrandparent- hood) or when adult stepchildren have children (the focus of this study). While the first pathway often leads to larger and complex networks, both situations highlight how step relations may shape coupled stability. Moreover, having a joint child or grandchild can strengthen bonds and promote stability in ageing stepfamilies (Bildtgård et"al. 2021; Sch- oeni et"al. 2022; Stewart 2005). Taken together, these find- ings suggest that both the presence of joint or step relations and the length of the marriage need to be considered to fully understand the dynamics of late-life divorce in stepfamilies.

Using Swedish register data, this study examines the link between multigenerational family complexity and divorce from age 60 (cohorts 1930–1956), without making causal claims. The focus is on couples (first generation), their joint children (second generation) and grandchildren (third gen- eration), as well as children/grandchildren from other part- nerships, while accounting for both maternal and paternal lineages. Marital duration is also considered, as longer mar- riages are generally more stable and have more integrated family relationships. To capture these associations in a clear and transparent way, we rely on a deliberately narrow opera- tionalization of family complexity. In this study, we study divorce following marriage and not cohabitation, and fam- ily complexity includes the presence of children and grand- children from current or previous unions, whether followed by divorce, separation or widowhood, rather than marital history per se. The definition does not capture whether the (young or adult) children coreside with the parents or inher- ited step-grandparenthood and is, thus, a conservative defini- tion of family complexity. Our definition limits the general- izability to all forms of complex family structures.

Sweden as a context for studying late-life divorce and family complexity

Sweden’s family demographic history (e.g. Ohlsson-Wijk et"al. 2020) makes it a valuable context for studying mul- tigenerational family complexity and late-life divorce. It was among the earliest countries to embrace values linked with divorce, such as individualization, self-expression, and secularization, while weakening traditional family norms (Lesthaeghe 2014; Surkyn and Lesthaeghe 2004), along- side changes in gender roles and family norms (Goldschei- der et"al. 2015). Unlike in many other countries, separated fathers have remained actively involved with their chil- dren for decades, partly because of joint physical custody

arrangements (Bergman and Hobson 2002). High female labour force participation and welfare support strengthen women’s economic independence and ability to support themselves after divorce, though their lifetime earnings and pensions remain lower than men’s (Stanfors 2017; Wetter- berg 2013), improving their ability to support themselves after divorce, albeit with lower lifetime earnings and pen- sions than men (Statistics Sweden 2014a, 2014b, 2024).

While most earlier studies define late-life divorce from age 50 (Lin et"al. 2018a, b; Alderotti et"al. 2022), this study focuses on age 60 (Bildtgård and Öberg 2022; Kridahl and Kolk 2025; Kridahl et"al. 2025), as this age better reflects demographic and social developments among the older population in Sweden. Age 60 often indicates a transition to retirement and increased vulnerability, whereas ages 50–59 are typically shaped by ongoing family responsibili- ties (including coresidential children) and labour force par- ticipation (Statistics Sweden 2020). In Sweden, divorce at age 60 + rose from 1.4 per 1000 marriages in 2000 to 2.6 in 2025 (Kridahl and Kolk 2025; Statistics Sweden 2025). The rise in late-life divorce occurred against the backdrop of historically high divorce rates during the 1960s–1990s, which stabilized or even declined after 2000 (Andersson and Kolk, 2015). Among women aged 60 born 1930–1956, divorce increased from 14 to 22% and never-married status from 6 to 19%, while marriage declined from 68 to 55%; men show similar trends (Statistics Sweden 2025). Over the same period, widowhood became less common. The share of women widowed at age 60 fell from 12 to 4%, with com- parable declines among men (Statistics Sweden 2025). Con- currently, the median age at widowhood rose from about 70 to 79 for men and from 66 to 77 for women between 1970 and the late 2000s, while the median duration of widowhood fell from 17 to 12"years for women and stayed stable for men (Dabergott 2022). These shifts indicate that widowhood was more common in earlier cohorts but now mostly occurs after the childrearing years, making its role in stepfamily formation smaller. Sweden has also experienced high rates of repartnering and multiple partner fertility (Ohlsson-Wijk et"al. 2020), resulting in a historically large share of indi- viduals in stepfamilies. These family forms have also been prevalent among today’s older population, making Sweden a forerunner in this regard.

Selection into different family compositions and late-life divorce

Studying divorce after age 60 inherently involves selection processes. First, there is a survivor selection (Fors et"al. 2021): individuals who remain married later in life. These individuals are negatively selected for divorce proneness, as those who were more prone to divorce may have already experienced marital dissolution earlier in life. This survivor

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 Page 3 of 16 6

selection leaves a more stable pool of older married indi- viduals. Second, divorced individuals, including multidi- vorces, often follow distinct trajectories that increase the risk of marital dissolution (Li and Penning 2023; Poortman and Lyngstad 2007; Zahl-Olsen 2022), including poorer health (Guner et"al. 2018; Torvik et"al. 2015), lower earn- ings (Kridahl et"al. 2025; Schmauk and Kridahl 2024), more precarious positions in the labour market (Schmauk 2024), and personality traits linked to higher divorce risk (e.g. Spi- kic and Mortelmans 2021). Stepfamilies in later life may thus carry forward these selection factors, whether they are formed after divorce, separation, or widowhood. Couples with prior-union children who remain together until age 60 may be resilient but less integrated than couples with only joint children are. Some unions were formed recently, which may further weaken integration (compared with long-stand- ing families with joint children). Older couples with both joint children and stepchildren may have formed in their reproductive years and been married longer than couples without joint children, while those with only stepchildren may reflect selection into low fertility, infertility and inten- tional childlessness (e.g. couples who chose not to have a joint child or unions between older men and much younger women).

The selection implies that the associations we observe are among a subset of more stable couples, while selec- tion into family complexity highlights that prior life-course experiences are not random but are systematically related to divorce risk. To account for these dynamics, our analyses adjust for marital duration and differentiate between family configurations, providing a more nuanced basis for assess- ing the relationship between family complexity and late-life divorce.

Research on stepfamilies and late-life divorce risk and study’s hypotheses

Research on ageing stepfamilies and late-life divorce is limited, particularly in the Swedish context, where most existing work is qualitative (Bildtgård et"al. 2021; Bildtgård and Öberg 2022). Insights into challenges affecting late- life marital stability can therefore be drawn from studies of younger (step) families. Below, we review the relevant literature, highlight empirical directions, and conclude with six hypotheses. As we study divorce among older couples, the hypotheses take the perspective of the couples.

Living in a stepfamily may enrich life and provide support in di#cult times, particularly later in life (Connidis 2020). However, research consistently shows that stepfamilies pre- sent unique challenges for all members, especially the cou- ple (Ganong and Coleman 2004; Hobart 1991; van Eeden- Moorefield and Pasley 2013). Repartnered (older) couples

not only face a higher divorce risk (“repartner effect”) (Kri- dahl and Kolk 2025; Raley and Sweeney 2020; Zahl-Olsen 2022), but as Beaujouan (2016) reported, this risk is higher among those who also formed stepfamilies than among cou- ples with only joint children. The challenges are particularly pronounced when both partners have children from previous relationships (i.e. stepchildren). While this particular study does not consider age-specific divorce risk or distinguish older couples, it reveals that regardless of the partners’ age, the different responsibilities to “my” and “your” children may be conflictual, a situation that is not present in a family where both partners are the biological parents of all of the children.

Stepfamilies also encounter other challenges, such as bringing together two family cultures and individuals often at different stages in family life cycles. Both young and older parents alike tend to feel closer to their biological children than to stepchildren (Becker et"al. 2013; Bildtgård and Öberg 2022; O’Connor and Boag 2010), and stepparenting is often experienced as more challenging than parenting one’s bio- logical child (MacDonald and DeMaris 1995; van Eeden- Moorefield and Pasley 2013). Conflicts frequently arise around boundaries (Coleman et"al. 2001), and loyalty ten- sions can place parents in a di#cult position between their partner and children (Afifi 2003; Golish 2003), including among older couples (Lin et"al. 2018a, b). In ageing step- families, these challenges are compounded by care needs and potential disputes over financial transfers to children from previous unions (Raley and Sweeney 2020). Research has shown that intergenerational transfers of time and money occur less frequently in older stepfamilies than in biological families (Patterson et"al. 2022) and that inheritance arrange- ments can introduce additional complexities (Jensen et"al. 2019). Moreover, compared with biological parent–child ties, contact between older stepparents and adult stepchil- dren tends to decrease after a divorce (Noël-Miller 2013), highlighting the fragility of these relationships. Challenges in stepfamilies may particularly be pronounced when both partners bring children from previous unions. Although Fang et"al. (2025) do not study divorce risk directly, they show that more complex stepfamily structures are perceived as less cohesive (see also Stewart 2005). Lower cohesion is likely to increase tension and, by extension, divorce risk, suggesting that couples with multiple sets of stepchil- dren face greater barriers to integration and greater family instability.

As the challenges of stepparenting extend into later life, these same complex family dynamics often carry over into grandparenthood. Although stepgrandparenthood is still a relatively underexplored topic (Chapman et"al. 2016; Mon- geon et"al. 2024), the so-called step gap has also been found among stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild relationships. For example, Steinbach and Silverstein (2020) reported that

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 6 Page 4 of 16

stepgrandparents have less frequent contact and weaker emo- tional ties with stepgrandchildren than biological grandpar- ents do, underscoring the di#culty of forging strong bonds in stepfamilies. Similarly, Sanner et"al. (2018) reported that these ties typically dissolve when remarriage ends. These challenges in stepgrandfamily ties mirror broader patterns in marital stability; joint grandchildren reduce divorce risk among older American and European couples (Brown et"al.; Alderotti et"al. 2022), whereas stepgrandchildren increase the risk among American couples (Brown et"al. 2021). On the basis of the previous findings, we formed our first two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 Couples with stepchildren/stepgrandchildren have a higher risk of divorce than couples with only joint children/grandchildren do.

Hypothesis 2 Couples with two sets of stepchildren/ stepgrandchildren have a higher risk to divorce than couples with only one set of stepchildren/grandchildren are.

In stepfamilies with children from previous unions, a joint child can bring stepparents closer and help clarify family roles and strengthen bonds (the so-called concrete baby effect or bridge child) (Bildtgård et"al. 2021; Fang et"al. 2025; Ganong and Coleman 2017; Schoeni et"al. 2022). Such children often stabilize repartnered unions (Sandström et"al. 2014, however, though see Beaujouan 2016). Stepfamilies with joint children also report lower boundary ambiguity and higher cohesion than those without (Fang et"al. 2025; Sch- oeni et"al. 2022; Stewart 2005; Ward et"al. 2009). Similarly, joint grandchildren have been found to strengthen the grand- parent role and relationship stability (Brown et"al. 2021), although no study has yet examined couples with both joint grandchildren and stepgrandchildren. We hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3 Couples who have stepchildren/stepgrandchil- dren but no joint children/grandchildren have a higher risk of divorce than couples who have both joint and stepchil- dren/stepgrandchildren do.

Gendered dynamics also play a significant role in shap- ing stepfamily relationships. Women are traditionally seen as the main caregivers and kin keepers (Hornstra and Ivanova 2023; Kalmijn et"al. 2019), which can lead to greater expectations for their involvement with their children. These expectations are likely to apply to her own children and, to a lesser extent, her partner’s (Cart- wright 2012; Nielsen 1999). Stepmother–child relation- ships can be particularly strained because of the presence and influence of biological mothers (Ihinger-Tallman and Pasley 1997; Samzelius 2023). Children often see their

mothers as central figures, and competition over resources (time, attention, financial support) can generate resent- ment towards a stepmother (Nielsen 1999), a phenomenon sometimes called the “stepmother trap” (Scholtz and Spies 2023).

Concurrently, unequal investment in stepfamilies often takes the form of “swapping families,” whereby parents reallocate time, money, and emotional support towards children in a new union at the expense of those from prior ones (Manning and Smock, 2000). Fathers, especially in the past, are particularly prone to this reallocation (a phenom- enon called “recycling” family) (Arat and Poortman 2024; Furstenberg 1995, 1980; Furstenberg and Spanier 1984) and more strongly perceive their stepchildren as their own than stepmothers do (van Houdt 2023), resulting in lower contact frequency and weaker ties between them and their origin adult children (Kalmijn 2013, 2015), even after late-life divorce (Lin et"al. 2022). Mothers with any stepchildren are less likely to live with any of their children than mothers of only biological children are (Seltzer et"al. 2013), reflecting fathers’ distant relationships with their own children. Thus, the male partner takes on the role of a father in the new fam- ily, and his children are more of a threat to union stability and the established, e.g. routines and roles. His biological children may also destabilize older couples. For example, stepmothers (who often provide the majority of the caregiv- ing and kin‐keeping) may be expected to invest in adult step- children despite weaker emotional bonds and greater logisti- cal burdens (e.g. travel for visits and managing established living arrangements), which may create conflicts. Our fourth hypothesis is, therefore,

Hypothesis 4 Divorce risk is higher among couples in which the man brings in children from a previous union into the union than among those in which a woman does.

Because of women’s role as family kin keepers, they also have closer ties with their grandchildren than men do (Hornstra and Ivanova 2023). Even following divorce, grandmothers continue to provide care at levels comparable to those of married grandmothers, whereas grandfathers do not (Amato et"al. 1995). In stepfamilies, a woman’s intensive grandchild caregiving can draw time and emotional energy away from her partner, amplifying boundary ambiguity and creating loyalty conflicts that span generations. As a result, ties to her grandchildren may be stronger than those to his grandchildren (who are more at a distance), making women’s grandchildren more likely to negatively affect the couple’s relationship. Taken together, these gendered pat- terns of caregiving, resource allocation and intergenerational ties suggest that the origin of stepgrandchildren (woman or man) should differentially affect union stability. Our fifth hypothesis is as follows:

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 Page 5 of 16 6

Hypothesis 5 Divorce risk is higher among couples in which the woman brings in grandchildren from a previous union into the union than among those in which a man does.

Although stable couples are more likely to remain together into later life, as unstable unions often dissolve earlier, research from Europe and the U.S. shows that older couples generally face a reduced risk of divorce as marriages strengthen over time (Alderotti et"al. 2022; Brown and Lin 2012; Kridahl and Kolk 2025; Kridahl et"al. 2025; Lin et"al. 2018a, b; MacDonald and DeMaris 1995). In stepfamilies, the timing of union formation (e.g. repartnering in midlife or later life), the duration of living as a stepfamily, and the children’s developmental stage at the time of repartnering (whether the children were minors or adults) often shape the integration process and can serve as a mitigating factor in the alleviation of stepties. Over time, stepfamily bonds tend to strengthen as routines form, boundary ambiguity declines, and shared rituals develop, which buffer conflict and reinforce commitment (Becker et"al. 2013; Kalmijn 2013; Kalmijn et"al. 2019). As a result, stepfamilies may increasingly resemble nuclear families (Hämäläinen et"al. 2024), a process also seen in stepgrandparenthood (Chap- man et"al. 2018). Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6 Divorce risk decreases among couples with stepchildren or stepgrandchildren as marital duration increases, similar to couples with only joint children.

Data and Methods

Study population and measure of late-life divorce

This study is based on extensive Swedish register data including all couples in the population who (1) were married (opposite-sex unions) when one or both of the partners were 59"years old (couples who divorced before age 59 are left censored) and (2) where at least one of the partners was born between 1930 and 1956. We thus observe late-life divorces from age 60 occurring in the period of 1990–2017 but fol- low the couples from the start of their marriage and observe any events that occur both before and after age 59 (e.g. child births). As the data include annual changes in civil status, we followed each couple until divorce (when at least one of the partners was 60"years or older), until they were right censored because of death, widowhood or out-migration, or until the end of the observation period in 2017, whichever occurred first (dependent variable, divorce, is time-varying). Moreover, the two criteria imply that there is a selection of couples in our population who remained married at least

until age 59 and those who survived to older ages (by, e.g. socio-economic status, Fors et"al. 2021). The study’s criteria also implied that not all cohorts were followed for an equally long period. Nonetheless, the cohorts were chosen so that it was possible to follow them over some years after age 60. Notably, we could only observe marriages, as it was not possible to trace cohabiting unions in the Swedish registers before 2011 if they did not have joint children (see sensi- tivity analyses at the end of the results section). Although cohabitation is common among younger and middle-aged individuals in Sweden, marriage remains the predominant form of union in later life, albeit with a declining prevalence. For example, 82% to 79% of women aged 60 (1951–56) and 86% to 81% of women aged 65 (1946–56) were married (Statistics Sweden 2025: own calculations).

Measures of family complexity and adjusting variables

Using unique personal identification numbers from the reg- ister data, we linked each partner (first generation) to any Swedish‐born or Sweden‐residing child (second generation) or grandchild (third generation), from which we created two time-varying independent variables to capture family complexity. The first variable is Family complexity in the 2nd generation, which includes all combinations of (step) children, i.e. joint children and their children from their pre- vious unions (regardless of divorce, separation and widow- hood), and childless. The latter are included as a comparison because childlessness is an important later-life family con- figuration. The second variable, Family complexity in the 3rd generation, is similarly categorized, but the focus is on (step) grandchildren from the partners’ children. To facilitate interpretation, Table"1 presents all possible third-generation combinations derived from family complexity in the sec- ond generation. Table"2 displays the descriptive statistics for these variables when the unions enter the study period (i.e. when at least one of the partners becomes 59"years old). Notably, some of these groups are quite small; thus, cau- tion should be taken when interpreting the results for these groups.

The models are adjusted for a set of common predictors of divorce. We make use of longitudinal characteristics or data to specify marital duration (time-varying from the year of marriage), calendar year (time-varying), age composition, educational composition (time-varying), country of birth and whether the partners are working or retired (time-varying) (Alderotti et"al. 2022; Brown and Lin 2012; Chapman et"al. 2016, 2018; Jalovaara 2003; Karraker and Latham 2015; Lin et"al. 2018a, b; MacDonald and DeMaris 1995; Wilson and Waddoups 2002; Wu and Penning 1997, 2018). Descrip- tive statistics for these variables are displayed in Table"2. We do not adjust for the partner’s marital/cohabitation

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 6 Page 6 of 16

Ta bl

e 1

O ve

rv iew

of al

l p os

sib le

th ird

-g en

era tio

n c om

bin ati

on s d

er ive

d f ro

m se

co nd

-g en

era tio

n f am

ily co

mp lex

ity (c

hil dle

ss ex

clu de

d) 1)

1) “X

” = po

ssi ble

co mb

ina tio

n, “N

/A ” =

no t a

pp lic

ab le

Fa mi

ly co

mp lex

ity in

3r d g

en era

tio n

Fa mi

ly co

mp lex

ity

in 2n

d g en

era tio

n Jo

int

gr an

d- ch

ild ren

Jo int

gr an

dc hil

- dr

en an

d s he

ha s

gr an

dc hil

dr en

fro

m pr

ev iou

s un

ion s

Jo int

gr an

dc hil

- dr

en an

d h e h

as

gr an

dc hil

dr en

fro

m pr

ev iou

s un

ion s

Jo int

gr an

dc hil

- dr

en an

d b oth

ha

ve gr

an dc

hil -

dr en

fr om

pr ev

i- ou

s u nio

ns

Sh e h

as gr

an d-

ch ild

ren fr

om

pr ev

iou s u

nio ns

He ha

s g ran

dc hil

- dr

en fr

om pr

ev i-

ou s u

nio ns

Bo th

ha ve

gr an

d- ch

ild ren

fr om

pr

ev iou

s u nio

ns

No gr

an dc

hil dr

en

bu t c

ou ple

s h as

joi

nt ch

ild ren

No gr

an dc

hil dr

en

bu t c

ou ple

s h as

ste

pc hil

dr en

Jo int

ch ild

ren X

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

X N/

A Jo

int ch

ild ren

an d

sh e h

as ch

ild ren

fro

m pr

ev .

un ion

s

X X

N/ A

N/ A

X N/

A N/

A X

X

Jo int

ch ild

ren an

d he

ha s c

hil dr

en

fro m

pr ev

. un

ion s

X N/

A X

N/ A

N/ A

X N/

A X

X

Jo int

ch ild

ren an

d bo

th ha

ve ch

il- dr

en fr

om pr

ev .

un ion

s

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

Sh e h

as ch

ild ren

fro

m pr

ev .

un ion

s

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

X N/

A N/

A N/

A X

He ha

s c hil

dr en

fro

m pr

ev .

un ion

s

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

X N/

A N/

A X

Bo th

ha ve

ch ild

ren

fro m

pr ev

. un

ion s

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

N/ A

X X

X N/

A X

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 Page 7 of 16 6

history because it is highly collinear with the family‐com- plexity measures and would substantially complicate the models, as this measure would require complete marriage

and cohabitation history for each partner (i.e. her, his, and both partners’ history). Notably, this choice has implica- tions for interpreting the observed associations. They may

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the studied couples at entry into the study period when at least one of the partners was 59"years old

%

Family complexity 2nd Joint children 54 generation Joint children and she has children from previous unions 7

Joint children and he has children from previous unions 8 Joint children and both have children from previous unions 4 She has children from previous unions 5 He has children from previous unions 6 Both have children from previous unions 11 Childless 6

Family complexity 3rd Joint grandchildren 30 generation Joint grandchildren and she has grandchildren from previous unions 2 (Childless excluded) Joint grandchildren and he has grandchildren from previous unions 7

Joint grandchildren and both have grandchildren from previous unions 1 She has grandchildren from previous unions 9 He has grandchildren from previous unions 11 Both have grandchildren from previous unions 7 No grandchildren but couple has joint children 27 No grandchildren but couple has step children 6

Period 1990–1999 22 2000–2009 44 2010–2017 34

Age composition Partners are the same age or ± 2"years 40 Woman is 3 or more years older 9 Man is 3 or more years older 51

Educational Both tertiary 17 composition One tertiary and one secondary/primary 56

Both secondary/primary 26 Marital duration 5"years or less 12

6–10"years 5 11–15"years 5 16–20"years 7 21–25"years 10 26–30"years 14 31"years or more 47

Country of birth Both Swedish 81 One born abroad 12 Both born abroad 7

Working/retirement Both retired 5 status One working and one retired 17

Both working 52 One partly working and partly retired, one retired 3 One partly working and partly retired, one working 11 Both partly working and partly retired 1 Both not working but have other source of income, one retired 3 One working, both also have another source of income 8 Both neither working nor retired but have another source of income 10 Total population N 1,043,647

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 6 Page 8 of 16

partly reflect prior union experiences, stepfamily dynamics, and selective processes that influence entry into different family trajectories. On the one hand, stepfamily dynamics and experiences from earlier unions may intensify the asso- ciations, making them appear stronger. On the other hand, selection into certain family trajectories may account for some of the associations, which would imply weaker effects than observed.

Analytical strategy

This study employs complement log–log models with haz- ard ratios to estimate the risk of late-life divorce between 1990 and 2017. This analysis is suited for events recorded in discrete, continuous time intervals, such as divorces occur- ring within a given year (Allison 2010). Hazard ratios indi- cate an increase or decrease in divorce risk. For example, a ratio of 0.85 indicates a 15% lower risk of experiencing the event than the reference group does. The results include 99% confidence intervals; however, these are not tests of statistical significance, as the analysis covers the full popu- lation and not a sample. Two main models are estimated: the first includes second-generation family complexity and adjusts for year, age composition, marital duration, educa- tional composition, partners’ country of birth and whether the couple’s working/retirement status. The second model focuses on third-generation family complexity and the same adjustment variables but includes only couples with chil- dren, excluding 6% who are childless. In additional models, we analyse the interactions between the two family com- plexity variables and marital duration. Notably, we analyse second- and third-generation complexity in separate models to keep them as simple as possible and to clearly distinguish how each dimension relates to late-life divorce. This strategy does not produce fully independent effects, as complexity in one generation may overlap with complexity in another, which should be kept in mind when interpreting the results.

Regression results

The first hypothesis predicts that couples with stepchildren/ stepgrandchildren have a higher risk of divorce than those with only joint children/grandchildren (H1). To test this, we compare couples with only joint children/grandchildren to those with stepties, either alone or combined with joint ties. The results in Table"3 support the hypothesis for the second generation and show that couples with only joint children have the lowest risk of divorce. Most of the fam- ily complexity categories have a hazard ratio of 2 or closer to 3, indicating that these couples have a two- or threefold higher risk of divorce than couples with only joint children do. Table"4 reports the divorce risk by family complexity in the third generation. In accordance with the first hypothesis,

the results show that couples who have only joint grandchil- dren have a lower risk of divorce than couples with all other family structures do.

The second hypothesis, that couples with two sets of step- children/stepgrandchildren have a higher risk of divorce than couples with only one set of stepchildren/grandchildren, is examined by rerunning the models in Table"3 and Table"4, with both having children/grandchildren as the reference. Overall, couples in which both partners had stepchildren or stepgrandchildren were consistently associated with the highest divorce risk, with all other family configurations facing a 5–45% lower risk, thereby supporting the hypoth- esis (joint + his children HR 0.76, 99%-C.I. 0.76–0.80; joint + her children HR 0.55, 99%-C.I. 0.52–0.59; his chil- dren HR 0.72, 99%-C.I. 0.69–0.75; her children HR 0.68, 99%-C.I. 0.65–0.71; joint + his grandchildren HR 0.61, 99%- C.I. 0.55–0.67; joint + her grandchildren HR 0.77, 99%-C.I. 0.69–0.87; his grandchildren HR 0.95, 99%-C.I. 0.89–1.01; and her grandchildren HR 0.72, 99%-C.I. 0.66–0.77).

The third hypothesis, that couples who have stepchildren/ stepgrandchildren but no joint children/grandchildren have a higher risk of divorce than those who have both joint and stepchildren/stepgrandchildren (H3), is tested by also rerun- ning the model in Table"3 with a new reference category by gender. The results show that couples where only the female partner has children from a previous union have a 22% higher risk of divorce than couples with joint children, where the female partner has children (HR 0.78, 99%-C.I. 0.74–0.83). We observe a similar tendency among couples who have joint children and where both have children from previous unions (HR 0.95, 99%-C.I. 0.93–1.01). In contrast, among couples where the male partner has children from a previous union, the presence of joint children does not seem to matter for divorce risk (HR 0.97, 99%-C.I. 0.93–1.02 for the latter group of men). To test this hypothesis in the third generation, we conducted three comparisons by rerunning the model in Table"4. We first compare couples where only the female partner has grandchildren from a previous union (HR 1.45, 99%-C.I. 1.34–1.56) to couples with joint grand- children, where the female partner has grandchildren from a previous union (reference). We thereafter perform the same type of comparisons (1) between couples where only the male partner has grandchildren from a previous union (HR 2.25, 99%-C.I. 2.34–2.57) and couples with joint grandchil- dren, where the male partner has grandchildren from a previ- ous union (reference), and (2) between couples where both partners have grandchildren from previous unions (HR 1.46, 99%-C.I. 1.32–1.61) and couples with joint grandchildren, where both partners have grandchildren from a previous union (reference). These findings support our hypothesis across all three comparisons; couples without joint grand- children have a higher risk of divorce than those with joint grandchildren.

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 Page 9 of 16 6

The fourth hypothesis is that divorce risk is greater among couples in which the man brings in children into the union than among those in which a woman does (H4). To address this hypothesis, we analyse a model (Table"3) in which couples who have joint children and who have chil- dren from previous unions are compared to couples who also have joint children but who have children from previous

unions. We perform the same procedure for couples who have only stepchildren. The results show that among couples who have joint children, when the male partner also has children from a previous union, the couple has a 37% higher risk of divorce than when the female partner has children from a previous union (99%-C.I. 1.29–1.47). Among couples without joint children, the results indicate that there is a 5%

Table 3 Risk of divorce at age 60 or older by family complexity in the second generation, adjusted complementing the log–log model, hazard ratios

Risk of divorce HR 99% C.I

Family complexity Joint children 1 2nd generation Joint children and she has children from previous unions 1.52*** 1.45–1.58

Joint children and he has children from previous unions 2.10*** 2.03–2.16 Joint children and both have children from previous unions 2.73*** 2.61–2.85 She has children from previous unions 1.94*** 1.85–2.02 He has children from previous unions 2.04*** 1.96–2.13 Both have children from previous unions 2.86*** 2.75–2.95 Childless 0.99 0.94–1.03

Period 1990–1999 0.90*** 0.86–0.96 2000–2009 0.92*** 0.88–0.95 2010–2017 (ref) 1

Duration 0–5 1.18*** 1.13–1.23 6–10 1.25*** 1.20–1.30 11–15 1.12*** 1.08–1.17 16–20 1.07*** 1.03–1.11 21–25 0.94*** 0.91–0.98 26–30 1 31 or longer

Age composition Partners are the same age or ± 2"years 0.66*** 0.65–0.67 Woman is 3 or more years older 0.87*** 0.84–0.89 Man is 3 or more years older (ref) 1

Educational Both tertiary 1.23*** 1.20–1.26 composition One tertiary and one secondary/primary 1.21*** 1.19–1.24

Both secondary/primary (ref) 1 Country of birth Both Swedish (ref) 1

One born abroad 1.88*** 1.83–1.92 Both born abroad 3.95*** 3.85–4.06

Working/retirement Both retired 1) (ref) 1 status One working and one retired 2.27*** 1.20–2.33

Both working 2.09*** 2.03–2.16 One partly working and partly retired, one retired 1.43*** 1.37–1.49 One partly working and partly retired, one working 1.93*** 1.86–2.00 Both partly working and partly retired 1.16*** 1.08–1.25 Both not working but have another source of income, one retired 3.68*** 3.54–3.84 One working, both also have another source of income 3.57*** 3.43–3.71 Both neither working nor retired but have another source of income 4.66*** 4.40–4.95

Total number of observations 8,516,603 (with 47,678 events of divorce) Note:1) Individuals for whom 20% or more of their income is derived from their pension are defined as retired (in relation to their total income

in a given year). Statistical significance levels: *** < 0.001

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 6 Page 10 of 16

greater risk of divorce when the male partner has children than when the female partner has children from a previous union (99%-C.I. 0.88–1.01). However, the slightly overlap- ping confidence intervals suggest that the results should be interpreted with caution and that the observed sex difference in divorce risk between these two groups may not be robust. Nevertheless, both tests support the hypothesis that the male partner’s children increase the risk of divorce in contrast to the female partner’s children.

The fifth hypothesis posits that grandchildren from the female partner impact family life and divorce risk more significantly than those from the male partner do, as his grandchildren are more absent. We hypothesize that divorce risk is higher among couples in which the woman brings in grandchildren into the union than among those in which a man does (H5). This hypothesis is tested in two ways (model as in Table"4, but we change the reference category). First, couples with joint grandchildren for which the female part- ner has grandchildren from a previous union are compared

to couples for which the male partner has grandchildren from a previous union. The results are in accordance with the hypothesis and indicate that couples where the female partner has grandchildren from a previous union have a 26% higher risk of divorce (99%-C.I. 1.17–1.37). Second, we compare couples where the female partner has grandchildren from a previous union with couples where the male partner has grandchildren from a previous union. In contrast with the hypothesis, the results show that couples in which the male partner has grandchildren have a 33% higher risk of divorce (99%–C.I. 1.28–1.38).

Next, we address the sixth hypothesis regarding the role of marital duration on divorce risk, i.e. that divorce risk decreases among couples with stepchildren or stepgrandchil- dren as marital duration increases, similar to couples with only joint children (H6), by interacting the family complex- ity categories (in both the second and third generation) with marital duration in fully adjusted models (as in Tables"3 and 4). Figures"1 and 2 (with corresponding Tables"1 and 2 in the

Table 4 Risk of divorce at age 60 or older by family complexity in the third generation, adjusted complementary log–log model among those with joint or stepchildren, hazard ratios

Risk of divorce HR 99% C.I

Family complexity Joint grandchildren 1 3rd generation Joint grandchildren and she has grandchildren from previous unions 1.51*** 1.36–1.66

Joint grandchildren and he has grandchildren from previous unions 1.16*** 1.10–1.23 Joint grandchildren and both have grandchildren from previous unions 1.99*** 1.74–2.28 She has grandchildren from previous unions 2.04*** 1.89–2.20 He has grandchildren from previous unions 2.78*** 2.63–2.95 Both have grandchildren from previous unions 2.54*** 2.23–2.89 No grandchildren but couple has joint children 1.61*** 1.54–1.68 No grandchildren but couple has stepchildren 3.82*** 3.57–4.09

Total number of observations 7,992,904 (with 451,888 events of divorce) Notes: Model adjusted for year, age composition, marital duration, educational composition and working/retirement status. Statistical signifi-

cance levels: *** < 0.001

Fig. 1 Risk of divorce at age 60 or older by family complexity in the 2nd generation interacted with marital duration, adjusted complementary log–log model, hazard ratios. Notes: Model adjusted for year, age composi- tion, marital duration, educa- tional composition and working/ retirement status. Reference: Marital duration 31 + within each family composition. Cor- responding Table"1 in Appendix

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 Page 11 of 16 6

Appendix) show re-estimated hazard ratios for each category of family complexity with “marital duration 31 + years” as the reference group. Figure"1 shows that the pattern for all couples with joint children and stepchildren is an inverted U-shaped curve, following the curve for couples with only joint children. However, the peak of divorce risk is different for these groups, possibly because of the varying durations of union before marrying. In contrast, couples with only stepchildren have a slightly U-shaped curve, indicating that marital duration does not mitigate divorce risk in the same way. We conclude that couples with joint children follow similar paths of declining divorce risk over time, whereas this pattern does not hold for couples with only stepchildren.

Figure"2 (Table"2 in Appendix) shows that couples with joint and stepgrandchildren display an inverted U-shaped risk curve, peaking at intermediate durations before declin- ing, whereas couples with only stepgrandchildren remain at an elevated risk across most durations, with only modest declines at 30 + years. Thus, H6 is only partially supported: while divorce risks diminish with longer marital duration, not all stepfamily couples converge towards the stability of those with only joint grandchildren. Interpreting marital duration remains complex, as many couples cohabit for sub- stantial periods before marriage, making marital length an incomplete measure of relationship duration. Concurrently, censoring and selection effects may shape the patterns, since those who remain married longer are likely a more selective group.

Sensitivity analyses

To check the robustness of our findings, we conducted additional analyses. First, we re-estimated the models in Tables"3–4 using only couples with complex family

structures (childless couples are excluded). The results were consistent with those of the main models; however, most of the associations became stronger. Second, we included couples who married after age 59, but the results remained similar to those presented here, as few couples married after age 59. Third, we conducted an analysis including cohabit- ing couples at age 59 by using the dwelling register (avail- able from 2011), limiting the analysis to 2012–2017. Interac- tion models indicated that compared with married couples, cohabiting couples had an overall greater risk of separating in all family complexity categories, including family com- plexity in the third generation. However, the hazard ratios were much higher, reflecting the rather small proportion of older couples who cohabited and separated during the short period of 2012–2017. To further analyse whether the association was sustained for couples whose partners were older than 65, we restricted the population to couples who were married when at least one of them was aged 64 and who were at risk of divorce from the age of 65; the asso- ciations were stronger for all categories of family complex- ity. Finally, we restricted the models to couples who were married for more than 20"years, which showed similar but stronger associations.

Discussion

This study examined how multigenerational family complex- ity influenced the risk of divorce from age 60 in Sweden, including maternal and paternal lineage and marital dura- tion. It took a novel couple-based approach with longitudinal register data. By doing so, it contributes to filling a gap in the literature on late-life couple stability and offers new insights into how step‐ and parent/grandparent ties may shape marital

Fig. 2 Risk of divorce at age 60 or older by family complexity in the 3rd generation interacted with marital duration, adjusted complementary log–log model, hazard ratios. Notes: Model adjusted for year, age composi- tion, marital duration, educa- tional composition and working/ retirement status. Reference: Marital duration 31 + within each family composition. Cor- responding Table"2 in Appendix

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 6 Page 12 of 16

outcomes. While we did not capture all nuances of com- plexity or analyse second- and third-generation complexity simultaneously, this study offers an important step towards clarifying the role of family complexity in late-life marital trajectories.

In line with the first hypothesis, we found that couples with only joint children had the lowest risk of late-life divorce, supporting Cherlin’s (1978) argument of stepfami- lies as incomplete institutions without clear guidelines. Thus, family complexity may create challenges in later life when couples rely on kin networks for emotional and instrumental support. Similarly, we also reported that having only joint grandchildren reduced the risk of late-life divorce, whereas having stepgrandchildren increased the risk, mirroring pre- vious research on older European and American couples (Brown et"al. 2021; Alderotti et"al. 2022). These findings also align with the ‘repartner effect’, whereby repartnered couples face a higher risk of dissolution (Kridahl and Kolk 2025; Zahl-Olsen 2022). This interpretation, however, is ten- tative since our analysis did not account for partners’ marital history, and it is possible that, e.g. couples with only joint children or childless couples have been married before.

In line with our second hypothesis, couples in which both partners had stepchildren or step-grandchildren consistently displayed the highest divorce risk. This finding echoes evi- dence that complex stepfamilies are generally less cohesive (Fang et"al. 2025; Stewart 2005). Larger family complexi- ties, where multiple sets of step-ties intersect, likely amplify boundary ambiguities, loyalty conflicts, and competing obli- gations, making integration particularly di#cult, also among older couples. This underlines that in later life, when couples rely more heavily on family support and stability, the chal- lenges of managing multiple sets of step-ties may place older adults at particular risk of relationship strain and dissolution.

Additionally, the study found that couples with both joint and stepchildren or grandchildren had a lower divorce risk than those in stepfamilies without joint offspring did, except when the male partner brought children from a previous union. These findings support the idea that joint offspring function as ‘bridge’ or ‘concrete baby’ between stepties, fos- tering cohesion and buffering against dissolution (Bildtgård et"al. 2021; Ganong and Coleman 2017; Schoeni et"al. 2022). This stabilizing effect is also consistent with earlier research showing that stepfamilies with joint children have clearer boundaries and stronger cohesion than those without (Fang et"al. 2025; Stewart 2005; Ward et"al. 2009). For couples aged 60 + , sharing a grandchild may be especially meaning- ful as a joint project that may strengthen the relationship at a life stage when mutual goals and companionship become especially important (Brown et"al. 2021).

In accordance with the fourth gender-specific hypoth- esis, we found that couples with stepmothers had a higher divorce risk (Nielsen 1999; Scholtz and Spies 2023). More

precisely, divorce risk was lower when only the female part- ner had children from previous unions, compared with when the male partner did or when both partners did. This aligns with research showing that women are often viewed as pri- mary caregivers and kin‐keepers (Hornstra and Ivanova 2023; Kalmijn et"al. 2019), creating greater pressure on stepmothers to invest in both their own and their partner’s children (Cartwright 2012; Nielsen 1999). Such expecta- tions can strain stepmother‐child relationships, as competi- tion over time, attention, and resources can generate resent- ment (Scholtz and Spies 2023). Fathers tend to reallocate emotional and financial support towards children in a new union that can weaken ties with their adult children from prior unions (Manning and Smock, 2000; Arat and Poortman 2024; Kalmijn 2013). Despite these potential explanations, the study does not comprehensively explore how gendered stepfamily dynamics, prior union experiences, and selection processes shape the risk of late-life divorce.

Consistent with the fifth hypothesis, couples with joint grandchildren faced the highest divorce risk when the woman also had grandchildren from previous unions. Potentially, men’s weaker attachment to children, especially grandchildren, after separation means that the male partner’s ties to grandchildren are weaker than the female partner’s ties (gender differences in ties see e.g. Ahrons 2007; Horn- stra et"al. 2020; Hornstra and Ivanova 2023). Therefore, his grandchildren may not be perceived as a threat to the union. Concurrently, grandmothers are generally more engaged, which may create tensions in the union in cases where the stepgrandfather is not equally engaged in either their joint or her grandchildren. In contrast, when the stepgrandchildren belong to the male partner, the woman may engage more, since she is already more involved in the joint grandchildren (than he is), thereby reducing tensions between the part- ners. For couples with only stepchildren, divorce risk was lower when the female partner had grandchildren from pre- vious unions, mirroring the second-generation pattern. This is likely explained by the stronger family ties mothers and grandmothers maintain, which often shape kin relationships more than those of fathers and grandfathers.

Moreover, as stepfamilies progress, their interpersonal bonds generally strengthen, leading to similarities with bio- logical nuclear families in the context of stepgrandparent- hood (Chapman et"al. 2016, 2018; Hämäläinen et"al. 2024). In support of our last hypothesis, we found that couples with joint and stepchildren/stepgrandchildren had a declin- ing divorce risk over marital duration after some years of marriage. However, this was not the case for couples with only stepchildren/stepgrandchildren, either in the second or third generation. These couples are unique and quite selec- tive in many aspects, and there are likely substantial differ- ences between couples who have been married for a short duration and those who have maintained their marriage for

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 Page 13 of 16 6

several decades. Future research may need to disentangle these selection processes within and across these family structures, as this was out of the study’s scope.

As the study focuses on individuals aged 60 and older, the findings reflect the specific context of later life, i.e. retirement, health, and grandparenthood. Younger couples often face different circumstances, and future research could explore the role of family complexity on divorce across dif- ferent age groups. Our results are shaped not only by age, but also by time. With increasing gender equality, gendered pat- terns may fade, and stepfamilies may better reflect cultural norms and become less challenging. Thus, the study may capture a transitional phase in both family life and broader societal change.

Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations. First, couples may have separated before the o#cial divorce date, potentially bias- ing timing. However, under the Swedish Marriage Act (1987:230), couples without children under 16 who mutu- ally agree can divorce quickly, which is not uncommon within weeks, partly due to the no-fault grounds for divorce (Sandström, 2011). Second, the registers do not capture whether the couple had a relationship with all (step)chil- dren and (step)grandchildren or whether they coresided. Although young children are registered at one parent’s resi- dence, joint custody is common in Sweden, with children often alternating weekly between parents, making it di#- cult to determine whether a child actually coresides with the parents. It is also very uncommon for adult children to live with their parents at this life stage in Sweden (Lars- son 2007). Third, we include only the partner’s stepchildren and not their children’s own repartnering or multipartner childbearing (inherited stepgrandparenthood) (e.g. Ganong and Coleman 2017). This approach quickly increases fam- ily complexity and complicates interpretation. Fourth, our analysis does not account for the age of the child or life stage at union formation. However, this poses challenges, as there is no clear choice of which child’s age to use in stepfamilies. Additionally, children’s birth dates/age often do not coincide with union formation, making age endogenous to both repartnering timing and divorce risk. Finally, step- family categories correlate with age and life-course events, introducing collinearity, especially when marital duration is included. Fifth, we analysed second- and third-generation complexity in separate models, which means that the coef- ficients do not fully reflect independent effects. This may partly explain why some results, especially for grandchil- dren, diverge from our sixth hypothesis. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with this methodological choice in mind. Sixth, the analysis omitted key predictors of divorce,

such as relationship quality, although it included many cou- ple-level predictors that are important indicators of or prox- ies for different aspects of the relationship, such as couple stability and homogeneity.

Together with previous research, the study’s findings highlight how much remains to be understood about the drivers of late-life divorce and underline the need for con- tinued investigation into this growing phenomenon (see also Carr and Utz, 2020). We did not explore pathways to stepgrandparenthood and complex families (Chapman et"al. 2016), which would illuminate the significance of the tim- ing of life events in the development of steprelationships on late-life divorce. Future studies would benefit from qualita- tive approaches, including postdivorce interviews with part- ners, children, stepchildren, and grandchildren, to deepen understanding of stepfamily dynamics (see, e.g. Koren et"al. 2022; Samzelius 2023). Moreover, a potential consequence of late-life divorce of ageing stepfamilies is that steppar- ents often lose bonds with stepchildren and stepgrand- children (Ganong and Coleman 2017), which may impact their social networks and quality of life; this highlights the need for further research on multigenerational stepties (e.g. Sanner et"al. 2018). Finally, while this study focussed on Sweden, this does not mean that the role of complex family structures in later-life divorce is unique to Sweden. Similar demographic trends in Western Europe and the US warrant cross-national investigations to assess the broader relevance of these findings.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen- tary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10433- 025- 00902-9.

Author contributions L.K. wrote the main manuscript, including the introduction, theory, previous research, results sections, discussion and concluding remarks. She has also conducted the data management and analysis, and written the method section (including visualization of results). Throughout the research process, AZ.D. and J.T. actively con- tributed to discussions on research aim, study conceptualization, theo- retical framework and assumptions, analytical strategy, and the careful review and critical revision of the manuscript on multiple occasions.

Funding Open access funding provided by Stockholm University. Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd, 2020-00923, 2020- 00923, 2020-00923.

Data availability The data supporting our study's results are derived from Swedish national administrative registers maintained by Statis- tics Sweden. More precisely, individual-level register data accessed through Stockholm University (Forte 2016–07115, "AgeingWell"). Access to these data is restricted due to confidentiality requirements. However, qualified researchers may order data and request access by contacting Statistics Sweden through their o#cial website: https:// www. scb. se/ en/ servi ces/.

Declarations

Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 6 Page 14 of 16

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References

Afifi TD (2003) ‘Feeling caught’ in stepfamilies: managing bound- ary turbulence through appropriate communication privacy rules. J Soc Pers Relat 20(6):729–755. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02654 07503 206002

Ahrons CR (2007) Family ties after divorce: long-term implications for children. Fam Process 46(1):53–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1545- 5300. 2006. 00191.x

Alderotti G, Tomassini C, Vignoli D (2022) ‘Silver splits’ in Europe: the role of grandchildren and other correlates. Demogr Res 46(21):619–652. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4054/ DemRes. 2022. 46. 21

Allison PD (2010) Survival analysis using SAS: a practical guide, 2nd edn

Amato PR, Rezac SJ, Booth A (1995) Helping between parents and young adult offspring: the role of parental marital quality, divorce, and remarriage. J Marriage Fam 57(2):363–374. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 353690

Arat E, Poortman A-R (2024) Financial contributions to stepchildren: the role of gender and postdivorce family structure. Fam Relat 73(2):1362–1378. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ fare. 12922

Australian Institute of Family Studies (2023) Divorces in Australia. https:// aifs. gov. au/ resea rch/ facts- and- figur es/ divor ces- austr alia- 2023

Beaujouan É (2016) Second unions now more stable than first? A com- parison of separation risks by union order in France. Eur J Popul 32(2):293–321. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10680- 016- 9376-2

Becker OA, Salzburger V, Lois N, Nauck B (2013) What narrows the stepgap? Closeness between parents and adult (step)children in Germany. J Marriage Fam 75(5):1130–1148. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jomf. 12052

Bildtgård T, Öberg P (2022) Blood thicker than water? Emotional closeness between older parents and adult children in stepfami- lies. J Fam Stud 28(2):493–510. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13229 400. 2020. 17354 85

Bildtgård T, Winqvist M, Öberg P (2021) The dyad is not enough: third-party mediation as a precondition for cohesion in long-term step relationships. Soc Forsk 58(3):217–242

Brown SL, Lin I-F (2012) The gray divorce revolution: rising divorce among middle-aged and older adults, 1990–2010. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 67(6):731–741. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ger- onb/ gbs089

Brown SL, Lin I-F (2022) The graying of divorce: a half century of change. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ geronb/ gbac0 57

Brown SL, Lin I-F, Mellencamp KA (2021) Does the transition to grandparenthood deter gray divorce? A test of the braking

hypothesis. Soc Forces 99(3):1209–1232. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ sf/ soaa0 30

Cartwright C (2012) The challenges of being a mother in a stepfamily. J Divorce Remarriage 53(6):503–513. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10502 556. 2012. 682904

Chapman A, Kang Y, Ganong L, Sanner C, Coleman M (2018) A comparison of stepgrandchildren’s perceptions of long-term and later-life stepgrandparents. J Aging Stud 47:104–113. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jaging. 2018. 03. 005

Chapman A, Sanner C, Ganong L, Coleman M, Russell L, Kang Y, Mitchell S (2016) Exploring the complexity of Stepgrandparent- Stepgrandchild relationships. In Divorce, separation, and remar- riage: the transformation of family, Vol. 10, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp. 101–130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ S1530- 35352 01600 00010 005

Cherlin A (1978) Remarriage as an incomplete institution. Am J Sociol 84(3):634–650

Coleman M, Ganong L, Russell L, Frye-Cox N (2015) Stepchildren’s views about former step-relationships following stepfamily dis- solution. J Marriage Fam 77(3):775–790. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jomf. 12182

Coleman M, Gangong L, Weaver S (2001) Relationship maintenance and enhancement in remarried families. In: Harvey J, Wenzel A (eds) Close romantic relationships: maintenance and enhance- ment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Connidis IA (2020) Who counts as family later in life? Following theo- retical leads. J Fam Theory Rev 12(2):164–179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jftr. 12367

Dabergott F (2022) Demographic change among the widowed popu- lation in Sweden 1970–2019. Stockholm Research Reports in Demography. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17045/ sthlm uni. 21581 343. v1

Fang C, Poortman A-R, Brons MD (2025) Parents’ perceptions of cohesion in diverse stepfamilies. Fam Relat 74(1):80–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ fare. 13115

Fors S, Wastesson JW, Morin L (2021) Growing income-based inequal- ities in old-age life expectancy in Sweden, 2006–2015. Demogra- phy 58(6):2117–2138. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1215/ 00703 370- 94565 14

Furstenberg FF (1980) Recycling the family: perspectives for a neglected family form. Marriage Fam Rev 2(3):1–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J002v 02n03_ 02

Furstenberg FF, Spanier GB (1984) Recycling the family: Remarriage after divorce. Sage

Furstenberg F (1995) Dealing with dads: The changing roles of fathers. In Escape from poverty: What makes a difference for children, Cambridge University Press. pp 189–210

Ganong L, Coleman M (2004) Stepfamily relationships: Develop- ment, dynamics, and interventions. Kluwer Academic=Plenum Publishers

Ganong L, Coleman M (2017) Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and interventions. Springer, Berlin

Goldscheider F, Bernhardt E, Lappegård T (2015) The gender revolu- tion: a framework for understanding changing family and demo- graphic behavior. Popul Dev Rev 41(2):207–239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1728- 4457. 2015. 00045.x

Golish TD (2003) Stepfamily communication strengths. Hum Com- mun Res 29(1):41–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1468- 2958. 2003. tb008 31.x

Guner N, Kulikova Y, Llull J (2018) Marriage and health: selection, protection, and assortative mating. Eur Econ Rev 104:138–166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. euroe corev. 2018. 02. 005

Hämäläinen H, Tanskanen AO, Pettay J, Danielsbacka M (2024) Step- gap in upward support: the role of biological relatedness and childhood co-residence duration. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 79(4):gbad179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ geronb/ gbad1 79

Hobart C (1991) Conflict in remarriages. J Divorce Remarriage 15(3– 4):69–86. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J087v 15n03_ 04

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 Page 15 of 16 6

Hornstra M, Ivanova K (2023) Kinkeeping across families: the cen- tral role of mothers and stepmothers in the facilitation of adult intergenerational ties. Sex Roles 88(7):367–382. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11199- 023- 01352-2

Hornstra M, Kalmijn M, Ivanova K (2020) Fatherhood in complex families: ties between adult children, biological fathers, and step- fathers. J Marriage Fam 82(5):1637–1654. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jomf. 12679

Ihinger-Tallman M, Pasley K (1997) Stepfamilies in 1984 and today–a scholarly perspective. Marriage Fam Rev 26(1–2):19–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J002v 26n01_ 03

Jalovaara M (2003) The joint effects of marriage partners’ socioeco- nomic positions on the risk of divorce. Demography 40(1):67–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ dem. 2003. 0004

Jensen EJ, Stum M, Jackson M (2019) What makes inheritance fair in stepfamilies? Examining perceptions and complexities. J Divorce Remarriage 60(3):234–252. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10502 556. 2018. 14881 23

Kalmijn M (2013) Adult children’s relationships with married par- ents, divorced parents, and stepparents: biology, marriage, or residence? J Marriage Fam 75(5):1181–1193. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jomf. 12057

Kalmijn M (2015) Relationships between fathers and adult children: the cumulative effects of divorce and repartnering. J Fam Issues 36(6):737–759. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01925 13X13 495398

Kalmijn M, de Leeuw SG, Hornstra M, Ivanova K, van Gaalen R, van Houdt K (2019) Family complexity into adulthood: the central role of mothers in shaping intergenerational ties. Am Sociol Rev 84(5):876–904. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00031 22419 871959

Karraker A, Latham K (2015) In sickness and in health? Physical ill- ness as a risk factor for marital dissolution in later life. J Health Soc Behav 56(3):420–435. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00221 46515 596354

Koren C, Lipman-Schiby S, Sherman CW (2022) What draws late-life repartners to each other and keeps them together? An intergenera- tional stepfamily perspective. Marriage Fam Rev 58(3):271–289. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01494 929. 2021. 19581 24

Kridahl L, Kolk M (2025) Divorce after age 60: changing patterns across cohorts in Sweden. Fam Transit. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 28375 300. 2025. 25582 27

Kridahl L, Ohlsson-Wijk S, Duvander A-Z (2025) Economic situation and late-life divorce: A “his” and “hers” perspective. J Marriage Fam. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jomf. 13107

Larsson K (2007) The social situation of older people (chapter"8). Int J Soc Welfare 16(s1):S203–S218. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1468- 2397. 2007. 00521.x

Lesthaeghe R (2014) The second demographic transition: a con- cise overview of its development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(51):18112–18115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 14204 41111

Li G, Penning MJ (2023) Family life course trajectories and union dissolution in middle and later life. In: Cohabitation and the evolving nature of intimate and family relationships world, vol. 24 Emerald Publishing Limited, pp 29–56 https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ S1530- 35352 023002

Lin I-F, Brown SL, Cupka CJ (2018a) A national portrait of stepfami- lies in later life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 73(6):1043– 1054. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ geronb/ gbx150

Lin I-F, Brown SL, Wright MR, Hammersmith AM (2018b) Anteced- ents of gray divorce: a life course perspective. J Gerontol: Ser B 73(6):1022–1031. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ geronb/ gbw164

Lin I-F, Brown SL, Mellencamp KA (2022) The roles of gray divorce and subsequent repartnering for parent-adult child relationships. J Gerontol: Ser B 77(1):212–223. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ geronb/ gbab1 39

MacDonald WL, DeMaris A (1995) Remarriage, stepchildren, and marital conflict: challenges to the incomplete institutionalization

hypothesis J. Marriage Fam 57(2):387–398. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 353692

Mongeon JG, Charton L, Couture M (2024) Stepgrandparents and stepgrandchildren: a scoping review of what we know about their relationships in Western societies. Family Transit. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 28375 300. 2024. 24433 54

Nielsen L (1999) Stepmothers. Why so much stress? A review of the research. J Divorce Remarr 30(1–2):115–148. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J087v 30n01_ 08

Noël-Miller CM (2013) Former stepparents’ contact with their stepchil- dren after midlife. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 68(3):409– 419. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ geronb/ gbt021

O’Connor A, Boag S (2010) Do stepparents experience more parental antagonism than biological parents? A test of evolutionary and socialization perspectives. J Divorce Remarriage 51(8):508–525. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10502 556. 2010. 504101

Ohlsson-Wijk S, Turunen J, Andersson G (2020) Family forerunners? An overview of family demographic change in Sweden. In: Farris DN, Bourque AJJ (eds) International handbook on the demogra- phy of marriage and the family. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 65–77

Patterson SE, Schoeni RF, Freedman VA, Seltzer JA (2022) Care received and unmet care needs among older parents in bio- logical and step families. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 77(Supplement_1):S51–S62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ geronb/ gbab1 78

Poortman A-R, Lyngstad TH (2007) Dissolution risks in first and higher order marital and cohabiting unions. Soc Sci Res 36(4):1431–1446. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ssres earch. 2007. 02. 005

Raley RK, Sweeney MM (2020) Divorce, repartnering, and stepfami- lies: a decade in review. J Marriage Fam 82(1):81–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jomf. 12651

Samzelius H (2023) Bakom bonusfamiljen: Kvinnliga föräldrapart- ners och partnerdöttrars omsorgsgörande. https:// urn. kb. se/ resol ve? urn= urn: nbn: se: oru: diva- 104819

Sandström G (2011) Time-space trends in Swedish divorce behaviour 1911–1974. Scand J Hist 36(1):65–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03468 755. 2010. 543521

Sandström G, Strömgren M, Stjernström O (2014) Socioeconomic determinants of divorce in Sweden, 1960–1965. Soc Sci Hist 38(1–2):127–153. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ ssh. 2015. 13

Sanner C, Coleman M, Ganong L (2018) Relationships with former stepgrandparents after remarriage dissolution. J Fam Psychol 32:251–261. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ fam00 00377

Schmauk S (2024) Pathways to retirement in West Germany: does divorce matter? Adv Life Course Res 60:100595. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. alcr. 2024. 100595

Schmauk S, Kridahl L (2024) Who receives most? Gendered conse- quences of divorce on public pension income in West Germany and Sweden. Ageing Soc. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0144 686X2 30007 03

Schoeni RF, Freedman VA, Cornman JC, Seltzer JA (2022) The strength of parent-adult child ties in biological families and step- families: evidence from time diaries from older adults. Demog- raphy 59(5):1821–1842. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1215/ 00703 370- 10177 468

Scholtz SE, Spies R (2023) Where is the research about stepmothers? A scoping review. Psych 5(1):1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ psych 50100 16

Solaz A (2021) Les comportements conjugaux des cinquante ans et plus, une histoire de generations? Popul Soc 2021/2(586):1–4

Spikic S, Mortelmans D (2021) A preliminary meta-analysis of the Big Five personality traits’ effect on marital separation. J Divorce Remarriage 62(7):551–571. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10502 556. 2021. 19930 18

European Journal of Ageing (2026) 23:6 6 Page 16 of 16

Stanfors M (2017) Mellan arbete och familj: Ett dilemma för kvinnor i 1900-talets Sverige. Vol. 2017. SNS Förlag

Statistics Sweden (2014a) Demographic reports 2014:2 Generations through the years—a demographic description of those born dur- ing the 20th century. http:// www. scb. se/ Stati stik/_ Publi katio ner/ BE0701_ 2014A 01_ BR_ BE51B R1402. pdf

Statistics Sweden (2014b) Women and men in Sweden: Facts and fig- ures. 2014. Statistics Sweden, Population statistics unit (Statis- tiska centralbyrån)

Statistics Sweden (2024) På tal om kvinnor och män. https:// www. scb. se/ webbr appor ter/ le0201/ lathu nd202 4/# Lon-8

Statistics Sweden (2025) Online statistical database. Retrieved 2025– 01–31. https:// www. stati stikd ataba sen. scb. se

Steinbach A, Silverstein M (2020) Step-grandparent–step-grandchild relationships: is there a “grand step-gap” in emotional closeness and contact? J Fam Issues 41(8):1137–1160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01925 13X19 886638

Stewart SD (2005) Boundary ambiguity in stepfamilies. J Fam Issues 26(7):1002–1029. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01925 13X04 273591

Surkyn J, Lesthaeghe R (2004) Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and South- ern Europe: an update. Demogr Res S3:45–86. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4054/ DemRes. 2004. S3.3

Torvik FA, Gustavson K, Røysamb E, Tambs K (2015) Health, health behaviors, and health dissimilarities predict divorce: results from the HUNT study. BMC Psychol 3(1):13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s40359- 015- 0072-5

Tosi M, van den Broek T (2020) Gray divorce and mental health in the United Kingdom. Soc Sci Med 256:113030. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. socsc imed. 2020. 113030

van Houdt K (2023) Adult (step) parent-child relationships in com- plex families: a latent profile analysis. J Fam Stud 29(2):660–682. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13229 400. 2021. 19627 30

van Eeden-Moorefield B, Pasley K (2013) Remarriage and Stepfamily Life. In: Peterson GW, Bush KR (eds) Handbook of marriage and the family. Springer, Berlin, pp 517–546

Ward RA, Spitze G, Deane G (2009) The more the merrier? Multi- ple parent-adult child relations. J Marriage Fam 71(1):161–173. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1741- 3737. 2008. 00587.x

Wetterberg C (2013) Gender equality and the welfare state: Debates on marriage law reform in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th cen- tury. In: Meder S, Mecke C-E (eds) Family law in early women’s rights debates: Western Europe and the United States in the nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries. Böhlau, Dresden, pp 255–280

Wilson SE, Waddoups SL (2002) Good marriages gone bad: health mismatches as a cause of later-life marital dissolution. Popul Res Policy Rev 21(6):505–533. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10229 90517 611

Wu Z, Penning M (1997) Marital instability after midlife. J Fam Issues 18(5):459–478. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01925 13970 18005 001

Wu Z, Penning MJ (2018) Marital and cohabiting union dissolution in middle and later life. Res Aging 40(4):340–364. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01640 27517 698024

Zahl-Olsen R (2022) Understanding divorce trends and risks: the case of Norway 1886–2018. J Fam Hist. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03631 99022 10770 08

Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional a#liations.

European Journal of Ageing is a copyright of Springer, 2026. All Rights Reserved.