Introduction

Previous studies indicate that women experience larger material losses following divorce than men (Duncan & Hoffman, 1985; Mortelmans, 2020; Poortman, 2000). This disparity may be attributed to various factors, including women’s caregiving roles during the marriage and the wage gap between genders. Although most studies on the material losses of divorce focus on household income, more research on homeownership and housing wealth is emerging (Boertien & Lersch, 2021; Kapelle & Baxter, 2021; Leopold, 2018). Studying homeownership is important, as it not only reflects material living conditions and cumulative long-term wealth (Laaksonen et al., 2008) but also influences the feelings of security (Hiscock et al., 2001) and may affect physical and mental health (Acolin, 2022; Murphy & Grundy, 2024).

Because most studies on the consequences of divorce focus on different-sex marriages, there is little evidence on whether women married to women experience similar losses in owner-occupied housing compared to women married to men when facing divorce. In a Canadian study, Dilmaghani and Dean (2020) found that married same-sex couples are less likely to be homeowners than married different-sex couples. However, studies on changes in women’s owner-occupied housing around same-sex divorce are currently lacking, even though same-sex couples provide a unique opportunity to study consequences of divorce for women without the influence of gender differences within the couple. Our study is the first to assess the trajectories of homeownership surrounding the dissolution of a marriage or registered partnership, based on whether women’s legal spouses were men or women. Our study also assesses the trajectories based on whether an individual earned more than their spouse, to understand housing dynamics at divorce.

We expect to find that the losses in owner-occupied housing are smaller for women divorcing women than men. There are several theoretical reasons to expect this. The first possible reason is that to the extent that women in same-sex couples do not contend with the gender-related power differentials that operate in different-sex couples, they are less likely to conform to traditional gender roles and more likely to divide up paid and unpaid work equally (Aldén et al., 2015; Moberg, 2016; Perlesz et al., 2010), resulting in more equal earnings and bargaining power between the spouses at the time of marital dissolution. More equal bargaining power may be beneficial for divorcing women who wish to remain in their marital home, irrespective of household separation. Second, another possible reason is as follows: Since couples consisting of two women tend to earn less, albeit more equally, than different-sex couples (Einiö & Ponkilainen, 2025; van der Vleuten et al., 2024), they may have been unable to buy a home during their marriage, resulting in fewer material losses when facing divorce. On the other hand, it is also possible that married same-sex couples might not have even desired a normative lifestyle, including homeownership, given that they have historically lacked access to traditional modes of commitment making, such as marriage (Reczek et al., 2009).

Theoretical background

It is often argued that individuals “do” gender in their daily interactions, especially in relationship to their partner of the opposite gender when facing issues of allocation, such as deciding who does the housework. “Doing” gender is described as situational, emerging in relation to the presence of other people, as well as to the normative expectations and cultural understandings of masculinity and femininity (West & Zimmerman, 1987). For example, wives, even when employed, are suggested to often do most household and childcare tasks, which does not seem a rational arrangement but rather reflects conventional gender roles (Leopold, 2018; Risman & Johnson-Sumerford, 1998; West & Zimmerman, 1987). If the members of a couple have “done” gender during their marriage, this may have different consequences for them when divorce occurs. According to Leopold (2018), “a guiding idea behind these studies is that women are, on average, more dependent on their partners and therefore at a higher risk of losses in terms of quality and security of housing after divorce.” However, empirical evidence on the losses of homeownership is far from conclusive. Some studies indicate that women experience greater losses (Feijten, 2005), while others show that the losses are rather similar to those experienced by men (Leopold, 2018).

Additionally, there is a lack of studies concerning post-divorce housing arrangements of women in same-sex couples, although such studies could provide insights into how the dynamics of “doing” and “undoing” gender (Goldberg, 2013) during the relationship might influence the consequences of divorce. Because both partners are of the same gender in same-sex couples, they may disrupt gendered norms, which can lead to a more egalitarian or flexible approach to roles and responsibilities within the relationship. It has been argued that same-sex couples are aware of and influenced by the gendered meanings associated with housework and paid work, but they can theoretically have more freedom to resist such meanings and “undo” gender, and construct a division of labor that works for them personally, i.e., more easily select roles and responsibilities according to their strengths and interests (Goldberg, 2013). For example, spouses in female couples are more similar to one another in terms of sharing tasks (Aldén et al., 2015; Moberg, 2016; Perlesz et al., 2010) and in terms of earnings (Einiö & Ponkilainen, 2025; van der Vleuten et al., 2024), which suggests that their housing losses after divorce might be more similar to one another and less severe than those for divorcing heterosexual women. However, even if same-sex couples tend to divide housework and paid work more equally than different-sex couples, differences in time availability and resources between partners may still shape how work is divided (Goldberg, 2009). This demonstrates that same-sex couples can also be influenced by status and power differences beyond those related to gender (Goldberg, 2009). On the other hand, the total couple income of female couples is lower than that of different-sex couples (Eini�� & Ponkilainen, 2025), which may have prevented them from buying a home during their marriage.

As Dewilde (2008) states, “the dissolution of a couple results in two separate households, of which at least one has to find another place to live”. Mulder and Wagner (2010) have argued that the spouse who has the highest bargaining power (i.e., relative resources) is less likely to move out from the marital home. This perspective is partly supported by their findings from the Netherlands. For example, wives who were employed were more likely to stay in the marital home than their husbands who were unemployed. Similarly, the spouse who got the custody of the children following divorce was more likely to stay, suggesting that custodian arrangements may also serve as means for bargaining. It is also possible that staying in the marital home helps with custody arrangements. On the other hand, the effect of education was negligible and the spouse who initiated the divorce was more likely to move out, indicating that the bargaining power does not fully account for the dynamics at play (Mulder & Wagner 2010). Furthermore, Andre et al. (2018) noted that when a couple owns their home, the spouse who stays must often be able to pay the mortgage and buy out the ex-spouse’s share, potentially leading to significant financial stress.

Based on these gendered perspectives on post-divorce housing, we assessed changes in homeownership and losses of marital home address for both spouses during three years before and after the divorce, distinguishing between female same-sex couples and different-sex couples, and also stratifying by which spouse earned more.

The finnish context

Finland allowed same-sex couples to legally register their partnerships in 2002, following the examples of Denmark already in 1989, Norway in 1993, Sweden in 1995, and Iceland in 1996 (Evertsson et al., 2021; Law on Registered Partnership - Laki Rekisteröidystä Parisuhteesta, 2001; Merin, 2002). The corresponding years for allowing same-sex marriage were 2017 in Finland, 2012 in Denmark, 2009 in Norway, 2009 in Sweden, and 2010 in Iceland. The Nordic countries abolished the possibility of forming new registered partnerships on the day same-sex marriage was established. (Marriage Law—Avioliittolaki, 2023; Mustasaari & Hossa, 2014). The couples who had already registered a same-sex partnership could convert it to a marriage or continue their relationship in the registered partnership (Lindström, 2017; Mustasaari & Hossa, 2014). In our research, the terms “same-sex marriage” and “same-sex divorce” are used to refer to both same-sex marriages and registered partnerships, except in the Data and Methods section.

Like other Nordic matrimonial property regimes, the Finnish regime is based on the concept of deferred community of property (Lund-Andersen, 2016). This implies that during the marriage or same-sex registered partnership, property is owned separately, but if the marriage or partnership is dissolved, property is divided equally between the spouses, regardless of whether it was acquired before or after the legal union formation (i.e., the marital right to property). The marital right to property may be restricted by a marriage settlement, a deed of gift, or a will (Marriage Law—Avioliittolaki, 2023). In Finland, the legal obligation of one spouse to provide for the other automatically ceases upon divorce, with exceptions being rare (Haavisto, 2018).

Data and methods

Data

The analyses were based on the total population data of female same-sex couples and different-sex couples who formed their registered partnership or different-sex marriage in Finland between March 1, 2002 and December 31, 2015. The data derived from Statistics Finland (permissions TK/3566/07.03.00/2021 and TK/552/07.03.00/2024). We restricted the data to couples, in which at least one spouse was born in Finland, registered a first marriage or partnership, and lived in Finland in the year of registration or marriage. To allow for a three-year follow-up of owner-occupied housing—and staying in the marital home—before and after the year of divorce, we included couples whose marriages or registered partnerships lasted at least three years and who divorced between 2005 and 2018. The reason for this is that the follow-up data for registered same-sex partnerships started in 2002 and the data for owner-occupied housing and residential codes ended in 2021.

To compare the results with women who remained married or in registered partnerships, we analyzed their follow-up data on owner-occupied housing also around a random year, which was selected to be between the third year following their year of marriage or registration and the year 2018, using uniform distribution. Similarly centralized longitudinal data around a random year for continuously married individuals have previously been used to study partner violence surrounding divorce, for example (Einiö et al., 2023). For all our datasets, we included only couples in which both spouses lived in Finland for the entire seven-year follow-up period (years −3, −2, −1, 0, +1, +2, +3), to allow for balanced panels surrounding the year of divorce or a random year. Therefore, couples where either spouse died or emigrated during the seven-year follow-up period were excluded.

Our analytical sample comprised 290,018 couples who legally married or registered their partnership between 2002 and 2015. Of these couples, 500 were female couples who divorced, 54,965 were different-sex couples who divorced, 1203 were female couples who stayed in intact unions, and 233,350 were different-sex couples who stayed in intact marriages.

Our study includes both registered partnerships and marriages for same-sex couples, although we do not distinguish between them. The reason for this is as follows: Finland allowed same-sex couples to marry in March 2017, and those who had registered their same-sex spouse earlier (between March 2002 and February 2017) could either convert their partnership to a marriage with a joint notification from both spouses, or continue as a registered couple (Law on Registered Partnership - Laki Rekisteröidystä Parisuhteesta, 2001; Lindström, 2017; Lipasti & Pietiläinen, 2021). However, premarital cohabitations are excluded from our study.

Since there are two women in a female same-sex couple but only one woman in a different-sex couple, we first randomly selected one woman from each female couple for our first analysis. For our main analyses, we identified divorcing marital dyads comprising older and younger women in same-sex couples (n = 500, n = 500) and men (n = 54,965) and women (n = 54,965) of different-sex couples. For our last analyses, we identified women of same-sex couples and men and women of different-sex couples who earned more—or less—than their spouse in the year prior to the divorce year. This is because we wanted to understand whether a higher relative income within a couple could mitigate the adverse effects of divorce on homeownership and help retain the marital home.

First outcome: living in owner-occupied housing (i.e., homeownership)

Living in owner-occupied housing was determined using Statistics Finland’s register-based information on the tenure status of dwellings for household-dwelling units to which individuals belonged. The original classification included information on owner-occupied dwellings (1. owns the house, 2. owns the shares of the dwelling), rental dwellings (3. government-subsidized, 4. interest-subsidized, or 5. other rental dwellings), right of occupancy dwellings (6th category), other tenure statuses (7th category: kinship, for example), and unknown. The category of owning the shares of the dwelling refers mainly to apartment buildings. A right of occupancy dwelling is a form of housing that falls between rental housing and owner-occupied housing. In this arrangement, the resident pays a smaller share of the apartment’s purchase price and receives a right of occupancy for life. The resident pays a lower rent and can sell the right of occupancy at any time. For our outcome, we classified living in owner-occupied dwellings as one (1st and 2nd categories) and other tenure statuses as zero.

It is worth noting, however, that the house or apartment belonging to a dwelling unit (e.g., a couple) can be legally owned by one member of the couple, both members, or someone else living with them (e.g., a parent). Additionally, a person could have housing wealth that would not appear in our outcome measure if they did not permanently reside in the property. However, the tenure status of dwelling for a household-dwelling unit has previously been consistently and successfully used to measure homeownership among adults in Finland (Haartti et al., 2015; Laaksonen et al., 2008).

Second outcome: staying in marital home address previously shared by the spouses

To assess the trajectories of staying in the marital home formerly shared by the spouses, we used information on household residential codes. These codes were provided by Statistics Finland, based on home addresses of both spouses. We defined marital home address according to the latest residence that the spouses shared from three to one year before the year of divorce. When they separated, we used information on their latest joint address to define who stayed. A marital home stay was defined irrespective of its tenure status.

Methods

We first assessed women’s trajectories of owner-occupied housing for three years before and after the year of divorce, according to the gender composition of the couple (i.e., same-sex vs. different-sex couples). The time before and after divorce was divided into seven one-year observation windows surrounding the year of divorce for divorcing individuals (i.e., years −3, −2, −1, 0, +1, +2, +3) and a random year for those who remained continuously married or in registered partnership (i.e., years −3, −2, −1, 0, +1, +2, +3). We then assessed the trajectories of owner-occupied housing, as well as that of retaining the marital home, for three years before and after the year of divorce for both marital dyads (i.e., both spouses), distinguishing between men and women in different-sex couples and older and younger women in same-sex couples, to analyze the gendered housing consequences of divorce.

We used repeated-measures logistic regression analysis (i.e., population-averaged logit models) with an outcome of one if an individual lived in owner-occupied housing and zero otherwise. The model controls for correlations within individuals, using generalized estimating equations with an unstructured correlation matrix (Lipsitz et al., 1994; Twisk, 2003). Our model also controls for time-varying indicators such as age (< 25, 25–29, …, 55–59, 60 +), calendar year (2002, …, 2021), and the area of residence (urban vs. semi-urban/rural). Controlling for the area of residence is important, given that house prices are higher in urban areas (Eerola et al., 2020) and same-sex couples are more likely to live there than different-sex couples (Andersson & Noack, 2010; Andersson et al., 2006; Leppel, 2007a, 2007b). We used the same method to assess the trajectories of retaining the marital home formerly shared by the spouses. The trajectories of owner-occupied housing, as well as those for retaining the marital home address, are shown as predicted probabilities estimated at the mean value of other observed covariates (i.e., age, year, area of residence). The unadjusted trajectories are shown in the Supplementary Fig. 1.

Results

Table 1 presents the characteristics of the divorcing population in the marital dyad groups, including men and women from different-sex couples, as well as older and younger women from female same-sex couples. The mean age at the time of divorce was 38.4 years for men and 36.0 years for women in different-sex couples. The corresponding figures for older and younger women in divorcing same-sex couples were 40.1 and 35.2 years, respectively. The mean duration of marriage or partnership at divorce was 6.7 years for different-sex couples and 5.7 years for same-sex couples. Men and women in different-sex couples were less likely to live in urban areas (71.4% and 71.6%) than their peers in same-sex couples (83.2% and 82.8%) at the start of the follow-up time. Of women who divorced men, approximately 68.5% earned less than their husband in the year prior to divorce. The corresponding figure for younger women in same-sex couples was 50.0%. Supplementary Table 1 presents the characteristics of divorcing and non-divorcing women for the analysis displayed in the left panel of Fig. 1. Supplementary Table 1 shows that non-divorcing women in intact different-sex marriages were more likely to earn less than their husbands, as compared to their divorcing peers.

Table 1 Sample characteristics of divorcing spouses from different-sex and female same-sex couples who legalized their union between 2002 and 2015, Finland
Full size table
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Full size image

Trajectories of living in owner-occupied housing (predicted probabilities) in different-sex couples (DSC) and female same-sex couples (SSC) surrounding divorce year for divorcing women and random year for non-divorcing women [left panel] and for divorcing marital dyads (i.e., both spouses) [right panel]. Note: Models control for age, calendar year, and area of residence

The left panel of Fig. 1 shows the predicted probabilities of living in owner-occupied housing at the end of each year for three years before and after the year of divorce for divorcing women or a random year for women in intact unions, distinguishing between those in same-sex and different-sex couples. Three years before divorce, the probability of living in owner-occupied housing was approximately 70% among divorcing women of different-sex couples and 60% among divorcing women of same-sex couples. The corresponding figures among women in intact different-sex marriages were approximately 80% and 75% among women in intact same-sex unions for three years before a randomized year. The results show that same-sex couples have lower levels of living in owner-occupied dwellings in divorcing groups, as well as in non-divorcing groups, independent of controls for age, year, and area of residence. Additionally, the findings show that women in same-sex and different-sex couples who divorce have a lower probability of living in owner-occupied housing about three years before the divorce, compared to their counterparts who do not divorce during the follow-up period. The findings indicate that divorcing women of different-sex couples experience significantly larger decreases in owner-occupied housing already in the year prior to divorce, compared to their peers of same-sex couples (for more details see Supplementary Table 2).

The right panel of Fig. 1 illustrates the predicted probabilities of owner-occupied housing surrounding divorce year for the marital dyad groups, including men and women from different-sex couples, as well as older and younger women from same-sex couples. The right panel confirms that divorcing women in different-sex couples experience large decreases in owner-occupied housing in the year prior to the year of divorce (from 72 to 53%), whereas their husbands (from 72 to 62%) and women in same-sex couples experience smaller decreases (SSC younger, SSC older: approximately from 60 to 50%). In the year of divorce, the probability of living in owner-occupied housing is at its lowest level and is substantially similar for women who were married to men or women (DSC: 44%, SSC younger: 42%, SSC older: 42%). In contrast, the probability for newly divorced men who were married to women remains higher (54%). Had we controlled for a time-varying indicator of income, divorced men’s homeownership levels would have been less elevated relative to their wives, especially in the long run (Supplementary Fig. 2). Meanwhile, men’s elevated homeownership levels, compared to divorced women in same-sex couples, would have remained significant.

However, the right panel of Fig. 1 shows that women who were married to men appear to experience gradual—although modest—increases in owner-occupied housing three years after the divorce. Similar gradual increases are not observed for women in same-sex couples. It is possible that the increases observed among women in different-sex couples following divorce relate to repartnering. Had we excluded individuals who newly cohabit during the years following divorce year, the increase would have disappeared (Supplementary Fig. 3). Based on these additional analyses, it is not possible to determine whether women who find a new partner are already on an improving housing path or whether a new partner brings housing advantages. On the other hand, Fig. 1 clearly shows that no divorced group fully recovers within three years of the divorce, as their owner-occupied housing remains at a lower level, compared to the baseline observed three years before the divorce.

To shed more light on housing dynamics during divorce, we assessed the trajectories of staying at the marital home address for three years before and after divorce (Fig. 2). Our analyses show that the majority of divorcing persons left their marital home address as divorce approached. However, the likelihood of staying was higher for men who divorced women, as compared to both women who divorced men or women, independent of controls for age, year, and area of residence.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Full size image

Trajectories of living in marital home (predicted probabilities) in different-sex couples (DSC) and female same-sex couples (SSC) surrounding divorce year for divorcing marital dyads (i.e., both spouses). Note: Models control for age, calendar year, and area of residence

Figure 3 shows the trajectories of owner-occupied housing around divorce, according to whether the divorcing person outearned the spouse in the year preceding divorce. Figure 4 shows the corresponding trajectories of staying at the marital home address around divorce. In Figs. 3 and 4, the left panel illustrates women earning less than their husbands, consistent with traditional gender roles. The middle panel shows women earning more than their husbands, reflecting non-traditional gender roles. Finally, the right panel distinguishes between two women in same-sex couples based on who earned more, without making any assumptions about gender roles. The findings show that the spouse who earned more was more likely to keep their homeownership status, regardless of the type of couple. The results for female couples are subject to statistical uncertainty, however. Similarly, the spouse who earned more was more likely to stay at the marital home address following divorce. For example, divorcing women who were the primary earners in their different-sex marriages had a higher likelihood of staying compared to their husbands (Fig. 4: middle panel). However, these differences were substantially smaller than those observed for men who outearned their wives (left panel).

Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Full size image

Trajectories of owner-occupied housing (predicted probability) surrounding divorce year for divorcing marital dyads (i.e., both spouses) in which the husband [left panel] or wife [middle and right panels] of different-sex or female same-sex couple earned more than their spouse. Note: All estimates are from the same model, controlling for age, calendar year, and area of residence

Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Full size image

Trajectories of living in marital home (predicted probability) surrounding divorce year for divorcing marital dyads (i.e., both spouses) in which the husband [left panel] or wife [middle and right panels] of different-sex or female same-sex couple earned more than their spouse. Note: All estimates are from the same model, controlling for age, calendar year, and area of residence

Discussion

Using record-linkage data of divorcing marital dyads from different-sex and female same-sex couples who legalized their unions in Finland between 2002 and 2015, we assessed changes in both spouses’ owner-occupied housing (i.e., homeownership) and losses of the marital home, focusing on three years before and after divorces. Three years before divorce, the probability of living in owner-occupied housing was higher for divorcing men and women in different-sex marriages (approximately 70%) compared to women divorcing women (approximately 60%), independent of the confounding influences of age, year, and area of residence. The findings align with those observed in Canada by Dilmaghani and Dean (2020), who found that married same-sex couples were less likely to be homeowners than married different-sex couples. Similarly, we found that Finnish women in intact unions who were married to women were less likely to be homeowners (75%) than their peers married to men (80%).

Our study goes beyond earlier work on same-sex couples’ homeownership in that we assessed changes occurring before and after divorce. The findings align with our expectations regarding the gendered consequences of divorce, indicating that losses in homeownership, as well as the loss of a marital home, are greater for women divorcing men compared to both their husbands and women divorcing women. In same-sex couples, the fact that both spouses are of the same gender may disrupt gendered norms, which may lead to a more egalitarian approach to roles and responsibilities within the relationship (Goldberg, 2013), potentially mitigating adverse or unequal housing consequences following a divorce. In line with this idea of “undoing” gender during the relationship (Goldberg, 2013), our study shows that the losses in homeownership experienced by both the younger and older wife following same-sex divorce are substantially similar. Meanwhile, women married to men may have more likely “done” gender by adhering to more traditional gender roles, leading to inconvenient financial surprises at the time of divorce (Leopold, 2018; West & Zimmerman, 1987). Women’s inability to remain in owner-occupied housing may also partly reflect gender wage gaps and the lower pay levels in female-dominated occupations. In our study, the loss of homeownership was significantly larger for women than their husbands. Similar strongly gendered findings have been observed previously in the Netherlands (Feijten, 2005), but not, for example, in Germany (Leopold, 2018).

In our study, the loss of homeownership among women in different-sex couples facing divorce is so large that their homeownership levels appear to drop to those of divorcing women in same-sex couples during the year of divorce. However, one of the reasons for this observation is that women in same-sex couples who end up divorcing are less likely to be homeowners already during their marriage, resulting in smaller losses in housing security shortly surrounding divorce. On the other hand, women divorcing women might not have even desired a normative marital lifestyle, including homeownership. It has been suggested that because same-sex couples have historically lacked access to traditional modes of commitment making, they may create committed relationships outside of the normative model (Reczek et al., 2009). Furthermore, a small survey conducted in Finland for banking purposes suggested that homeownership is more important for men than women (Bluestep Bank, 2023). On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that discrimination in the mortgage market against same-sex couples could also play a role in homeownership disparities (Dilmaghani & Dean, 2020; Leppel, 2007a). This is, however, less likely in our Northern European context than in previous studies from North America.

It is noteworthy, however, that female couples who did not divorce during the observation period had substantial levels of homeownership—although somewhat lower than their peers in different-sex marriages (75% vs. 80%). Women in intact unions—among both same-sex and different-sex couples—appeared to have higher levels of living in owner-occupied dwellings compared to the general population of Finland. For example, only about 60% of all household-dwelling units were living in owner-occupied dwellings in Finland in 2023 (Statistics Finland, 2024). Our results coincide with prior findings indicating that life cycle situations affect housing tenure choices (Andersen, 2011), such as having a stable relationship.

The findings of our study indicated that no divorced group (i.e., women in same-sex or men and women in different-sex couples) fully recovered from their losses in homeownership within three years of the divorce. Some increasing patterns over time since divorce are observed (particularly in women in different-sex couples) but they are modest in magnitude, as compared to the losses experienced as the divorce approaches and is legalized. It is, however, not possible to assess, based on our short-term trajectories, whether owner-occupied housing will later return to the levels observed during the time when legal marriage or partnership was still intact. There is previous evidence to suggest that those who have experienced divorce have a lower likelihood of being homeowners even in later life (Dewilde & Stier, 2014). To our knowledge, similar studies of divorced same-sex couples are not available.

To understand whether income could buffer the negative effects of divorce on homeownership, we identified which member of the couple earned more before the divorce. The findings indicated that the losses in homeownership associated with divorce were smaller among the women in same-sex couples who outearned their wives. This suggests that retaining owner-occupied housing was easier for the spouse with higher current and future earnings potential. For women in different-sex couples, the losses in homeownership were especially large among those who earned less than their husbands. This is because these traditional couples had an exceptionally high level of homeownership compared to other divorcing couples, making it difficult for the less earning wives to maintain the pre-divorce housing standard. In Finland, the legal obligation of the higher-earning spouse to provide for the other normally ceases upon divorce (Haavisto, 2018), suggesting that the pre-divorce housing standard needs to be maintained independently. The findings align with previous studies indicating that income is positively associated with homeownership (Jepsen & Jepsen, 2009). Our finding that those who earn the most are more likely to keep homeownership across couple types indicates that same-sex couples can also be influenced by status and power differences beyond those related to gender (Goldberg, 2009). One could even argue that the role of income in retaining homeownership gets more crystallized when both spouses are of the same gender.

It is, however, worth noting that divorce is a couple-level phenomenon, in which both members of the couple are vulnerable to losses in housing standards, at least shortly around divorce, when cohabitant separation occurs. In our study, all divorcing groups experienced losses in owner-occupied housing surrounding divorce. Our findings are partly similar to those observed among different-sex couples by Leopold (2018), who found divorce-related declines in homeownership for women, as well as for men.

Our study also indicates that remaining at the same marital home address shared with a spouse before divorce is even more difficult following divorce than retaining owner-occupied housing. This result suggests that the Finnish matrimonial property regime, which stipulates that property is normally divided equally between spouses who divorce (Lund-Andersen, 2016; Marriage Law—Avioliittolaki, 2023), provides incentives or obligations to sell matrimonial property in order to divide it equally. The loss of economics of scale following a divorce could also mean that neither of the spouses can afford to buy the other out. Unfortunately, our register-based study did not include any information on whether the couple had a marriage settlement (also known as a prenuptial agreement) to prevent the property from being divided equally in the event of a divorce. Furthermore, the study lacked information on housing preferences and which spouse applied for divorce.

Additionally, analyzing housing trajectories surrounding divorce according to whether the divorced couple had children fell outside the scope of the current study. Future studies should investigate how the presence of children affects spouses’ and children’s living arrangements after divorce, a question that is increasingly relevant given the observed increase in childbearing among female couples in the Nordic countries (Ponkilainen et al., 2024, 2025). To conclude, the present study shows that women’s losses in owner-occupied housing around divorce are larger in different-sex couples than same-sex couples. On the other hand, women in same-sex couples are less likely to own their marital homes before the divorce, suggesting they have fewer housing resources to lose. Of course, it is worth noting that our results cannot be generalized to other countries, given that they are specific to Finland’s particular legal, economic, and social context.

The findings suggest that no divorced group fully recovers from their homeownership losses within three years of the divorce. Further research is necessary to determine whether homeownership levels will recover over an extended follow-up period. However, wives who earned more than their marital dyads experienced smaller losses, suggesting that nontraditional gender roles may protect women from adverse housing consequences following divorce.