Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) aim to distinguish training points (members) from unseen data (non-members), and are widely used to quantify memorization and assess privacy risks. Standard MIA evaluation requires repeated retraining, which is computationally costly for large models. One-run (single training with randomized data inclusion) and zero-run (post hoc evaluation) methods are often used instead, but their statistical validity remains unclear. We address this gap by framing MIA evaluation as a causal inference problem, defining \emph{memorization as the causal effect of including a data point in the training set}. This novel formulation reveals and formalizes key sources of bias in existing protocols: one-run methods suffer from interference between jointly included points, while zero-run evaluations are additionally confounded by distribution shift between member and non-member evaluation data. We derive causal analogues of standard MIA metrics and propose practical estimators for multi-run, one-run, and zero-run regimes with non-asymptotic consistency guarantees. We validate our approach in several settings, including pretrained and fine-tuned LLMs, showing that it enables reliable measurement of MIA performance without retraining and under distribution shift. Overall, our framework provides a principled foundation for privacy evaluation in modern AI systems.