Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What peer-reviewed evidence do proponents of conversion therapy cite, and how credible are those studies?
Executive summary
Proponents of conversion therapy most often point to a small number of studies and surveys that report self‑reported behavioral change or positive personal accounts; critics and systematic reviews say those studies are outnumbered, methodologically weak, or misrepresented. Major reviews (e.g., Cornell’s What We Know project) found 47 peer‑reviewed studies on the topic and concluded the weight of the evidence is that conversion efforts are ineffective or harmful (47 studies, 12 primary studies finding harm/effectiveness issues) [1] [2].
1. What proponents actually cite: a handful of studies and personal‑account surveys
Proponents of conversion therapy and some legal briefs have leaned on a small subset of the peer‑reviewed literature to argue the practice can help some people; reporting on the Supreme Court battle notes that one study (often identified as Sullins’s work in media coverage) was the lone paper in a recent review to report positive outcomes, and that it has been highlighted by advocates [3] [4]. Advocates also use surveys and clinical case series that measure self‑reported behavior change or satisfaction rather than objective measures of sexual orientation or long‑term wellbeing (available sources do not list every specific proponent citation beyond the single‑study references in reporting) [3] [1].
2. How independent reviews assess those citations: methodological concerns
Comprehensive reviews find serious limits in the literature that proponents cite. Cornell’s What We Know project reviewed 47 peer‑reviewed studies and concluded most evidence does not support the claim conversion therapy reliably changes orientation without harm; only one study in that set reported a positive impact but Cornell and other experts called that study deeply flawed or misinterpreted [1] [2]. State and professional summaries similarly state there is “no evidence” conversion therapies change sexual orientation and flag reliance on self‑reports, non‑representative samples, lack of control groups and other biases in the pro‑therapy literature [5] [6].
3. Peer‑reviewed evidence proponents point to: what it typically is and why critics reject it
Where peer‑reviewed papers favorably portrayed change, they tend to rely on self‑selected participants, retrospective surveys, or behavioral change metrics (e.g., changes in reported sexual behavior) rather than physiological arousal or stable identity measures; critics say that measures of behavior or stated identity are not proof of changed orientation and can be driven by social pressure, religiosity or fear [1] [6]. The Williams Institute and other reviewers examined recent studies since 2020 and found the pro‑therapy positive result[7] to be outliers and, in some cases, “invalid” or unsupported by the data according to other scholars cited in reporting [3].
4. Credibility: professional bodies and aggregated evidence weigh against conversion therapy
Every major U.S. medical and mental‑health association has condemned conversion therapy; systematic reviews and state health summaries conclude there is no reliable evidence that conversion treatments change sexual orientation and multiple studies link SOGIE change efforts to elevated depression, PTSD and suicidality [8] [5] [9]. Large, peer‑reviewed population studies cited in mainstream outlets (e.g., Trevor Project and Stanford Medicine research) find higher rates of suicide attempts and mental‑health problems among people exposed to conversion practices, and these are presented as counter‑evidence to proponent claims [10] [11].
5. Competing viewpoints and the legal/advocacy context
Advocates for bans emphasize aggregated reviews, harms identified in cohort and survey work, and professional consensus [1] [2]. Opponents and some attorneys contest the strength of harm‑finding studies and argue the science is debated — a line of argument seen at Supreme Court oral arguments where plaintiffs’ counsel said no studies demonstrate harm while state lawyers countered with suicide‑risk data [4] [12]. Reporting also shows advocacy groups selectively cited literature in court filings, prompting scholars to accuse those groups of misrepresentation [3].
6. Bottom line for readers: what the evidence supports and what remains contested
Available peer‑reviewed work that proponents cite tends to be small, methodologically limited, and contested by independent reviewers; multiple systematic reviews and professional bodies find no robust evidence conversion therapy changes sexual orientation and flag links to harm [1] [5] [2]. That said, reporting of the legal fight shows there is still contention over interpretation of specific studies in court, and proponents are using those contested studies in legal and public arguments [3] [4].