All the ethical concerns Love on the Spectrum stars have raised about the Netflix show
It's not just the US version that's come under fire
When Netflix’s Love on the Spectrum blossomed into a global hit, people praised its heartwarming portrayal of love in the neurodivergent community.
But behind the show’s feel-good vibe, some cast members and their families have spoken up with serious concerns about how it handles things like how autism is portrayed, consent, editing, and even whether people are getting paid.
Tanner’s mom raised concerns
One of the first critiques came from Tanner Smith’s mother, Nicci Smith, who argued that the series disproportionately highlights autistic individuals who are already on the more verbal, socially communicative end of the spectrum. While Tanner may outwardly appear to “do fine,” Nicci reminded viewers that it took years of therapy, support, and interventions (including ABA) for him to reach where he is now.
The concern, she said, was that there’s more of a focus largely on those with greater verbal or social skills.
The show risks sanitising autism and neglecting the lived realities of nonverbal or more profoundly impacted individuals.
Nicci’s words gave a voice to the many families who live “an unbelievably hard reality” with children who may never speak or live independently. In the process, Love on the Spectrum may unintentionally offer a narrow “best case” version of autism to audiences.
Kaelynn raised the ‘infantilisation’ issue
A repeated critique from cast member Kaelynn Partlow was that the show sometimes treats participants as perpetual children rather than adults with autonomy.
Critics accused the program of “infantilising” autistic people or crafting an “us v them” narrative that separates neurotypical and neurodivergent people.
But Kaelynn pushed back. She noted that many cast members publicly voiced that they felt they were treated with dignity and enjoyed the experience, so to claim they were infantilised felt hypocritical.
She also cautioned critics not to silence the voices of those who actually lived it: “You can’t expect one series alone to represent all the nuances of autism.”
Love on the Spectrum’s editing backlash
Several structural and stylistic choices drew fire, too. After backlash, Love on the Spectrum made changes in how cast members are introduced, especially avoiding the narration that described certain likes or dislikes tied to sensory sensitivity.
Critics felt that these voice-overs risked spotlighting sensory issues in a way that felt mocking.
The show’s musical scoring was also revised, as some felt the ‘cute’ or whimsical soundtrack subtly infantilised participants or made their experiences overly sentimental.
In response, producers said they were “very conscious” of not wanting to offend and aimed to balance authenticity with sensitivity.
These changes suggest that producers themselves recognised uncomfortable tensions in how editing might shape viewers’ perception of autistic individuals.
The participants don’t get paid
One of the more controversial ethical points raised is the fact that the cast isn’t paid for appearing in Love on the Spectrum.
Ruth and Thomas Wyndham, from the Australian version, openly argued that Netflix should pay the cast, given the show’s enormous success and global reach.
A spokesperson for production company Northern Picture defended the situation, claiming the show is “built on consent, collaboration, and respect,” and that while no pay is provided, production covers participants’ expenses so no one is financially disadvantaged.
A casting call also reportedly stated that participants would not be paid because the series is structured as a documentary.
But some argue that as the show has grown more like reality TV, with drama, story arcs, and strategic editing, the lack of compensation potentially exposes power imbalances. Participants are giving valuable content to a profit-making platform without direct financial return.
Past participants feel ‘forgotten’
Kaelynn also shared that she wasn’t invited back for seasons two or three, and said the whole process felt a bit unclear. She thought there was definitely room to improve how those decisions are made, and that the voices of the people actually on the show should be part of the conversation.
Some cast members have also said they feel a bit forgotten as the show moves on, especially when there’s no follow-up. It can make it feel like their stories were just a one-and-done moment, instead of part of something more meaningful or ongoing.
Reality Shrine reached out to Netflix for comment. For all the latest reality TV cast member news, scandals, gossip and updates – like Reality Shrine on Facebook.