ABSTRACTPrevious studies suggest that NIPT's implementation differed widely across countries but offer limited insight into what shaped these differences. To address this gap, we conducted an in‐depth analysis of how NIPT was incorporated into prenatal care in the US, the Netherlands, and Japan—countries with similar economic status—to identify actionable lessons. We conducted an integrative literature review on the process of introducing and implementing NIPT, stakeholders' roles, documented considerations in the decision to introduce NIPT, implementation choices, and NIPT uptake. We included 184 sources, including white and gray literature and non‐English sources. We identified 17 considerations that were documented to have influenced the decision whether to introduce NIPT across five domains: clinical considerations, ethical considerations and societal values, financial considerations, demand and capacity and applicable oversight. Fewer factors seem to have been considered in the US as compared to Japan or the Netherlands. Countries subsequently made choices on how to implement NIPT—we identified 35 such choices. While most of the identified choices were eventually considered by all three countries, they made different decisions (e.g., on out‐of‐pocket costs). In 2022, the estimated proportion of pregnant persons who used NIPT was 58% in the Netherlands, 49% in the US, and 9% in Japan. While differences in cultural values, population characteristics, and healthcare systems explain some variation, we identified other more adaptable aspects of the decision‐making process (e.g., oversight) that may be useful for countries introducing NIPT or similar technologies to consider.