A single scientific study is being used to support starkly different headlines on antidepressant use in pregnancy, exposing how framing can shape public perception of medical risk.

On the liberal side, coverage stresses reassurance. The Guardian leads with the bottom-line finding that “antidepressants in pregnancy do not raise children’s risk of autism or ADHD,” emphasizing that once researchers controlled for pre-existing maternal mental health conditions and genetics, the initially observed 35% higher ADHD risk and 69% higher autism risk became “non-significant.”¹ The article underlines expert messaging that commonly used antidepressants “do not increase the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders” and warns that halting treatment can carry serious relapse risks for women with moderate to severe depression.¹

Conservative coverage, by contrast, foregrounds the alarm. The Epoch Times’ headline stresses that “2 antidepressants during pregnancy [are] linked to elevated autism risk,”² opening with the association found in raw data: prenatal antidepressant use was tied to a “slightly higher risk” of autism, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental disorders.² Only later does the piece acknowledge that sensitivity analyses adjusting for maternal mental illness and family factors “largely eliminated the elevated risk or dropped it to levels not considered significant.”²

Both accounts describe the same Hong Kong–led meta-analysis of 37 studies covering more than half a million pregnancies and agree that confounding factors—especially parental mental health and genetics—explain most or all of the apparent risk.¹² The key divergence lies in emphasis: liberal framing highlights reassurance and the dangers of untreated depression, while conservative framing underscores any signal of risk and the need for heightened caution.

For expectant parents and clinicians, the evidence base is shared; the interpretive lens is not.