Women and Political Parties

As part of CAWP's Research Inventory on Gender & Politics, this overview focuses on current and past research, with particular emphasis on the latest findings, related to women and political parties. This overview captures the state of knowledge to increase understanding of current political realities, support research-based interventions, and generate future research questions and agendas.

Women and Political Parties with hub image

The U.S. Constitution does not mention political parties. And yet political parties – as both organizations and identities – are central to American politics. Women pursue their interests through the major political parties and shape them.1 Indeed, the lone woman to ever serve as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives – Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) – was the leader of her party and is considered to be one of the most powerful speakers in U.S. history. But women’s ability to wield influence within the political parties is not guaranteed. Moreover, gender interacts with other identities to shape political party dynamics. 

Partisanship, Voting, and Public Opinion 

Observers commonly note the increasing “partisan polarization” of the country. Americans have moved further apart from each other on policy preferences and have even become distanced socially.2 We often think about parties as entities that offer competing policy agendas with people choosing the party that is closest to their policy views; political parties, by design, should take distinct policy positions through their platforms, thereby offering voters a choice. 

But the intense partisanship evident in the country today extends beyond traditional policy differences. Lilliana Mason argues in her book, Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, that partisanship is a “mega-identity” with more at stake in elections than public policy positions.3 For example, party affiliations as people’s identities can manifest in emotional responses that lead people to become active politically.4 The coincidence of racial/ethnic and gender identities with partisan identities can intensify the stakes of winning or losing elections because the parties are opposing “teams” and the successes and failures of one’s team can affect self-esteem and status.5

How the public understands and chooses between the parties reflects their own identities as well as their perceptions of other social groups. For example, Dara Strolovitch, Janelle Wong, and Andrew Proctor observe: “In taking the positions on gender and sexuality that it has taken, the Republican Party has been signaling to its adherents that rejecting feminist positions is part of what it means to be a Republican, and those messages seem to be reaching Republican-identified voters.”6 Nicholas Winter argues that voters unconsciously connect femininity with the Democratic Party and masculinity with the Republican Party.7 The Democratic and Republican parties’ positions on feminist and civil rights issues shifted in the twentieth century in response to social movements, leading to distinct partisan agendas today,8 and the parties’ contemporary responses to new issues such as #MeToo can shape electoral behavior.9 At the same time, how the public evaluates information about politicians, including #MeToo allegations, may depend on whether the politician shares the same party affiliation.10

Through the second half of the twentieth century, women remained more loyal to the Democratic Party while men gradually shifted towards the Republican Party.11 But both race/ethnicity and gender shape partisan loyalties and voting.12 For example, Black Americans are much more supportive of the Democratic Party than other racial/ethnic groups.13 But even within Black American attitudes and political behavior, gender plays a role.14 For example, Christine Slaughter, Chaya Crowder, and Christina Greer conclude that “Black women demonstrate a unique dedication to the Democratic Party.”15 Similarly, Christina Bejarano finds that Latinas are more Democratic than Latinos; 16and studies show that Asian American women are more Democratic than Asian American men.17 These gender differences – across and within racial/ethnic groups – extend to vote choice, where women have been more likely than their male counterparts to vote for Democratic candidates for more than four decades.18 For more see overview of Women Voters

Partisan loyalties shape voting behavior and explain voters’ policy preferences. However, even within the two parties, women and men may disagree to some extent on issues.19 For example, Tiffany D. Barnes and Erin C. Cassese find that “Republican women hold more moderate views than male copartisans across a range of women’s issues.”20 Meanwhile, women are more likely than men to be strong partisans.21

Women Candidates and Elections

Party gatekeepers have historically been obstacles to women aspiring to run for elective office.22 Today, women serve as party leaders, helping recruit candidates for office and backing preferred candidates. The status of women varies across the two major parties, however. Not only are women more likely to be affiliated with and vote for Democrats but women candidates and elected officials are disproportionately affiliated with the Democratic Party as well.23 Relatedly, women are more likely to hold leadership positions within the Democratic than Republican Party with implications for who is recruited to run for office.24 Party leaders can still act as negative gatekeepers to women candidates, however.25 Beyond recruitment or gatekeeping, the pathways that women take to office also vary by political party.26 For example, the types of organizations that facilitate women’s candidacies depend on party. Sanbonmatsu, Carroll, and Walsh found in a 2008 study that women’s organizations, civil rights organizations, and racial/ethnic organizations played a larger role in Democratic than Republican women state legislators’ paths to office.27

More recently, in CAWP's interviews with party practitioners and officeholders at the state level, Republicans were less likely than Democrats to identify women's underrepresentation as a systemic problem and to support targeted interventions to increase diversity among candidates and officeholders.28 Thus, there is no shared understanding of women’s underrepresentation across the parties, with implications for willingness to alter traditional candidate recruitment practices. 

Voters draw on politicians’ political party affiliations to make inferences and choose candidates. But how voters use party information usually depends on gender amongst other politician identities.29 For example, voters traditionally see women Republicans as more liberal than men Republicans.30 Politician race/ethnicity works with both gender and party to shape voters’ evaluations of candidates.31 Whether voters will support women candidates, and their views of the importance of electing more women to office, very much depends on voters’ party identification. For example, Kathleen Dolan finds a large partisan gap in preferences about women’s descriptive representation, with Republicans more likely than Democrats to prefer a majority-male government.32 These ideas are related to the gendered images conveyed by both parties.33 Moreover, sexism rates are higher for Republican than Democratic voters, creating different levels of receptivity for women candidates.34 And Jennifer Wolak finds that the public evaluates members of Congress along partisan lines but in ways that are especially polarized if the legislator is a woman.35 For more, see overview of Voter Attitudes Toward Women in Politics

Christopher Karpowitz and colleagues complicate what we know about how gender and party are connected by adding the dimension of gendered presentation style.36 They find that Democratic and Republican voters evidence different preferences for the “masculine” or “feminine” profile of candidates such that Republicans prefer more masculine candidates. They argue: “women do better with Republican voters – especially more conservative ones – when they focus on more stereotypically masculine qualifications and issues like taxes and the budget deficit rather than more stereotypically feminine issues like education.”37 In short, women’s success in appealing to voters often depends on a range of candidate characteristics beyond gender and varies by political party. For more, see overview of Women Candidates and their Campaigns

Elections are considered to be more “candidate-centered” in the United States compared with most countries because candidates appear on the ballot as individuals rather than appearing on a party list. Moreover, U.S. parties usually choose their nominees through primary elections. These dynamics mean that fundraising efforts usually fall to the candidate. At the same time, informal party donor networks are consequential. Even when political party organizations are not directly funding candidates, party-affiliated individuals and groups may do so. For these reasons, and due to the misperception that women were not electorally viable candidates, in the 1980s Ellen Malcolm helped found the women’s donor network “EMILY’s List.” EMILY’s List and other women’s PACs and donor networks have been essential to the rise of women’s congressional candidacies. Dedicated funding streams help women potential candidates establish – early in the candidate emergence process – that they have financial backing, showing they are credible candidates.38 But more efforts to recruit and fund women can be found on the Democratic than Republican side of the aisle.39 According to some research, party financial support for women congressional nominees has been similar to men nominees in both parties, although white women Democrats have fared better than other groups of women candidates.40

Analyses of the campaign contributions of women in state elections, part of CAWP’s ongoing Women, Money, and Politics research, show that women donors tend to support Democratic candidates more than Republican candidates, with women more likely to support women candidates within the primaries of both parties.41 In congressional elections as well, women donors direct more of their contributions to Democratic than Republican candidates, and particularly Democratic women candidates.42 For more, see overview of Women, Money, and Politics

Party Politics in Legislatures

It is common for congresswomen to perceive that women are more likely to work across party lines than men.43 And women have a history of working together across the aisle on certain issues important to women as a group such as women’s health and violence against women.44 Although later stages of the policymaking process, such as roll call votes, may reveal few gender differences, gender differences can be found within both parties at various stages of the legislative process and especially at the bill introduction stage.45 Meanwhile, women’s organizing as women within legislatures through women’s caucuses can challenge the status of party leaders and the influence of party caucuses. For example, Anna Mahoney’s scholarship shows that organizing as women in state legislatures may pose an alternative way of collectively promoting legislation, potentially disrupting party influence.46 For more, see overview of Women in Elective Office

Rather than viewing gender and party as competing dynamics, gender and party dynamics may be one and the same.47 In both state-level and federal-level policymaking processes, women may find their own partisan way to tackle issues, shaping their party’s approach to public policies.48 For example, Catherine Wineinger argues that Republican women have sometimes sought to advance a “partisan-gender identity” in their work in Congress.49 She finds that in their efforts to represent women, Republican women may challenge their (male) leadership by advocating for solutions as Republican women that may disrupt the party’s position; but, more often than not, Republican women in Congress act in accordance with their party. Indeed, Michele Swers and Danielle Thomsen find that “Republican women see more action on their proposals regarding women-focused and anti-abortion issues [which] suggests that women are acting as strategic party actors.”50 The Republican party image may benefit when women are the spokespeople for conservative issues that affect women, such as anti-abortion policies. 

This research demonstrates how partisanship interacts with gender identities to shape legislator behavior. But other identities, such as parental status or occupational background, also create shared interests within legislative institutions. Likewise, research that accounts for the role of both race/ethnicity and gender in legislative work is attentive to how partisanship interacts with these identities. At the same time, other identities create shared interests within legislative institutions, with political party working together with racial/ethnic identities as well as gender identities.51

Suggested Citation: Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Paru Shah. 2026. CAWP Research Inventory on Gender & Politics. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Endnotes 

1 Deckman, Melissa. 2016. Tea Party Women: Mama Grizzlies, Grassroots Leaders, and the Changing Face of the American Right. New York, NY: New York University Press; Freeman, Jo. 2000. A Room at a Time: How Women Entered Party Politics. Lanham, MD:  Rowman & Littlefield; Och, Malliga, and Shauna Lani Shames. 2018. The Right Women: Republican Party Activists, Candidates, and Legislators. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

2 Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

3 Mason 2018, 14 

4 Huddy, Leonie, Lilliana Mason, and Lene Aarøe. 2015. "Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity." American Political Science Review 109 (1): 1–17. 

5 Mason 2018 

6 Strolovitch, Dara Z., Janelle S. Wong, and Andrew Proctor. 2017. "A Possessive Investment in White Heteropatriarchy? The 2016 Election and the Politics of Race, Gender, and Sexuality." Politics, Groups & Identities 5 (2): 353–63, 359. 

7 Winter, Nicholas J. G. 2010. "Masculine Republicans and Feminine Democrats: Gender and Americans' Explicit and Implicit Images of the Political Parties." Political Behavior 32 (4): 587–618.

8 Freeman, Jo. 1987. "Whom You Know Versus Whom You Represent: Feminist Influence in the Democratic and Republican Parties." In The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe: Consciousness, Political Opportunity, and Public Policy, eds. Mary F. Katzenstein and Carol M. Mueller. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women's Place. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. The Politics of Women's Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

9 Holman, Mirya R., and Nathan P. Kalmoe. 2024. "Partisanship in the #MeToo Era." Perspectives on Politics 22 (1): 44–61.

10 Klar, Samara, and Alexandra McCoy. 2021. "Partisan-Motivated Evaluations of Sexual Misconduct and the Mitigating Role of the #MeToo Movement." American Journal of Political Science 65 (4): 777–89.

11 Kaufmann, Karen M., and John R. Petrocik. 1999. "The Changing Politics of American Men: Understanding the Sources of the Gender Gap." American Journal of Political Science 43 (3): 864–87; Lizotte, Mary-Kate. 2020. Gender Differences in Public Opinion: Values and Political Consequences. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 

12 Junn, Jane, and Natalie Masuoka. 2024. Women Voters: Race, Gender, and Dynamism in American Elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13 White, Ismail K., and Chryl Nicole Laird. 2020. Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

14 Robnett, Belinda, and Katherine Tate. 2023. Gendered Pluralism. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Slaughter, Christine, Chaya Crowder, and Christina Greer. 2024. "Black Women: Keepers of Democracy, the Democratic Process, and the Democratic Party." Politics & Gender 20 (1): 162–81. 

15 Slaughter et al. 2024, 168

16 Bejarano, Christina E. 2014. The Latino Gender Gap in U.S. Politics. New York, NY: Routledge.

17 Wong, Janelle, Karthick Ramakrishnan, Taeku Lee, and Jane Junn. 2011. Asian American Political Participation: Emerging Constituents and their Political Identities. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

18 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Gender Gaps in Vote Choice and Party Identification.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/voters/gender-gaps-vote-choice-and-party-identification

19 Baker, Anne, and Monica C. Schneider. 2025. “Party Convergence and Divergence Among Republican Women.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 46 (3): 248–61; Barnes, Tiffany D., and Erin C. Cassese. 2017. "American Party Women: A Look at the Gender Gap within Parties" Political Research Quarterly 70 (1): 127–41; Hansen, Michael A., Jennifer L. Clemens, and Kathleen Dolan. 2022. "Gender Gaps, Partisan Gaps, and Cross-Pressures: An Examination of American Attitudes Toward the Use of Force." Politics & Gender 18 (1): 273–95.

20 Barnes and Cassese 2017, 129 

21 Ondercin, Heather Louise, and Mary-Kate Lizotte. 2020. "You’ve Lost That Loving Feeling: How Gender Shapes Affective Polarization." American Politics Research 49 (3): 282–92.

22 Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2013. “Gendered Recruitment Without Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women’s Representation.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 390–413; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2006. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 

23 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “State Legislature.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature#PercentofPartybyState; Elder, Laurel. 2021. The Partisan Gap: Why Democratic Women Get Elected but Republican Women Don't. New York, NY: New York University Press.

24 Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

25 Dowe, Pearl K. Ford. 2023. The Radical Imagination of Black Women: Ambition, Politics, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Phillips, Christian Dyogi. 2021. Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

26 Fulton, Sarah A., and Kostanca Dhima. 2021. "The Gendered Politics of Congressional Elections." Political Behavior 43 (4): 1611–37; Jeydel, Alana, and William R. Wilkerson. 2025. “Why Aren’t More Women on the Gubernatorial Ballot?” Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (2): 346–67; Palmer, Barbara, and Dennis Michael Simon. 2012. Women and Congressional Elections: A Century of Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers; Pearson, Kathryn, and Eric McGhee. 2013. "What It Takes to Win: Questioning ‘Gender Neutral’ Outcomes in U.S. House Elections." Politics & Gender 9 (4): 439–62; Thomsen, Danielle M. 2015. "Why So Few (Republican) Women? Explaining the Partisan Imbalance of Women in the US Congress." Legislative Studies Quarterly 40 (2): 295–323.

27 Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Susan J. Carroll, and Debbie Walsh. 2009. Poised to Run: Women’s Pathways to the State Legislature. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/poisedtorun_a11y.pdf

28 Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. Rethinking Women’s Political Power. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://rethinkingpower.rutgers.edu/

29 Bauer, Nichole M. 2018. "Untangling the Relationship between Partisanship, Gender Stereotypes, and Support for Female Candidates." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 39 (1): 1–25; Ditonto, Tessa, David J. Andersen, and David A. M. Peterson. 2025. "The Gendered Risks of Violating Expectations and the Importance of Information for Women Candidates." Politics & Gender (Online) 1–31; Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Kathleen Dolan. 2009. "Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?" Political Research Quarterly 62 (3): 485–94; Schneider, Monica C., and Angela L. Bos. 2016. "The Interplay of Candidate Party and Gender in Evaluations of Political Candidates." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37 (3): 274–94.

30 King, David C., and Richard E. Matland. 2003. “Sex and the Grand Old Party: An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Candidate Sex on Support for a Republican Candidate.” American Politics Research 31 (6): 595–612.

31 Carey Jr., Tony E., and Mary-Kate Lizotte. 2019. "Political Experience and the Intersection Between Race and Gender." Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (2): 243–66.

32 Dolan, Kathleen. 2010. "The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluations on Support for Women Candidates." Political Behavior 32 (1): 69–88.

33 Winter 2010 

34 Winter, Nicholas J. G. 2023. "Hostile Sexism, Benevolent Sexism, and American Elections." Politics & Gender 19 (2): 427–56.

35 Wolak, Jennifer. 2024. "Partisan Bias and Evaluations of Women in Congress." Politics, Groups, and Identities 12 (5): 1074–92.

36 Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Jessica R. Preece, and Alejandra Aldridge. 2024. "Selecting for Masculinity: Women’s Under-Representation in the Republican Party." American Political Science Review 118 (4): 1873–94.

37 Karpowitz et al. 2024, 1884

38 Burrell, Barbara. 2014. Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

39 Crowder-Meyer, Melody, and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2018. "Can’t Buy Them Love: How Party Culture among Donors Contributes to the Party Gap in Women’s Representation." The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1211–24; Dittmar 2023; Swers, Michele L., and Danielle M. Thomsen. 2020. "Building a Campaign Donor Network: How Candidate Gender and Partisanship Impact the Campaign Money Chase." In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

40 Fraga, Bernard L., and Hans J. G. Hassell. 2021. "Are Minority and Women Candidates Penalized by Party Politics? Race, Gender, and Access to Party Support." Political Research Quarterly 74 (3): 540–55.

41 Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2023. The Donor Gap: Raising Women’s Political Voices. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research/cawp-women-money-and-politics-series/donor-gap

42 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2024. Donor Gaps: Demographics Analysis. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research/cawp-women-money-and-politics-series/money-watch-2024/donor?donorPage=national

43 Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Susan J. Carroll. 2018. A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen's Perspectives on Why Their Presence Matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

44 Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018; Heckler, Kimberly. 2025. A Woman of Firsts: Margaret Heckler, Political Trailblazer. Essex, CT: Lyons Press; Wolbrecht, Christina. 2002. "Female Legislators and the Women's Rights Agenda: From Feminine Mystique to Feminist Era." In Women Transforming Congress, ed. Cindy S. Rosenthal. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.  

45 Atkinson, Mary Layton, Reza Mousavi, and Jason H. Windett. 2023. "Detecting Diverse Perspectives: Using Text Analytics to Reveal Sex Differences in Congressional Debate About Defense." Political Research Quarterly 76 (1): 75–89; Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; Swers, Michele L. 2013. Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

46 Mahoney, Anna Mitchell. 2018. Women Take Their Place in State Legislatures: The Creation of Women's Caucuses. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

47 Osborn, Tracy L. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender, and Representation in the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

48 Rolfes-Haase, Kelly L., and Michele L. Swers. 2022. “Understanding the Gender and Partisan Dynamics of Abortion Voting in the House of Representatives.” Politics & Gender 18 (2): 448–82; Swers 2013

49 Wineinger, Catherine N. 2022. Gendering the GOP: Intraparty Politics and Republican Women's Representation in Congress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

50 Swers, Michele L., and Danielle M. Thomsen. 2025. "Understanding the Policy Priorities of Republican Women in the US House of Representatives." Politics & Gender 21 (2): 306–32, 327. 

51 Brown, Nadia. 2014. Sisters in the Statehouse: Black Women and Legislative Decision Making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018; Matthews, Abigail A., Tracy Osborn, Emily U. Schilling, and Rebecca Kreitzer. 2025. "Legislative Success and Collaboration in the Texas State House." Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (1): 159–81; Reingold, Beth, Kerry Lee Haynie, and Kirsten Widner. 2021. Race, Gender, and Political Representation: Toward a More Intersectional Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 1

    Deckman, Melissa. 2016. Tea Party Women: Mama Grizzlies, Grassroots Leaders, and the Changing Face of the American Right. New York, NY: New York University Press; Freeman, Jo. 2000. A Room at a Time: How Women Entered Party Politics. Lanham, MD:  Rowman & Littlefield; Och, Malliga, and Shauna Lani Shames. 2018. The Right Women: Republican Party Activists, Candidates, and Legislators. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

  • 2

    Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

  • 3

    Mason 2018, 14 

  • 4

    Huddy, Leonie, Lilliana Mason, and Lene Aarøe. 2015. "Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity." American Political Science Review 109 (1): 1–17. 

  • 5

    Mason 2018 

  • 6

    Strolovitch, Dara Z., Janelle S. Wong, and Andrew Proctor. 2017. "A Possessive Investment in White Heteropatriarchy? The 2016 Election and the Politics of Race, Gender, and Sexuality." Politics, Groups & Identities 5 (2): 353–63, 359.

  • 7

    Winter, Nicholas J. G. 2010. "Masculine Republicans and Feminine Democrats: Gender and Americans' Explicit and Implicit Images of the Political Parties." Political Behavior 32 (4): 587–618.

  • 8

    Freeman, Jo. 1987. "Whom You Know Versus Whom You Represent: Feminist Influence in the Democratic and Republican Parties." In The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe: Consciousness, Political Opportunity, and Public Policy, eds. Mary F. Katzenstein and Carol M. Mueller. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women's Place. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. The Politics of Women's Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • 9

    Holman, Mirya R., and Nathan P. Kalmoe. 2024. "Partisanship in the #MeToo Era." Perspectives on Politics 22 (1): 44–61.

  • 10

    Klar, Samara, and Alexandra McCoy. 2021. "Partisan-Motivated Evaluations of Sexual Misconduct and the Mitigating Role of the #MeToo Movement." American Journal of Political Science 65 (4): 777–89.

  • 11

    Kaufmann, Karen M., and John R. Petrocik. 1999. "The Changing Politics of American Men: Understanding the Sources of the Gender Gap." American Journal of Political Science 43 (3): 864–87; Lizotte, Mary-Kate. 2020. Gender Differences in Public Opinion: Values and Political Consequences. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 

  • 12

    Junn, Jane, and Natalie Masuoka. 2024. Women Voters: Race, Gender, and Dynamism in American Elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • 13

    White, Ismail K., and Chryl Nicole Laird. 2020. Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

  • 14

    Robnett, Belinda, and Katherine Tate. 2023. Gendered Pluralism. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Slaughter, Christine, Chaya Crowder, and Christina Greer. 2024. "Black Women: Keepers of Democracy, the Democratic Process, and the Democratic Party." Politics & Gender 20 (1): 162–81. 

  • 15

    Slaughter et al. 2024, 168

  • 16

    Bejarano, Christina E. 2014. The Latino Gender Gap in U.S. Politics. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • 17

    Wong, Janelle, Karthick Ramakrishnan, Taeku Lee, and Jane Junn. 2011. Asian American Political Participation: Emerging Constituents and their Political Identities. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

  • 18

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Gender Gaps in Vote Choice and Party Identification.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/voters/gender-gaps-vote-choice-and-party-identification

  • 19

    Baker, Anne, and Monica C. Schneider. 2025. “Party Convergence and Divergence Among Republican Women.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 46 (3): 248–61; Barnes, Tiffany D., and Erin C. Cassese. 2017. "American Party Women: A Look at the Gender Gap within Parties" Political Research Quarterly 70 (1): 127–41; Hansen, Michael A., Jennifer L. Clemens, and Kathleen Dolan. 2022. "Gender Gaps, Partisan Gaps, and Cross-Pressures: An Examination of American Attitudes Toward the Use of Force." Politics & Gender 18 (1): 273–95.

  • 20

    Barnes and Cassese 2017, 129 

  • 21

    Ondercin, Heather Louise, and Mary-Kate Lizotte. 2020. "You’ve Lost That Loving Feeling: How Gender Shapes Affective Polarization." American Politics Research 49 (3): 282–92.

  • 22

    Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2013. “Gendered Recruitment Without Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women’s Representation.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 390–413; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2006. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 

  • 23

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “State Legislature.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature#PercentofPartybyState; Elder, Laurel. 2021. The Partisan Gap: Why Democratic Women Get Elected but Republican Women Don't. New York, NY: New York University Press.

  • 24

    Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

  • 25

    Dowe, Pearl K. Ford. 2023. The Radical Imagination of Black Women: Ambition, Politics, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Phillips, Christian Dyogi. 2021. Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 26

    Fulton, Sarah A., and Kostanca Dhima. 2021. "The Gendered Politics of Congressional Elections." Political Behavior 43 (4): 1611–37; Jeydel, Alana, and William R. Wilkerson. 2025. “Why Aren’t More Women on the Gubernatorial Ballot?” Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (2): 346–67; Palmer, Barbara, and Dennis Michael Simon. 2012. Women and Congressional Elections: A Century of Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers; Pearson, Kathryn, and Eric McGhee. 2013. "What It Takes to Win: Questioning ‘Gender Neutral’ Outcomes in U.S. House Elections." Politics & Gender 9 (4): 439–62; Thomsen, Danielle M. 2015. "Why So Few (Republican) Women? Explaining the Partisan Imbalance of Women in the US Congress." Legislative Studies Quarterly 40 (2): 295–323.

  • 27

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Susan J. Carroll, and Debbie Walsh. 2009. Poised to Run: Women’s Pathways to the State Legislature. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2022-01/poisedtorun_a11y.pdf

  • 28

    Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. Rethinking Women’s Political Power. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://rethinkingpower.rutgers.edu/

  • 29

    Bauer, Nichole M. 2018. "Untangling the Relationship between Partisanship, Gender Stereotypes, and Support for Female Candidates." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 39 (1): 1–25; Ditonto, Tessa, David J. Andersen, and David A. M. Peterson. 2025. "The Gendered Risks of Violating Expectations and the Importance of Information for Women Candidates." Politics & Gender (Online) 1–31; Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Kathleen Dolan. 2009. "Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?" Political Research Quarterly 62 (3): 485–94; Schneider, Monica C., and Angela L. Bos. 2016. "The Interplay of Candidate Party and Gender in Evaluations of Political Candidates." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37 (3): 274–94.

  • 30

    King, David C., and Richard E. Matland. 2003. “Sex and the Grand Old Party: An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Candidate Sex on Support for a Republican Candidate.” American Politics Research 31 (6): 595–612.

  • 31

    Carey Jr., Tony E., and Mary-Kate Lizotte. 2019. "Political Experience and the Intersection Between Race and Gender." Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (2): 243–66.

  • 32

    Dolan, Kathleen. 2010. "The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluations on Support for Women Candidates." Political Behavior 32 (1): 69–88.

  • 33

    Winter 2010

  • 34

    Winter, Nicholas J. G. 2023. "Hostile Sexism, Benevolent Sexism, and American Elections." Politics & Gender 19 (2): 427–56.

  • 35

    Wolak, Jennifer. 2024. "Partisan Bias and Evaluations of Women in Congress." Politics, Groups, and Identities 12 (5): 1074–92.

  • 36

    Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Jessica R. Preece, and Alejandra Aldridge. 2024. "Selecting for Masculinity: Women’s Under-Representation in the Republican Party." American Political Science Review 118 (4): 1873–94.

  • 37

    Karpowitz et al. 2024, 1884

  • 38

    Burrell, Barbara. 2014. Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

  • 39

    Crowder-Meyer, Melody, and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2018. "Can’t Buy Them Love: How Party Culture among Donors Contributes to the Party Gap in Women’s Representation." The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1211–24; Dittmar 2023; Swers, Michele L., and Danielle M. Thomsen. 2020. "Building a Campaign Donor Network: How Candidate Gender and Partisanship Impact the Campaign Money Chase." In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

  • 40

    Fraga, Bernard L., and Hans J. G. Hassell. 2021. "Are Minority and Women Candidates Penalized by Party Politics? Race, Gender, and Access to Party Support." Political Research Quarterly 74 (3): 540–55.

  • 41

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2023. The Donor Gap: Raising Women’s Political Voices. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research/cawp-women-money-and-politics-series/donor-gap

  • 42

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2024. Donor Gaps: Demographics Analysis. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research/cawp-women-money-and-politics-series/money-watch-2024/donor?donorPage=national

  • 43

    Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Susan J. Carroll. 2018. A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen's Perspectives on Why Their Presence Matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 44

    Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018; Heckler, Kimberly. 2025. A Woman of Firsts: Margaret Heckler, Political Trailblazer. Essex, CT: Lyons Press; Wolbrecht, Christina. 2002. "Female Legislators and the Women's Rights Agenda: From Feminine Mystique to Feminist Era." In Women Transforming Congress, ed. C. S. Rosenthal. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 

  • 45

    Atkinson, Mary Layton, Reza Mousavi, and Jason H. Windett. 2023. "Detecting Diverse Perspectives: Using Text Analytics to Reveal Sex Differences in Congressional Debate About Defense." Political Research Quarterly 76 (1): 75–89; Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; Swers, Michele L. 2013. Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

  • 46

    Mahoney, Anna Mitchell. 2018. Women Take Their Place in State Legislatures: The Creation of Women's Caucuses. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

  • 47

    Osborn, Tracy L. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender, and Representation in the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 48

    Rolfes-Haase, Kelly L., and Michele L. Swers. 2022. “Understanding the Gender and Partisan Dynamics of Abortion Voting in the House of Representatives.” Politics & Gender 18 (2): 448–82; Swers 2013

  • 49

    Wineinger, Catherine N. 2022. Gendering the GOP: Intraparty Politics and Republican Women's Representation in Congress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 50

    Swers, Michele L., and Danielle M. Thomsen. 2025. "Understanding the Policy Priorities of Republican Women in the US House of Representatives." Politics & Gender 21 (2): 306–32, 327. 

  • 51

    Brown, Nadia. 2014. Sisters in the Statehouse: Black Women and Legislative Decision Making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018; Matthews, Abigail A., Tracy Osborn, Emily U. Schilling, and Rebecca Kreitzer. 2025. "Legislative Success and Collaboration in the Texas State House." Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (1): 159–81; Reingold, Beth, Kerry Lee Haynie, and Kirsten Widner. 2021. Race, Gender, and Political Representation: Toward a More Intersectional Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.