How Does “Hills Like White Elephants” Address Reproductive Rights and Bodily Autonomy? A Literary Analysis
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Date: October 28, 2025
Direct Answer
Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” addresses reproductive rights and bodily autonomy by depicting a woman’s struggle to maintain control over her reproductive decisions when facing coercive pressure from her male partner. The story explores bodily autonomy through four key dimensions: the absence of Jig’s voice in the abortion decision despite it being her body, the manipulation tactics the American uses to override her autonomy, the economic dependence that compromises her ability to exercise reproductive freedom, and the 1920s historical context where women lacked legal reproductive rights. The unnamed “operation”—widely interpreted as abortion—becomes a site of contestation where Jig’s bodily autonomy conflicts with the American’s desires, exposing how reproductive decisions become power struggles when partners have unequal agency (Renner, 1995). Hemingway’s minimalist narrative technique amplifies this theme by leaving the abortion unnamed and Jig’s final decision ambiguous, thereby highlighting how women’s reproductive choices are often obscured, silenced, or controlled by external forces rather than freely determined by the women themselves (O’Brien, 1990).
Historical Context of Reproductive Rights in the 1920s
Understanding how “Hills Like White Elephants” addresses reproductive rights requires examining the legal and social landscape of women’s bodily autonomy in 1927, when Hemingway published the story. During this period, abortion was illegal throughout most of the United States and Europe, though wealthy women could often access clandestine procedures through private physicians or by traveling to countries with less enforcement (Reagan, 1997). The criminalization of abortion reflected broader denial of women’s reproductive autonomy, as legal systems granted husbands and fathers significant authority over women’s reproductive decisions. Women who sought abortions faced not only legal consequences but also severe social stigma, medical risks from unsafe procedures, and moral condemnation from religious and cultural institutions that defined motherhood as women’s natural destiny and primary purpose.
The story’s setting in Spain is significant for reproductive rights considerations, as Spain in the 1920s maintained strict Catholic influence over moral and legal matters, including reproduction. However, the characters are American travelers, suggesting they may be seeking an abortion abroad precisely because of restrictive laws in their home country—a pattern that wealthy women commonly followed when facing unwanted pregnancies (Solinger, 2005). The railway station setting, positioned between two destinations, metaphorically represents Jig’s position between two life paths: proceeding with pregnancy or terminating it. This liminal space emphasizes the precariousness of her situation, caught between limited options in an era when women possessed minimal legal rights over their own bodies. Hemingway’s choice to set the story in this transitional space reflects the broader uncertainty and vulnerability women experienced regarding reproductive decisions. The historical context reveals that Jig’s struggle is not merely personal but emblematic of systemic denial of women’s bodily autonomy, where reproductive decisions were subject to male authority, legal prohibition, and social control rather than individual choice (Reagan, 1997).
Coercion and the Erosion of Autonomous Decision-Making
The story’s central exploration of bodily autonomy focuses on how the American’s coercive pressure erodes Jig’s ability to make an autonomous reproductive decision. Throughout their conversation, the American employs multiple manipulation tactics that undermine genuine consent and autonomous choice. He minimizes the significance of the procedure by calling it “awfully simple” and “perfectly natural,” framing abortion as a minor inconvenience rather than a significant medical intervention with physical, emotional, and moral implications for Jig (Hemingway, 1927, p. 275). This rhetorical minimization attempts to override Jig’s own assessment of the decision’s gravity, substituting his judgment for hers regarding what affects her body and life. He also employs false reassurances, repeatedly promising that their relationship will return to its previous state and that they will be happy afterward, despite these promises being fundamentally unverifiable and likely dishonest.
Furthermore, the American uses emotional manipulation by framing his desire for the abortion as concern for Jig’s wellbeing and their relationship’s health, when his language reveals his primary concern is maintaining their carefree lifestyle without the responsibility of parenthood. He states, “I don’t want anybody but you. I don’t want anyone else,” attempting to make the abortion seem like a prerequisite for his continued affection rather than presenting it as her autonomous choice (Hemingway, 1927, p. 275). Literary critic Stanley Renner identifies this manipulation as a form of “reproductive coercion,” where one partner uses pressure, threats, or deception to control the other’s reproductive decisions (Renner, 1995). The American’s relentless persuasion, despite Jig’s visible distress and ambivalence, demonstrates how bodily autonomy becomes compromised when reproductive decisions occur within unequal power dynamics. True bodily autonomy requires not only legal permission to make choices but also freedom from coercion, adequate information, and genuine alternatives—conditions conspicuously absent from Jig’s situation. The story thus exposes how reproductive rights remain theoretical rather than practical when women lack the power to exercise those rights freely within their intimate relationships and social contexts (O’Brien, 1990).
Economic Dependence and Constrained Reproductive Freedom
Hemingway’s story illuminates how economic inequality constrains reproductive autonomy by depicting Jig’s apparent financial dependence on the American. Throughout the narrative, the American controls all practical resources: he orders drinks, possesses luggage, speaks Spanish to communicate with the waitress, and presumably will arrange and pay for the medical procedure. Jig never handles money, makes arrangements, or demonstrates independent access to resources, suggesting her dependence on the American for survival and mobility (Wyche, 2014). This economic imbalance fundamentally compromises her reproductive autonomy, as genuine freedom to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy requires economic capacity to support either decision. If Jig chooses to keep the pregnancy, she would need financial resources to support herself and a child—resources she apparently lacks. If she complies with the abortion, she remains dependent on the American who has demonstrated his willingness to manipulate and pressure her.
The economic dimension of reproductive rights remains crucial to understanding bodily autonomy, as scholars consistently demonstrate that reproductive freedom requires not merely legal permission but also material resources to exercise meaningful choice (Solinger, 2005). Women without independent income, housing, healthcare access, or family support face constrained reproductive options regardless of legal rights, as economic necessity can compel decisions as effectively as legal prohibition. The story’s implied economic inequality between Jig and the American reflects broader patterns in 1920s society, where women’s limited employment opportunities, lower wages, and restricted property rights created structural economic dependence on male partners or family members. This dependence meant that women’s reproductive decisions were frequently determined by economic necessity rather than autonomous preference. Literary critic David Wyche argues that the story’s preoccupation with consumption—ordering drinks, observing what belongs to them, discussing travel—emphasizes the economic dimensions of their relationship and highlights how material resources shape reproductive possibilities (Wyche, 2014). Jig’s constrained economic position thus represents a fundamental barrier to bodily autonomy that persists even in contexts where abortion might be technically accessible, revealing how reproductive rights depend on broader economic equality and social support systems.
The Silence Surrounding Abortion and Women’s Reproductive Experiences
Hemingway’s narrative technique of never explicitly naming abortion reflects and critiques the cultural silence surrounding women’s reproductive experiences and decisions. Throughout the story, the procedure is referred to only obliquely as “the operation,” “it,” or “that,” while the pregnancy itself remains entirely unnamed (Hemingway, 1927). This linguistic erasure mirrors the social taboos that prevented open discussion of abortion, contraception, pregnancy loss, and other reproductive experiences in early twentieth-century America and Europe. The cultural demand for silence regarding reproductive matters served to isolate women, prevent information sharing, increase shame, and maintain male and institutional control over reproduction by keeping women’s actual experiences hidden from public discourse and political consideration (Reagan, 1997).
The story’s ambiguous ending, where Jig’s ultimate decision remains unknown, further emphasizes how women’s reproductive choices are often obscured or erased from narrative and social acknowledgment. Readers never learn whether Jig proceeds with the abortion, continues the pregnancy, or leaves the American entirely—an ambiguity that literary critic Kenneth Johnston interprets as Hemingway’s commentary on how women’s reproductive autonomy remains invisible and unknowable within patriarchal structures that claim authority over women’s bodies while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge women’s experiences and perspectives (Johnston, 1987). The silence surrounding abortion in the text can be understood as both realistic representation of historical taboos and critical commentary on how those taboos functioned to deny women’s bodily autonomy. By forcing readers to decode unstated meanings and confront what remains unsaid, Hemingway’s technique makes visible the very silencing mechanisms that constrained women’s reproductive rights. Contemporary scholars note that despite nearly a century passing since the story’s publication, cultural silence and stigma continue to surround abortion and reproductive decision-making, suggesting the enduring relevance of Hemingway’s exploration of how silence itself functions as a tool of reproductive control (Ludlow, 2008). The story thus addresses reproductive rights not only through its content but through its form, using narrative silence to illuminate how cultural silence constrains bodily autonomy.
Gendered Power Dynamics and Reproductive Decision-Making
The story’s exploration of reproductive rights centers on fundamental gendered power imbalances that structure reproductive decision-making. Despite the pregnancy existing in Jig’s body and the abortion requiring her physical submission to medical intervention, the American dominates the conversation about whether the procedure should occur. He speaks significantly more than Jig, controls the topics of discussion, dismisses her metaphorical observations about white elephants and landscape, and repeatedly redirects conversation back to his preferred framing of the situation (Smiley, 2008). This conversational dominance reflects broader patterns where men claim authority over women’s reproductive decisions despite women bearing the physical, emotional, and social consequences of those decisions.
Feminist literary criticism emphasizes that “Hills Like White Elephants” exposes the fundamental injustice of a system where reproductive decisions affecting women’s bodies are treated as appropriate subjects for male authority and persuasion rather than as matters of individual bodily autonomy (O’Brien, 1990). The American’s assumption that he has standing to pressure Jig regarding the abortion reveals deeply embedded cultural beliefs that men possess legitimate interests in controlling women’s reproduction—beliefs that undergirded legal restrictions on reproductive rights throughout most of American history. Even when framed as concern for the relationship or Jig’s wellbeing, the American’s involvement in the decision represents an infringement on bodily autonomy, as autonomous decision-making means that individuals control what happens to their own bodies without requiring permission, consensus, or approval from others. The power imbalance in their conversation—where the American pressures while Jig resists—illustrates how reproductive rights remain perpetually contested terrain where women must defend bodily autonomy against various forms of external control. Literary critic Pamela Smiley notes that the story’s significance for reproductive rights discourse lies precisely in this unflinching depiction of how gendered power operates to constrain women’s reproductive freedom even in intimate relationships supposedly based on mutual care and affection (Smiley, 2008). The personal becomes political as the private conversation between lovers reveals structural inequalities that systematically denied women bodily autonomy in Hemingway’s era and continue to shape reproductive rights debates today.
Contemporary Relevance to Reproductive Rights Debates
Although written in 1927, “Hills Like White Elephants” maintains striking relevance to contemporary reproductive rights debates, particularly following recent legal restrictions on abortion access in the United States and globally. The story’s themes of reproductive coercion, economic constraints on choice, cultural silence, and contested bodily autonomy resonate with ongoing struggles over who controls reproductive decisions and under what conditions women can exercise genuine reproductive freedom. Contemporary reproductive rights advocates emphasize that legal access to abortion proves insufficient if women face coercive pressure from partners, family members, or institutions; lack economic resources to support either pregnancy or abortion; or encounter barriers including mandatory waiting periods, counseling requirements, or limited provider availability (Solinger, 2005).
The story’s depiction of how intimate partner dynamics can constrain reproductive autonomy connects to contemporary recognition of reproductive coercion as a form of intimate partner violence. Modern research demonstrates that partners frequently use pressure, sabotage, threats, or control to influence reproductive decisions, undermining women’s bodily autonomy even when abortion is legally accessible (Miller et al., 2010). Jig’s experience of relentless pressure to terminate a pregnancy she appears ambivalent about reflects patterns that reproductive health professionals now identify as requiring intervention and support. Additionally, the economic dependence that constrains Jig’s options remains a central concern in contemporary reproductive justice frameworks, which emphasize that meaningful reproductive freedom requires not only legal rights but also economic security, healthcare access, and social support systems (Ross & Solinger, 2017). Hemingway’s story thus offers literary exploration of reproductive rights issues that remain urgent nearly a century later, demonstrating how bodily autonomy depends on complex intersections of legal rights, economic resources, relationship dynamics, and cultural values. The text’s continued prominence in literary studies and its frequent citation in reproductive rights discussions testify to its enduring power to illuminate fundamental questions about who controls women’s bodies and reproduction.
Conclusion: Literary Exploration of Bodily Autonomy
“Hills Like White Elephants” addresses reproductive rights and bodily autonomy through its nuanced depiction of a woman facing pressure to undergo an abortion she may not desire. The story explores how bodily autonomy becomes compromised through coercive relationship dynamics, economic dependence, cultural silence, and gendered power imbalances that grant men authority over women’s reproductive decisions. Hemingway’s minimalist narrative technique amplifies these themes by leaving crucial elements unstated, thereby illustrating how women’s reproductive experiences and choices are culturally silenced and socially erased even as they remain sites of intense contestation and control.
The story’s exploration of reproductive rights transcends its historical moment to offer continuing insight into contemporary debates about bodily autonomy, informed consent, reproductive justice, and the conditions necessary for genuine reproductive freedom. By depicting the multiple constraints that limit Jig’s ability to make an autonomous reproductive decision—legal restrictions, economic dependence, intimate partner pressure, and social stigma—Hemingway’s text demonstrates that reproductive rights require comprehensive social transformation rather than merely legal reform. The story challenges readers to consider how bodily autonomy operates in practice rather than theory, revealing the gap between abstract rights and lived experiences of reproductive decision-making. For contemporary audiences engaged with reproductive rights advocacy, “Hills Like White Elephants” offers a powerful literary meditation on the ongoing struggle for bodily autonomy and the various forces that continue to constrain women’s reproductive freedom across different historical contexts and social settings.
References
Hemingway, E. (1927). Hills like white elephants. In Men without women (pp. 69-77). Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Johnston, K. G. (1987). “Hills Like White Elephants”: Lean, vintage Hemingway. Studies in American Fiction, 15(2), 233-238.
Ludlow, J. (2008). The things we cannot say: Witnessing the trauma-tization of abortion in the United States. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 36(1/2), 28-41.
Miller, E., Decker, M. R., McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Levenson, R. R., Waldman, J., Schoenwald, P., & Silverman, J. G. (2010). Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception, 81(4), 316-322.
O’Brien, T. (1990). Allusion, word-play, and the central conflict in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 12(1), 19-25.
Reagan, L. J. (1997). When abortion was a crime: Women, medicine, and law in the United States, 1867-1973. University of California Press.
Renner, S. (1995). Moving to the girl’s side of “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 15(1), 27-41.
Ross, L., & Solinger, R. (2017). Reproductive justice: An introduction. University of California Press.
Smiley, P. (2008). Gender-linked miscommunication in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 27(1), 7-23.
Solinger, R. (2005). Pregnancy and power: A short history of reproductive politics in America. New York University Press.
Wyche, D. (2014). Letting the air into a relationship: Metaphorical abortion in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 20(1), 56-71.