Research results

The Dynamics of Couple Relationships in Romania: The Interaction Between Law and Social Reality

Ramona Chițeanu

Family and couple relationships form a fertile ground for observing the interplay between norms and social reality. 

Any analysis of family life and couple dynamics in Romania must start with the recognition of a constant dialectic between legal prescriptions and actual social practices. Legislation not only reflects existing realities but also shapes behavior, establishing norms that can, over time, become societal benchmarks. Simultaneously, society, through its cultural, economic, and political shifts, exerts pressure on lawmakers to adapt. In this way, the couple occupies a space of dual constraint: one defined by legal norms, the other by social customs and expectations.

The evolution of the concept of family in Romanian law reflects the profound transformations of society itself. From the traditional model of marriage to the acceptance of diverse forms of cohabitation, the law is compelled to keep pace with social realities, even as legal norms reshape everyday life in return.

For the purposes of this study, I will focus the comparative analysis on two generations: those who were 20 years old at the time of the 1989 Revolution – Generation X, and those who are 20 years old today – Generation Z.

Two Generations, Two Worlds

Looking back at Romania in the 1980s, the family stood as a solid yet rigid institution. For those who were twenty at the time of the Revolution, reaching adulthood naturally implied the next step: marriage. Without it, one risked being perceived as “incomplete.” In 1989, romantic encounters were arranged via landline telephones or even while waiting in line for milk. One image captures the era perfectly: two young people at the Civil Registry Office, parents by their side, holding their ID cards and a small bouquet of flowers. Marriage was not just a private affair; it was a public affirmation. “They got married; they’re respectable people.”

Divorce, on the other hand, was a source of shame. The court procedure was cumbersome, requiring evidence and witnesses, discouraging many from filing. Often, couples stayed together “for appearances,” even as frustration built behind closed doors: personality clash, financial disagreements, conflicting ideas about raising children. All of this remained unspoken, particularly since domestic violence, frequently fuelled by alcohol, was socially tolerated. 

Today, the landscape has changed completely. Many 20-year-olds meet their partners through dating apps rather than at prom night. They are the first generation to have begun their romantic lives directly in the era of social media, Tinder, and public debates on civil partnerships, gender equality, and diversity. Parents no longer have the final say. Instead, they often find out from an Instagram post that their son or daughter “is seeing someone.” Marriage is no longer a must. Many choose cohabitation, even for life, and while the law does not punish them, it still fails to offer them sufficient protection. 

Marriage, Family, Couple

In post-communist Romania, the relationship between couple, family, and marriage has been in a constant state of reconstruction, shaped by the social, legal, and cultural transformations the country has undergone. The analysis of these concepts from December 1989 to the present day reveals both the persistence of certain legal and cultural traditions and the tensions brought about by legislative modernization, demographic shifts, and European integration.

Marriage has remained, at least in normative terms, the central institution around which family life is organized. The 1991 Constitution, in Article 48(1), established the principle that the family “is founded on the freely consented marriage of the spouses, their full equality, as well as the right and duty of the parents to ensure the upbringing, education and instruction of their children.” This wording carried forward the tradition of the 1953 Family Code, emphasizing heterosexual marriage as the legal foundation of family life. Later, the Civil Code that came into force in 2011 restructured certain aspects of matrimonial regimes but retained the core structure of the institution. Moreover, the attempt to revise the Constitution through the 2018 referendum, which sought to replace the term “spouses” with the phrase “a man and a woman”, revealed the tension between a conservative legislative stance and a socially evolving reality.

As both a legal and social concept, the family has evolved with greater flexibility. Under the communist regime, it was defined almost exclusively in relation to marriage. After 1989, however, its meaning broadened. Legally, Article 258 of the Civil Code defines the family as being “composed of spouses and their descendants,” while also recognizing other relationships established by law, such as kinship and adoption. Sociologically, though, the family has become a diverse reality: we are witnessing a rise in single-parent households, an increase in births outside marriage, and a growing acceptance of cohabitation as an alternative. These shifts have been driven by factors such as massive migration after 1990, the economic emancipation of women, and the cultural transition from community-based solidarity to individual autonomy.

The notion of the couple, on the other hand, has gained visibility in social life but remains without formal legal recognition. In Romania, cohabitation does not constitute a distinct legal institution and does not produce effects equivalent to marriage, except in certain indirect cases (for example, regarding housing rights, social benefits, or child protection). Unlike many other European countries, Romania has not adopted legislation on civil partnerships, despite years of public debate, especially following the Coman v. Romania ruling (ECHR, 2018), in which the Romanian state was required to recognize the residence rights of a same-sex spouse of a Romanian citizen, under the EU’s freedom of movement principle. The absence of domestic legislation regulating the legal status of consensual unions – whether heterosexual or homosexual – maintains a gap between social reality and the legal framework.

The 1953 Family Code, crafted in the spirit of socialist uniformity, tightly regulated the conditions for entering and sustaining marriage. It set different minimum ages for future spouses – 18 for men and 16 for women – with the possibility of lowering the latter to 15 with administrative approval. Parental consent was required, and in cases of disagreement, the father’s opinion prevailed. Consequently, young people’s autonomy was restricted, and the family was regarded as an institution subordinated to both the collective and the state.

This framework reflected a society in which marriage was almost a prerequisite for social validation. Generation X experienced intense pressure to marry early, and although divorce was legally permitted, it carried significant social stigma. This pressure came from multiple sources: economic, social, religious, and linked to one’s social status. 

The grounds for divorce cited at the time were typically “grave offenses” (infidelity, violence), while many personal conflicts (differences in views on marital roles, financial management, child-rearing, or the interference of career and migration) remained hidden beneath a façade of stability. Rigid legislation contributed to this apparent family cohesion: the difficulty of obtaining a divorce, combined with the social shame surrounding it, effectively suppressed many attempts to end dysfunctional marriages.

After the fall of the communist regime, the social pressure placed on couples began to ease, and the legislation gradually came to reflect this change. Law No. 288/2007 amended the Family Code by setting the minimum age for marriage at 18 for both partners, allowing exceptions down to 16 only with medical approval and authorization from the social welfare authority. This equalization of age thresholds eliminated gender-based discrimination and symbolically recognized the equal status of men and women.

As part of the government’s legislative modernization program, the 2009 Civil Code further consolidated equality between spouses, not only in terms of minimum marriage age but also through the codification of mutual moral duties, the affirmation of each partner’s independence, the simplification of divorce procedures, and the introduction of the preciput clause. Symbolically, this clause represented a move away from the collectivist framework of the 1953 Family Code toward an affective-patrimonial logic, recognizing both the emotional and material contributions of one’s life partner.

Under recent national legislation, neither spouse may interfere with or control the other’s correspondence, social relationships, beliefs (spiritual or religious), or professional decisions. These protections have become especially relevant in an era dominated by technology and social media. Some traditional obligations, however, remain in place, for instance, the spouses’ duty to live together. The new matrimonial regime also introduced flexibility, allowing couples to choose arrangements other than the legal community property regime, such as the conventional regime or separation of property.

When a relationship breaks down, there is no longer a need to publicly prove the “culpability” of one’s partner. If both agree, divorce can now be finalized quickly and discreetly before a notary or marriage officiant. The difference from the 1980s is dramatic, divorce has transformed from a nearly traumatic public ordeal into a pragmatic life decision. Today, it is no longer viewed as a failure but rather as a reset, a way to rebuild life when a relationship no longer works.

In my professional experience, when a client comes to our law firm seeking a divorce, my first concern is to identify the deeper causes of the conflict in order to assess whether reconciliation or continuation of the relationship is still possible. An analysis of practical cases has revealed two recurring indicators among couples on the verge of separation: the separation of financial management and sleeping in different spaces, which often leads to a breakdown of intimacy.

Sleeping apart is one of the clearest signs of emotional separation, because physical intimacy and closeness during sleep are fundamental to maintaining emotional connection. The child often becomes a “convenient excuse” for this arrangement, but in reality, what is being built is a physical and emotional wall between partners. 

The issue of managing money within a couple is not new. However, one key difference between today’s generation and that of the 1980s lies in the nature of income. In the 1980s, income was predominantly salary-based. Today, the landscape is far more diverse – freelancing, investments, cryptocurrencies, online businesses – each bringing with it different financial personalities.

The concept of financial personality shows that a couple’s dynamic depends not only on affection but also on how each partner thinks, feels, and acts in relation to money: spending, saving, investing, and risk-taking. Financial personality goes beyond numbers, it encompasses values, habits, and life philosophies. When one partner is cautious and savings-oriented while the other spends freely, tensions inevitably arise. Without communication and transparency, these differences can turn into frustration and, ultimately, divorce.

My experience in legal practice has only strengthened my belief that couples who talk openly about debts, savings, and shared goals build stronger relationships. By contrast, when financial secrets enter the picture – hidden expenses, undisclosed loans, separate “just-in-case” accounts – the relationship is put to the test.

In many cases, financial separation becomes an unconscious preparation for emotional separation.

This observation brings to mind the inclusion, in modern Romanian law, of the matrimonial regime of separation of property, under which spouses share neither assets nor debts.

The concept of property separation raises profound questions about the nature of marital commitment. Symbolically, marriage is meant to represent a complete fusion – “two become one”, and under this regime, it may appear that one enters marriage already contemplating possible exit scenarios. This, at first glance, seems to contradict the idea of lifelong commitment, the traditional “till death do us part.” In other words, separating patrimonies implies that the marital fusion is only partial, preserving certain zones of predefined independence.

Nonetheless, while it might seem to indicate a lack of full trust, the separation of property regime is a valid legal option that can reflect a variety of motivations, including maturity and responsibility rather than mere defensiveness. The principle behind it is that one can love another deeply while still recognizing their potential weaknesses in financial management or acknowledging, based on statistical trends, that the high rate of divorces justifies a degree of prudence.

One possible motivation is that partners, recognizing their different financial personalities, opt to manage their resources separately to prevent financial tensions from damaging the relationship itself. Another is that, in the event of separation, spouses are not obliged to divide property (except for assets acquired jointly, as is also the case for unmarried partners).

The fact that spouses’ property relations can be regulated through the coercive authority of the state is illustrated by existing legislation, which permits, in certain circumstances, the judicial modification of the matrimonial regime. Specifically, a community property regime (whether legal or contractual) may be replaced by a separation of property regime through a court order. Such a change can be granted at the request of one spouse if the other has entered into legal transactions that endanger the family’s financial interests.

Generation Z: Diversity and Fragile Freedom

Today’s twenty-year-olds view romantic relationships as personal and flexible experiences. Marriage is no longer considered a necessary marker of social maturity, and consensual unions are increasingly common. Statistics indicate that over 400,000 unmarried couples in Romania live together without legal protection. This reality becomes problematic when issues arise such as the death of one partner, access to medical information, or the division of jointly acquired assets.

From a sociological perspective, the accepted grounds for divorce have broadened to include temperament incompatibility, financial disagreements, poor communication, infidelity, differing parenting philosophies, and, as noted earlier, contrasting financial habits.

Legislation, by simplifying divorce procedures, no longer imposes obstacles and allows marriage to be dissolved quickly and, if desired, discreetly, once conjugal consensus has collapsed. The introduction of non-judicial divorce processes, handled by a notary or marriage officiant, represents a notable innovation, providing privacy in contrast to the traditionally public court proceedings.

Some changes stem from shifting social realities, while others are driven by technological advancements, and the law must adapt to both. A recent example from Europe: a man in the Netherlands was sued after fathering more than 550 children through sperm donation. Romania has not yet seen such cases, but public discussions about artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and even surrogacy are already part of the national conversation, and, inevitably, of the legislative agenda, though not without controversy.

One of the clearest examples of the interplay between law and social reality is Romanian migration following the country’s entry into the European Union and the accompanying freedom of movement. This shift resulted in many children being raised by a single parent or by grandparents, prompting legislative changes related to parental authority and child protection. In this case, the law initially anticipated the social change, but had to later adapt to its real-world consequences.

Marriage continues to serve as the legal foundation of the family, constitutionally reinforced and upheld by a conservative vision. Yet, social reality shows that the family is no longer exclusively the product of marriage, and that the couple, as a form of emotional solidarity and cohabitation, has become a legitimate life experience recognized by society, even if not yet fully recognized by the law.

Consequently, the primary contemporary legal challenge for Romania in the realm of family law is determining how to regulate the diverse forms of cohabitation.

Currently, the legislative authority confronts a fundamental tension between competing paradigms of thought. This complex situation represents a turning point, as the country must reconcile seemingly irreconcilable perspectives to shape the legal framework for contemporary relationships.

On one hand, Orthodox tradition and the conservative perspective, deeply rooted in the fabric of Romanian society, continue to exert significant influence over public discourse. This view, supported by the Romanian Orthodox Church and by numerous traditionalist opinion leaders, advocates for maintaining a classical understanding of family structures and of the moral values deemed essential to the nation’s identity.

At the same time, European integration and international pressures introduce their own normative agenda, influenced by a Western European vision that values and safeguards diverse forms of intimate arrangements. This perspective highlights the importance of legally recognizing the various ways individuals choose to structure their private lives, including through consensual unions and civil partnerships.

The complexity of this situation has deepened following the 2023 decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which unequivocally established the urgent need for adequate legal protection of diverse forms of cohabitation by the Romanian state.

Romania is therefore tasked with reconciling these divergent forces, creating a legal framework that respects both its European obligations and its domestic sensibilities. This challenge goes beyond the purely legal realm; it is a cultural and political balancing act that will significantly shape the future trajectory of Romanian society, influencing its connection to traditional values as well as its engagement with the demands of European modernity.

Yet beyond laws and statistics lies a lesson shared by all generations: communication remains the key. Whether considering parents who once had to grant consent for marriage or young people who now communicate through instant messages, the foundation of the relationship remains dialogue. Financial differences, the absence of a shared parental model, or career pressures do not necessarily lead to divorce; they become insurmountable only when left unspoken.

If Generation X was taught to remain silent and endure, and today’s generation is tempted to end relationships at the first sign of difficulty, perhaps the middle ground is this: to talk more, to listen more, and to run less. The law may facilitate separation—but only communication can make continuity possible.

Taken as a whole, the dynamics of couple relationships in Romania reveal a continual interplay between legal norms and social reality. While the ’89 generation experienced a regime of imposed stability, where divorce was difficult and stigmatized, Generation Z inhabits an era of freedom and diversity, where divorce is readily accessible and marriage is just one of many possible forms of partnership.

Thus, the law is not simply a reflection of reality but an active agent of change. It has shaped, and continues to shape, how we understand love, marriage, and divorce.

What remains constant? The imperative that law must never lag behind life. For no matter how modern love becomes, without legal recognition, it remains vulnerable.

And to end on a lighter note, perhaps by the year 2050, couples will formalize their civil partnerships on the blockchain, complete with digital certificates and instant legal guarantees.

Bibliography 

1. Legislation

• Romanian Constitution (1991, revised in 2003) – Art. 26 (intimate, family, and private life), Art. 48 (the family).
• The Family Code (1953, in force until October 1, 2011).
• The Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, republished) – Book II, “Despre familie” (Articles 258–534).
• Law no. 273/2004 on the adoption procedure.
• Law no. 272/2004 on the protection and promotion of the rights of the child.

2. Doctrine

• Corneliu Bîrsan, Drept civil. Drepturile reale principale și dreptul familiei, Hamangiu Publishing House, Bucharest, various editions.
• Flavius Baias, E. Chelaru, R. Constantinovici, I. Macovei (eds.), Noul Cod civil. Comentariu pe articole, C.H. Beck Publishing House, Bucharest, 2012 (especially commentary on Articles 258–534).
• Ioan Muraru, Simina Tănăsescu, Drept constituțional și instituții politice, C.H. Beck Publishing House, Bucharest, recent editions (for interpretation of Article 48 of the Constitution).
• Mona-Maria Pivniceru, Dreptul familiei. Note de curs, Hamangiu Publishing House, Bucharest, 2016.
• Elena Dumitru, “Evoluția instituției căsătoriei și a familiei în dreptul românesc postdecembrist,” in Revista Română de Drept Privat, no. 4/2015.
• I. Reghini, “Căsătoria și familia în Noul Cod civil,” in Pandectele Române, no. 5/2011.
• Andreea Drăghici, Protecția juridică a copilului și a familiei, C.H. Beck Publishing House, Bucharest, 2013.

3. National and European case law

• Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 580/2016 – regarding the constitutionality of the citizens’ initiative to amend Article 48 paragraph (1) of the Constitution.
• Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 907/2009 – regarding the definition of the family and constitutional protection.
• High Court of Cassation and Justice, Civil and Intellectual Property Section – case law regarding the effects of marriage and recognition of cohabitation situations (specific cases related to housing or inheritance).
• ECtHR, Coman and Others v. Romania (judgment of 5 June 2018) – regarding recognition of a same-sex spouse under the freedom of movement.
• CJEU, Coman, Hamilton and Accept (C-673/16, judgment of 5 June 2018) – related case clarifying EU Member States’ obligation to recognize residence rights for the same-sex spouse of an EU citizen.
• ECtHR, Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (2010) – regarding recognition of same-sex couples and the right to family life.
• ECtHR, Oliari and Others v. Italy (2015) – obligation of states to ensure legal recognition for same-sex couples.

4. Sociological perspectives (for contextualization)

• Dumitru Sandu, Spațiul social al tranziției, Polirom Publishing House, Iași, 1996 (analyzes migration and social changes after 1989).
• Vasile Ghețău, Declinul demografic și viitorul populației României, Alpha MDN Publishing House, Buzău, 2007 (post-1989 demographic phenomena).
• Cătălin Zamfir (ed.), O nouă provocare: dezvoltarea socială, Polirom Publishing House, Iași, 2007 (context of changes in private and family life).