Assessment of the psychological and social circumstances of candidates for assisted reproduction is commonly justified with references to the welfare of the intended child. In nine focus group discussions with 64 clinic staff at four public fertility clinics in Sweden, the responsible use of public resources constituted another important justification for such assessments. Theoretically, this study draws on Julia Black’s (2002) identification of the role of regulatory conversations in decision makers’ policy interpretations. Focus groups defined the desired outcome of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment as a well - functioning family , and represented the aim of ART treatment as solving problems without creating new problems for the candidates, the intended child or society. In the discourse of solving and preventing problems, the welfare of the child argument, the responsible use of resources argument and the discourse of personal responsibility merge. Lack of consideration for the circumstances in which the child will grow up was not considered a responsible use of resources because ART treatment would then risk creating more problems than it solved. The results of this study suggest that while publicly funded subsidization of fertility treatment has increased accessibility to ART treatment for candidates who lack the financial means to pay, clinic staff justified restricting access to ART treatment with concern for how public resources are spent.