Women in Elective Office

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 in elective office. 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 in Elective Office with hub image

In 2026, women hold one-third or fewer of elective offices in the United States at the municipal, state, and federal levels.1 While women have made notable gains in recent decades, they remain underrepresented in politics as compared to their representation in the U.S. population across and within racial/ethnic groups. Women have been better represented in state legislatures and in municipal offices than in the U.S. Congress or statewide elective executive offices, though these differences are small in contemporary U.S. politics. Notably, however, women have achieved parity with men in four state legislatures.2

Larger differences in women’s representation are evident by political party, with women making up a larger share of Democratic than Republican officeholders. For example, as of March 2026, women are near parity (49.4%) with men among Democratic state legislators nationwide, while women are just 21.4% of Republican state legislators.3 Democratic women are at or above parity with Democratic men in 30 state legislatures, while gender parity remains elusive among Republican state legislators in almost every state.4 Racial/ethnic diversity among women officeholders is also greater among Democrats than Republicans, but significant disparities persist across parties in representation of Asian American/Pacific Islander, Black, Latina, Middle Eastern/North African, and Native American/ Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian women.5 Together, these data reflect what scholars term “descriptive representation” of women, whereby a representative stands for a constituency or community “by being sufficiently like them.”6

A significant portion of gender and politics research has been committed to investigating why women are underrepresented as officeholders and explaining disparities by party, race/ethnicity, level of office, and geography. For more, see overview of Women Candidates and their Campaigns

But data on women’s descriptive representation also raise important questions about how the dearth of women officeholders has affected and continues to shape the politics and policy of the United States. A growing body of evidence shows that gender is an important factor in shaping how officeholders do their work and how they experience officeholding. The impact of women in elective office is also symbolic, influencing perceptions of Americans in ways that can disrupt stereotypical expectations, elicit greater trust in government, and motivate political engagement among historically excluded groups. Recent research demonstrates that these effects vary at the intersections of gender and race, party, and level of office, among others. Finally, beyond investigating why women are underrepresented and how their representation matters in elective office, research seeks to better understand the ways in which women experience and navigate political institutions as elected leaders. 

Substantive Representation

Policy Priorities and Legislative Behavior

Measuring the impact of women’s political representation on policy outcomes requires evaluation at all stages of the legislative process. Studies that focus on roll-call voting across issue areas show that party affiliation and constituency demands typically supersede gender in shaping how legislators vote.7 However, research on both state legislatures and Congress has found gender differences at the agenda-setting or bill-introduction stage, as well as in the voices and perspective that women and men bring to legislative debates.

National studies of state legislators conducted by the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) in 1988 and 2001 found that women legislators were more likely than their male colleagues to list a women’s rights bill or a bill affecting children and families as a top priority.8 Analyzing the impact of women in the 103rd (1993-1995) and 104th (1995-1997) Congresses, Michele Swers found similarly that women were more likely to sponsor women’s issues bills.9 Interviews and case studies from CAWP’s study of women in the same congresses illuminated the role that women legislators played throughout the policy process – and often behind closed doors – in promoting issues important to women and in encouraging attention to the gendered impact of all policies.10 Swers’ book on women in the U.S. Senate provides additional evidence of gender differences in prioritization of feminist bills and a desire among women senators of both parties to represent women.11 In CAWP’s study of women in the 114th  Congress (2015-2017), congresswomen from both major political parties again revealed their distinctive influence on policy agendas and debates.12 But these studies also showed important differences in how women of different parties, race/ethnicity, and occupational backgrounds view and prioritize women’s and other issues.

While the congresswomen interviewed in CAWP’s study expressed a primary commitment to representing their districts or states, many Black and Latina congresswomen said that representing Black and Latina/o communities was an important component of their jobs as representatives.13 With Asian women legislators, they reported bringing unique perspectives – often grounded in personal experiences – to congressional deliberation and policymaking rather than a distinctive policy agenda. These findings are consistent with research at the state legislative level that has documented the ways in which race and gender identities inform legislators’ policy preferences, influence, and behavior.14 In Race, Gender, and Political Representation, Beth Reingold, Kerry Haynie, and Kirsten Widner provide an in-depth investigation into the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation in state legislatures at intersections of race and gender. In challenging single-axis approaches to measuring women’s legislative impact, the authors conclude that, “The representation of those marginalized by multiple, intersecting systems of power and inequality is intricately bound to the representation of women of color.”15 For more, see overviews of Asian American,   Black, and Latina Women in Politics

The intersection of gender and partisanship produces particularly complex patterns in legislative behavior. In an extensive study of gender and party effects across state legislatures, Tracy Osborn found that Democratic and Republican women state legislators bring very different viewpoints to their roles as lawmakers.16 She argues that the concept of “women’s representation” must account for the ways that women legislate through their political parties. Michele Swers and Danielle Thomsen analyzed legislative activity of congressional Republicans from 1993 to 2014 and found that Republican women deemed as ideologically moderate or mainstream conservatives were still more likely than their male counterparts to sponsor or co-sponsor women-focused and social welfare legislation.17 But legislative priorities of the most conservative congresswomen differed little from men. As ideological differences between male and female lawmakers have narrowed over time,18 the likelihood of partisanship superseding gender on legislative priorities and positions has grown. While women in the 114th Congress reported that women were more bipartisan than their male counterparts and provided examples of how and why they were more motivated and capable than men to work across party lines, the partisan divisions in legislatures have only hardened since then.19

Research on issues related to reproductive rights demonstrate how differences in women's positioning challenge simple assumptions about gender solidarity. For example, Beth Reingold and colleagues found that conservative Republican women state legislators were more likely than men to lead anti-abortion policy initiatives, actively championing restrictive legislation as pro-women and pro-life rather than moderating their party's positions.20 They found an increase in state legislative proposals of this type between 1997 and 2012. In a study of Republican women’s behavior on pro-life initiatives in Congress over a 25-year period (1993-2018), Kelly Rolfes-Haase and Michele Swers found that while Republican women in Congress were more likely than their male counterparts to oppose pro-life initiatives through 2009, they have behaved in ways consistent with Republican men since then.21 These findings reveal that while gender can influence legislative behavior on reproductive policy, or any other policy, its effects are contingent on ideological context and institutional pressures.

Evidence from another policy area – foreign policy – demonstrates how substantive representation by women is context-dependent and issue-specific rather than reflecting universal gendered policy preferences. For example, in their analysis of congressional floor speeches, Mary Layton Atkinson, Reza Mousavi, and Jason Windett found that congresswomen focused on different facets of defense issues than their male counterparts, emphasizing implications for women, civilians, and communities rather than traditional security frameworks.22 Their research suggests that gender shapes how legislators conceptualize and approach foreign policy questions. However, the evidence for gendered policy differences is inconsistent across domains. Katelyn Stauffer and colleagues found no evidence that women in the U.S. House of Representatives behaved differently than men on development aid issues – in bill sponsorship, congressional hearing participation, lobbying bureaucratic agencies, or roll-call voting – indicating that gender does not uniformly predict legislative behavior across all policy areas.23

Legislative Effectiveness and Cooperation

Despite facing structural disadvantages within legislative institutions, women legislators often demonstrate equal or superior effectiveness compared to their male colleagues, though traditional metrics may obscure the full extent of their accomplishments. Multiple studies have shown that women in Congress are more likely than their male counterparts to sponsor and co-sponsor legislation,24 bring home federal dollars to their district,25 and move bills through the legislative process.26

In their detailed look into legislative effectiveness in Congress, Mandi Eatough and Jessica Preece demonstrate that using a wider variety of less conventional measures of legislative effectiveness is necessary to prevent systematically undercounting women's and Black members' success.27 For example, Nadia Brown and colleagues find that Black congresswomen use caucuses as vehicles for pursuing intersectional legislation, framing their lived experiences as women of color as sources of policy expertise and advocacy authority that inform their legislative priorities.28 Celeste Montoya and Mariana Galvez Seminario argue that Latinas develop a mestiza consciousness – a hybrid political identity that emerges from navigating multiple, often conflicting social positions –  which positions them as bridge builders capable of connecting diverse communities and political coalitions through their intersectional experiences.29

These findings on women’s legislative effectiveness extend to state legislatures. Mirya Holman and Anna Mahoney use the existence of term limits to demonstrate that women state legislators’ outperformance of men in legislative effectiveness is not attributable purely to electoral interests or vulnerability.30 This pattern of superior performance persists even when women are systematically disadvantaged in institutional positioning. Robert McGrath and colleagues found that women in professional state legislatures were more effective than men despite receiving less valuable committee assignments than their male counterparts.31 Collectively, these studies reveal that women legislators not only overcome institutional barriers but excel despite them. They also highlight the need for measurement approaches that fully capture diverse pathways to legislative impact.

Earlier research attributed women’s legislative effectiveness in moving bills through the U.S. Congress to the ability of women in the minority party to successfully build coalitions.32 More recent research, however, presents a more paradoxical picture. Women in the 114th Congress told CAWP researchers that their motivation to get things done inspired greater efforts to work across party lines, including with other women.33 They offered examples of how participation in bipartisan, single-sex activities such as dinners, the congressional women’s softball team, the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues (CCWI), and travel helped to foster cross-party collaboration. However, those activities appear to be less likely today amidst the increasing polarization of the two parties both inside and outside of the legislature.

In an analysis of state legislative bills in 2015, Mirya Holman and colleagues found that legislation with women cosponsors were more likely than those with only male cosponsors to come up for vote and be signed into law.34 They found that bipartisan women's collaboration was especially effective in advancing legislation, suggesting that women legislators leverage cross-party networks to navigate legislative processes more successfully than their male counterparts. However, these findings likely vary by state and time, as well as modes of collaboration. For example, in one study of legislative success in the Texas House between 1993 and 2019, the authors found that collaborative approaches to bill sponsorship did not increase women’s likelihood of bill passage.35 Emma Crewe and Michelle Taylor-Robinson offer a potential explanation for this disconnect in their qualitative assessment of the Texas House in 2023, finding that women in the Texas legislature are not building the kinds of bipartisan networks that prove effective elsewhere; party polarization constrains women's ability or willingness to work across party lines.36 Together, these studies suggest that while women's collaborative approaches hold theoretical promise for legislative effectiveness, their practical impact depends critically on whether institutional conditions allow bipartisan coalition-building to flourish or compel legislators to prioritize party loyalty over gender-based cooperation.

Promoting Gender Inclusion

When asked about the importance of their representation, women officeholders have told researchers that they leverage their positions to promote the inclusion of more women into positions of political power and influence.37 This includes employing women as members of their staffs38 and supporting efforts to recruit and support women candidates for elective office.39 Women state legislators told CAWP researchers that women in legislative leadership have also contributed to the promotion of other women legislators to leadership roles.40

Symbolic Representation

One avenue of research asks if women’s presence in politics and government has a symbolic effect on voters — and particularly women. Over two decades ago, Nancy E. Burns, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba found that women candidates and elected officials closed the traditional gender gap in psychological engagement, concluding, “The more it looks as if politics is not simply a man’s game, the more psychologically involved with politics women are.”41 Since then, some studies have failed to find the hypothesized effects,42 while other studies find evidence that the visibility of women candidates and officeholders generates measurable effects on political efficacy, engagement, knowledge, and ambition that extend across generations and partisan lines.43 But these impacts manifest differently depending on context and they are often conditional on shared partisanship or other overlapping identities.44

More recent analyses show the positive but conditional relationship between women’s descriptive representation and women’s political engagement and ambition. For example, Christina Ladam, Jeffrey Harden, and Jason Windett found that the presence of women in high-profile offices of governor and senator had a positive effect on women’s emergence as state legislative candidates in the same state.45 Cory Manento and Marie Schenk took a similar approach to demonstrate that the prominence of Democratic women in political office – measured by the total number of women in statewide office and the length of a state’s history of electing women – led to increases in the number of that state’s Democratic women state legislators.46 They did not find a matching effect for Republican women, though other research has found that hearing about increased numbers of women candidates (Republicans and/or Democrats) positively affected Republican women’s levels of political ambition.47

These immediate mobilizing effects appear to have long-term consequences for democratic participation. Building on previous research, David Campbell and Christina Wolbrecht found that girls exposed to women politicians during their formative years were more likely to vote as adults, indicating that visible women in political leadership cultivate sustained civic engagement across the life course.48 Their findings also speak to the importance of shared identities at the intersection of gender and race. Black girls in their study expressed higher levels of both political participation and ambition when exposed to Black women candidates.49 Other research has documented how groundbreaking candidacies of Black women can activate political participation among those in shared race and/or gender communities.50 Collectively, these findings underscore that women's presence in politics functions as both an immediate catalyst for political action and a foundation for building future generations of engaged citizens. For more, see overview of Black Women in Politics

The presence and visibility of underrepresented groups in political institutions also shapes citizens' beliefs about government responsiveness and their own capacity to influence political outcomes. Katleyn Stauffer demonstrates that believing women are included in political decision-making is associated with higher levels of external efficacy – the sense that government is responsive to citizen input – suggesting that perceptions of gender inclusion enhance democratic engagement beyond just the women directly represented.51 She extends this analysis and explores how this support connects to broader questions about how citizens evaluate democratic legitimacy through the lens of inclusion in The Politics of Perception (2025). Stauffer finds that the relationship between perceived inclusion and democratic legitimacy is contingent on various factors, suggesting that symbolic representation operates through mechanisms more nuanced than mere presence.52

Officeholder Accountability

Women legislators face distinct patterns of electoral accountability that reflect both heightened scrutiny and gender-specific reward structures, with responsiveness to constituents emerging as a particularly salient dimension of evaluation. Jaclyn Kaslovsky and Jon Rogowski demonstrate that constituents' approval ratings and voting decisions are more responsive to congresswomen's policy records compared to men's, suggesting that voters hold women officeholders to higher standards of accountability and pay closer attention to their legislative performance.53 Jennifer Wolak found that women members of Congress are rewarded by co-partisans for their performance while facing steeper penalties from opposing partisans, indicating that gender intensifies both positive and negative partisan evaluations.54 However, the accountability women face may not universally disadvantage them. Semra Sevi, Charles Crabtree, and André Blais use a survey experiment to find that voters do not penalize women officeholders more harshly than men for breaking campaign promises.55 They found that women and Democrats were more likely to reward hypothetical women candidates for keeping campaign promises, suggesting gender-based affinity shapes officeholder evaluation.

Women legislators appear to respond to these accountability pressures through heightened constituent responsiveness. Danielle Thomsen and Bailey Sanders found that women state legislators were more responsive than men to constituent requests.56 Likewise, Jeffrey Lazarus and Amy Steigerwalt use multiple measures to demonstrate in their book that women in Congress engage in constituent casework and keep constituents apprised of their legislative activities at rates higher than their male counterparts.57 They argue that women legislators’ behavior is motivated in part by their sense of electoral vulnerability, which may also explain why Matias Iaryczower, Gabriel Lopez-Moctezuma, and Adam Meirowitz found that women senators running for re-election between 2000 and 2014 were more responsive to voters’ policy preferences than their male counterparts.58 These studies reveal a complex accountability landscape where women officeholders face more scrutiny of their records but leverage hyper-responsiveness strategies to retain constituent support.

Workplace Hostility

Within gendered and race-gendered political institutions, women and women from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups face systematic interruption, incivility, and violence that undermines their ability to participate as equals and exercise authority.59 Christina Boyd, Paul Collins, and Lori Ringhand found that men and white senators were more likely to interrupt women and people of color during Supreme Court confirmation hearings held between 1939 and 2022, revealing how even high-stakes formal proceedings reproduce racialized and gendered patterns of dismissal and marginalization.60 These interruptive dynamics extend throughout legislative institutions. For example, Michael Miller and Joseph Sutherland found that women in Congress were approximately ten percent more likely to be interrupted in Senate committees compared to their male colleagues, with these interruptions intensifying when discussion turned to women's issues.61 Their findings suggest that women face heightened silencing precisely when they assert expertise on gender-relevant topics.

CAWP’s most recent study on state political ecosystems documents how gender and racial biases shape women’s experiences and create hurdles to recruitment, empowerment, and retention.62 Women officeholders described the pressure they felt to adapt or assimilate to white and male-dominated spaces, discussed being held to different standards than their male counterparts, and shared experiences of being demeaned, sexualized, and underestimated within political settings. Asian, Black, Latina, and Native American women shared the stress they experience and emotional labor in which they engage within political institutions where attention and aggression toward their gender, racial, and intersectional identities is heightened. Even in Nevada – where women have achieved majority status in the state legislature – women provided important reminders that sexism and racism are not eliminated simply by electing more diverse officeholders.

Both research and media have defined and documented violence against women in politics.63 For example, nearly all state senators who responded to Rebekah Herrick and Sue Thomas’ 2019 survey reported experiencing psychological abuse, but women – particularly those in leadership positions – were more likely to say they faced physical violence.64 Their research on mayors similarly found that experiencing psychological abuse was widespread, but that women were more likely than men to experience most types of abuse.65 In another study, they found that women of color mayors faced the highest levels of raced and gendered violence, while white women faced more psychological violence, revealing how intersecting identities shape both the type and intensity of abuse experienced.66 Threats, abuse, and violence can occur in person or online, though digital spaces often amplify gendered and racialized hostility. For women politicians, these types of violence can intimidate them, promote attrition, and deter other women from seeking office.67

Collectively, these studies reveal a spectrum of gendered antagonism – from everyday interruptions to life-threatening violence – that systematically disadvantages women's political participation and signals that their presence and voices are less legitimate than men's across diverse institutional settings.

Media Coverage and Communication Strategies

Media coverage and communication strategies can reinforce or upend gender stereotypes about women officeholders. Research from decades ago revealed gender bias in media coverage of women officeholders, including receiving less coverage than their male counterparts and coverage focused on their gender identity and/or “women’s issues.”68 It also showed distinct disadvantages to Latina congresswomen in both the amount and tone of coverage.69 More recent studies, however, have found few gender differences in media coverage of politicians.70 Still, the bulk of research examining gender or intersectional biases in media are focused on candidates and campaign coverage. For more, see overview of Women Candidates and their Campaigns

In direct communications to constituents and voters, women leaders demonstrate approaches rooted in their identities and experiences and often present themselves in ways distinct from men. For example, in an analysis of speeches by women in federal offices between 2000 and 2022, Baris Kesgin and Katherine Graham McCormick show that women leaders' language reflected more cooperative strategies in their approaches to governance and international relations than similar evaluations of men.71 This may simply be consistent with women officeholders’ penchant for prioritizing cooperation as a means to get things done,72 or it may reflect the pressure women feel to meet gendered expectations of being cooperative over combative. Reflecting how expectations change over time and in divisive political environments, recent research shows Republican women legislators are actually evaluated more favorably when they engage in obstructive behavior.73 The same study found that Republican congresswomen have understood this advantage and have been more likely than Democratic women to endorse obstruction in email newsletters over the past decade. For both Democratic and Republican women, not compromising receives less penalty from voters than formerly assumed.74

Analysis of women legislators’ use of social media demonstrates distinct patterns that reflect both strategic communication choices and gendered audience expectations. Daniel Butler, Thad Kousser, and Stan Oklobbzija found that women state legislators serving in 2017 were more active on Twitter than their male counterparts, with Black and Latina women emerging as the most active users.75 These findings suggest that these women may leverage social media to circumvent traditional media gatekeepers and communicate directly with constituents. Moreover, the content of their communication varies. For example, Alvin Tillery found that women in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) tweeted about race 2.5 times more frequently than their male CBC counterparts, indicating that Black women legislators prioritize racial issues in their public communications at substantially higher rates than Black men.76 Zachary Dickson found that women in the U.S. House were more responsive to shifts in issue salience on social media, adapting their communication to align with emerging public concerns more quickly than men.77 Analyzing tweets between 2013 and 2021, Laura Brisbane, Whitney Hua, and Thomas Jamieson found that Democratic women in the U.S. House were more likely than Democratic men to emphasize care-oriented values and to de-emphasize authority and loyalty themes, again showing how partisanship influences how women officeholders perform gender.78

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 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Data.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data

2 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “State Legislature: Facts.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature#Facts

3 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “State Legislature: Percent of Party by State.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature#PercentofPartybyState

4 CAWP. “State Legislature: Percent of Party by State.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature#PercentofPartybyState

5 CAWP. “Data.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data

6 Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

7 Frederick, Brian. 2010. “Gender and Patterns of Roll Call Voting in the U.S. Senate.” Congress & the Presidency 37(2): 103–24; Frederick, Brian. 2013. “Gender and Roll Call Voting Behavior in Congress: A Cross-Chamber Analysis.” American Review of Politics 34: 1–20; Osborn, Tracy L. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender, and Representation in the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 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.

8 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2001. Women State Legislators: Past, Present and Future. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/stlegpastpresentfuture.pdf; Dodson, Debra L., and Susan J. Carroll. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State Legislatures. Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

9 Swers 2002

10 Hawkesworth, Mary, Kathleen J. Casey, Krista Jenkins, and Katherine E. Kleeman. 2001. Legislating By and For Women: A Comparison of the 103rd and 104th Congress. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2021-12/congreport103-104_a11y.pdf; Dodson, Debra L. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Dodson, Debra L., Susan Carroll, Ruth B. Mandel, Katherine E. Kleeman, Ronnee Schreiber, and Debra Liebowitz. 1995. Voices, Views, Votes: Women in the 103rd Congress. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/voices_views_votes.pdf

11 Swers 2013

12 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; Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, Susan J. Carroll, Debbie Walsh, and Catherine Wineinger. 2017. Representation Matters: Women in the U.S. Congress. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/representationmatters.pdf

13 Dittmar et al. 2017

14 Bratton, Kathleen A., Kerry L. Haynie, and Beth Reingold. 2007. “Agenda Setting and African American Women in State Legislatures.” In Intersectionality and Politics: Recent Research on Gender, Race, and Political Representation in the United States, ed. Carol Hardy-Fanta, 71-96. Binghamton, NY: Routledge; Brown, Nadia. 2014. Sisters in the Statehouse: Black Women and Legislative Decision Making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Fraga, Luis Ricardo, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, Linda Lopez, and Ricardo Ramirez. 2008. “Representing Gender and Ethnicity: Strategic Intersectionality.” In Legislative Women: Getting Elected, Getting Ahead, ed. Beth Reingold, 157–74. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; Smooth, Wendy G. 2013. “Intersectionality from Theoretical Framework to Policy Intervention.” In Situating Intersectionality: Politics, Policy, and Power, ed. Angelia R. Wilson. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 11–41.

15 Reingold, Beth, Kerry L. Haynie, and Kirsten Widner. 2020. Race, Gender, and Political Representation: Toward a More Intersectional Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

16 Osborn 2012

17 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.

18 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.

19 Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018

20 Reingold, Beth, Rebecca J. Kreitzer, Tracy Osborn, and Michele L. Swers. 2021. "Anti-abortion Policymaking and Women’s Representation." Political Research Quarterly 74 (2): 403–20.

21 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.

22 Atkinson, Layton Mary, 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.

23 Stauffer, Katelyn E., Yoshiharu Kobayashi, Kelsey M. Martin-Morales, Riley Lankes, Tobias Heinrich, and Catherine R. Goodwin. 2023. "The Missing Fingerprints: U.S. Women Legislators and International Development Aid." Politics & Gender 19 (2): 585–610.

24 Anzia, Sarah F., and Christopher R. Berry. 2011. “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 478–93; Eatough, Mandi, and Jessica R. Preece. 2025. "Crediting Invisible Work: Congress and the Lawmaking Productivity Metric (LawProM)." American Political Science Review 119 (2): 566–84; Lazarus, Jeffrey, and Amy Steigerwalt. 2018. Gendered Vulnerability: How Women Work Harder to Stay in Office. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

25 Anzia and Berry 2011; Lazarus and Steigerwalt 2018

26 Eatough and Preece 2025; Volden, Craig, and Alan E. Wiseman. 2018. “Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Senate.” The Journal of Politics 80 (2): 731–35; Volden, Craig, Alan E. Wiseman, and Dana E. Wittmer. 2013. “When Are Women More Effective Lawmakers Than Men?” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 326–41.   

27 Eatough and Preece 2025

28 Brown, Nadia E., Christopher J. Clark, Anna Mitchell Mahoney, and Michael Strawbridge. 2023. "Sister Space: Collective Descriptive Representation and Black Women in Legislative Caucuses." Politics & Gender 19 (4): 1234–8.

29 Montoya, Celeste, and Mariana Galvez Seminario. 2022. "Guerreras y Puentes: The Theory and Praxis of Latina(x) Activism." Politics, Groups, and Identities 10 (2): 171–88.

30 Holman, Mirya R., and Anna Mitchell Mahoney. 2023. "Take (Her) to the Limit: Term Limits Do Not Diminish Women's Overperformance in Legislative Office." Legislative Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 681–94.

31 McGrath, Robert J., Josh Ryan, and Jatia Wrighten. 2025. "High Hurdles: Legislative Professionalism and the Effectiveness of Women State Legislators." The Journal of Politics (Online): 1-64.

32 Eatough and Preece 2025; Volden and Wiseman 2018; Volden, Wiseman, and Wittmer 2013

33 Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018

34 Holman, Mirya R., Anna Mahoney, and Emma Hurler. 2022. "Let’s Work Together: Bill Success via Women’s Cosponsorship in U.S. State Legislatures." Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 676–90.

35 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.

36 Crewe, Emma, and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2025. "Cooperation in Polarized Legislatures: Learning from the Case of the Texas State House of Representatives." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 25 (4): 464–88.

37 Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. "Invisible Forces: Gender, Race, and Congressional Staff." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (1): 1–17; Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018

38 Wilson, Walter Clark, and Roberto Felix Carlos. 2014. “Do Women Representatives Regender Legislative Bureaucracy? Assessing the Effect of Representative Sex on Women’s Presence among US Congressional Staff.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 20 (2): 216–35.   

39 Dittmar 2023

40 Dittmar 2023

41 Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 347.

42 Broockman, David E. 2014. “Do Female Politicians Empower Women to Vote or Run for Office? A Regression Discontinuity Approach.” Electoral Studies 34: 190–204; Dolan, Kathleen. 2006. “Symbolic Mobilization?: The Impact of Candidate Sex in American Elections.” American Politics Research 34 (6): 687–704; Lawless, Jennifer L. 2004. “Politics of Presence? Congresswomen and Symbolic Representation.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 81–99.

43 Atkeson, Lonna Rae, and Nancy Carrillo. 2007. "More is Better: The Influence of Collective Female Descriptive Representation on External Efficacy." Politics & Gender 3 (1): 79–101; Fridkin, Kim L., and Patrick J. Kenney. 2014. The Changing Face of Representation: The Gender of U.S. Senators and Constituent Communications. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press; Jones, Philip Edward. 2014. “Does the Descriptive Representation of Gender Influence Accountability for Substantive Representation?” Politics & Gender 10 (2): 175–99; Ladam, Christina, Jeffrey J. Harden, and Jason H. Windett. 2018. "Prominent Role Models: High‐Profile Female Politicians and the Emergence of Women as Candidates for Public Office." American Journal of Political Science 62 (2): 369–81.

44 Atkeson and Carrillo 2007; Reingold, Beth, and Jessica Harrell. 2010. "The Impact of Descriptive Representation on Women’s Political Engagement: Does Party Matter?" Political Research Quarterly 63 (2): 280–94.

45 Ladam, Harden, and Windett 2018

46 Manento, Cory, and Marie Schenk. 2021. "Role Models or Partisan Models? The Effect of Prominent Women Officeholders." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 21 (3): 221–42.

47 Costa, Mia, and Isabel Wallace. 2021. "More Women Candidates: The Effects of Increased Women’s Presence on Political Ambition, Efficacy, and Vote Choice." American Politics Research 49 (4): 368–80.

48 Campbell, David E., and Christina Wolbrecht. 2025. See Jane Run: How Women Politicians Matter for Young People. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; Wolbrecht, Christina, and David E. Campbell. 2026. "Nevertheless, Role Models Persisted: Girls Exposed To Women Politicians More Likely To Vote as Adults." Political Behavior 48: 253–72; see also Campbell, David E., and Christina Wolbrecht. 2006. "See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents." The Journal of Politics 68 (2): 233–47; Wolbrecht, Christina, and David E. Campbell. 2017. "Role Models Revisited: Youth, Novelty, and the Impact of Female Candidates." Politics, Groups, and Identities 5 (3): 418–34. 

49 Campbell and Wolbrecht 2025; Wolbrecht and Campbell 2026

50 Simien, Evelyn M. 2022. "The 2018 Congressional Midterms, Symbolic Empowerment, and Ayanna Pressley’s Mobilizing Effect: A Case Study for Future Analysis of Historic Firsts." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (3): 279–96.

51 Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2021. "Public Perceptions of Women’s Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy." American Political Science Review 115 (4): 1226–41.

52 Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2025. The Politics of Perception How Beliefs about Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the US. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

53 Kaslovsky, Jaclyn, and Jon C. Rogowski. 2022. "Under the Microscope: Gender and Accountability in the US Congress." American Political Science Review 116 (2): 516–32.

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

55 Sevi, Semra, Charles Crabtree, and André Blais. 2024. "Do Voters Punish Women Politicians More?" American Politics Research 52 (6): 701–8.

56 Thomsen, Danielle M., and Bailey K. Sanders. 2020. "Gender Differences in Legislator Responsiveness." Perspectives on Politics 18 (4): 1017–30.

57 Lazarus and Steigerwalt 2018

58 Iaryczower, Matias, Gabriel Lopez-Moctezuma, and Adam Meirowitz. 2024. "Career Concerns and the Dynamics of Electoral Accountability." American Journal of Political Science 68 (2): 696–713.

59 Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003.  "Congressional Enactments of Race–Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced–Gendered Institutions." American Political Science Review 97 (4): 529–50.

60 Boyd, Christina L., Paul M. Collins, and Lori A. Ringhand. 2025. "Gender, Race, and Interruptions at Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings." American Political Science Review 119 (1): 492–9.

61 Miller, Michael G., and Joseph L. Sutherland. 2023. "The Effect of Gender on Interruptions at Congressional Hearings." American Political Science Review 117 (1): 103–21.

62 Dittmar 2023

63 Krook, Mona Lena. 2020. Violence against Women in Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

64 Herrick, Rebekah, and Sue Thomas. 2022. “Not Just Sticks and Stones: Psychological Abuse and Physical Violence among U.S. State Senators.” Politics & Gender 18(2): 422–47.

65 Herrick, Rebekah, Sue Thomas, Lori Franklin, Marcia L. Godwin, Eveline Gnabasik, and Jean Reith Schroedel. 2021. “Physical Violence and Psychological Abuse Against Female and Male Mayors in the United States.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (4): 681–98.

66 Herrick, Rebekah, and Sue Thomas. 2023. "An Intersectional Exploration of Psychological Violence, Threats, and Physical Violence of Mayors in 2021." American Politics Research 52 (3): 264–78.

67 Krook 2020; Bjarnegård, Elin, and Pär Zetterberg. 2023. Gender and Violence against Political Actors. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; Ramachandran, Gowri, Chisun Lee, Maya Kornberg, Kimberly Peeler-Allen, Ruby Edlin, Julia Fishman, Jiyoon Park, and Grady Yuthok Short. 2024. Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders: The Threat to Democracy. Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, New York, NY. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/intimidation-state-and-local-officeholders

68 Carroll, Susan J., and Ronnee Schreiber. 1997. "Media Coverage of Women in the 103rd Congress." Women, Media, and Politics, ed. Pippa Norris, 131–48. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Fridkin and Kenney 2014; Niven, David, and Jeremy Zilber. 2001. “‘How Does She Have Time for Kids and Congress?’: Views on Gender and Media Coverage from House Offices.” Women & Politics 23 (1–2): 147–65.

69 Gershon, Sarah Allen. 2012. “When Race, Gender, and the Media Intersect: Campaign News Coverage of Minority Congresswomen.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 33 (2): 105–25.

70 Andrich, Aliya, Marko Bachl, and Emese Domahidi. 2023. "Goodbye, Gender Stereotypes? Trait Attributions to Politicians in 11 years of News Coverage." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 100 (3): 473–97; Van der Pas, Daphne Joanna, and Loes Aaldering. 2020. "Gender Differences in Political Media Coverage: A Meta-Analysis." Journal of Communication 70 (1): 114–43.

71 Kesgin, Baris, and Katherine Graham McCormick. 2026. "Introducing the American Women Political Leaders’ Operational Codes Dataset." PS: Political Science & Politics 59 (1): 38–44.

72 Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018

73 Huffman, Nicole, Lauren P. Olson, and Ryan J. Vander Wielen. 2025. "Proving Her Strength: The Partisan and Gendered Implications of Legislative Obstruction." Legislative Studies Quarterly 50 (4): 1–15.

74 Bauer, Nichole M., Laurel Harbridge Yong, and Yanna Krupnikov. 2017. "Who is Punished? Conditions Affecting Voter Evaluations of Legislators Who Do Not Compromise." Political Behavior 39 (2): 279–300.

75 Butler, Daniel M., Thad Kousser, and Stan Oklobdzija. 2023. "Do Male and Female Legislators Have Different Twitter Communication Styles?" State Politics & Policy Quarterly 23 (2): 117–39.

76 Tillery, B. Alvin. 2021. "Tweeting Racial Representation: How the Congressional Black Caucus Used Twitter in the 113th Congress." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (2): 219–38.

77 Dickson, Zachary P. 2025. "The Gender Gap in Elite-Voter Responsiveness Online." Perspectives on Politics 23 (2): 477–93.

78 Brisbane, Laura, Whitney Hua, and Thomas Jamieson. 2023. "Morality and the Glass Ceiling: How Elite Rhetoric Reflects Gendered Strategies and Perspectives." Politics & Gender 19 (3): 806–40.

  • 1

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Data.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data

  • 2

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “State Legislature: Facts.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature#Facts

  • 3

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “State Legislature: Percent of Party by State.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature#PercentofPartybyState

  • 4

    CAWP. “State Legislature: Percent of Party by State.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature#PercentofPartybyState

  • 5

    CAWP. “Data.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data

  • 6

    Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

  • 7

    Frederick, Brian. 2010. “Gender and Patterns of Roll Call Voting in the U.S. Senate.” Congress & the Presidency 37(2): 103–24; Frederick, Brian. 2013. “Gender and Roll Call Voting Behavior in Congress: A Cross-Chamber Analysis.” American Review of Politics 34: 1–20; Osborn, Tracy L. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender, and Representation in the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 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. 

  • 8

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2001. Women State Legislators: Past, Present and Future. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/stlegpastpresentfuture.pdf; Dodson, Debra L., and Susan J. Carroll. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State Legislatures. Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

  • 9

    Swers 2002

  • 10

    Hawkesworth, Mary, Kathleen J. Casey, Krista Jenkins, and Katherine E. Kleeman. 2001. Legislating By and For Women: A Comparison of the 103rd and 104th Congress. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2021-12/congreport103-104_a11y.pdf; Dodson, Debra L. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Dodson, Debra L., Susan Carroll, Ruth B. Mandel, Katherine E. Kleeman, Ronnee Schreiber, and Debra Liebowitz. 1995. Voices, Views, Votes: Women in the 103rd Congress. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/voices_views_votes.pdf 

  • 11

    Swers 2013

  • 12

    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; Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, Susan J. Carroll, Debbie Walsh, and Catherine Wineinger. 2017. Representation Matters: Women in the U.S. Congress. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/representationmatters.pdf

  • 13

    Dittmar et al. 2017

  • 14

    Bratton, Kathleen A., Kerry L. Haynie, and Beth Reingold. 2007. “Agenda Setting and African American Women in State Legislatures.” In Intersectionality and Politics: Recent Research on Gender, Race, and Political Representation in the United States, ed. Carol Hardy-Fanta, 71–96. Binghamton, NY: Routledge; Brown, Nadia. 2014. Sisters in the Statehouse: Black Women and Legislative Decision Making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Fraga, Luis Ricardo, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, Linda Lopez, and Ricardo Ramirez. 2008. “Representing Gender and Ethnicity: Strategic Intersectionality.” In Legislative Women: Getting Elected, Getting Ahead, ed. Beth Reingold, 157–74. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; Smooth, Wendy G. 2013. “Intersectionality from Theoretical Framework to Policy Intervention.” In Situating Intersectionality: Politics, Policy, and Power, ed. Angelia R. Wilson, 11–41. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • 15

    Reingold, Beth, Kerry L. Haynie, and Kirsten Widner. 2020. Race, Gender, and Political Representation: Toward a More Intersectional Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

  • 16

    Osborn 2012

  • 17

    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.

  • 18

    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.

  • 19

    Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018

  • 20

    Reingold, Beth, Rebecca J. Kreitzer, Tracy Osborn, and Michele L. Swers. 2021. "Anti-abortion Policymaking and Women’s Representation." Political Research Quarterly 74 (2): 403–20.

  • 21

    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.

  • 22

    Atkinson, Layton Mary, 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.

  • 23

    Stauffer, Katelyn E., Yoshiharu Kobayashi, Kelsey M. Martin-Morales, Riley Lankes, Tobias Heinrich, and Catherine R. Goodwin. 2023. "The Missing Fingerprints: U.S. Women Legislators and International Development Aid." Politics & Gender 19 (2): 585–610.

  • 24

    Anzia, Sarah F., and Christopher R. Berry. 2011. “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 478–93; Eatough, Mandi, and Jessica R. Preece. 2025. "Crediting Invisible Work: Congress and the Lawmaking Productivity Metric (LawProM)." American Political Science Review 119 (2): 566–84; Lazarus, Jeffrey, and Amy Steigerwalt. 2018. Gendered Vulnerability: How Women Work Harder to Stay in Office. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 

  • 25

    Anzia and Berry 2011; Lazarus and Steigerwalt 2018

  • 26

    Eatough and Preece 2025; Volden, Craig, and Alan E. Wiseman. 2018. “Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Senate.” The Journal of Politics 80 (2): 731–35; Volden, Craig, Alan E. Wiseman, and Dana E. Wittmer. 2013. “When Are Women More Effective Lawmakers Than Men?” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 326–41.   

  • 27

    Eatough and Preece 2025

  • 28

    Brown, Nadia E., Christopher J. Clark, Anna Mitchell Mahoney, and Michael Strawbridge. 2023. "Sister Space: Collective Descriptive Representation and Black Women in Legislative Caucuses." Politics & Gender 19 (4): 1234–8.

  • 29

    Montoya, Celeste, and Mariana Galvez Seminario. 2022. "Guerreras y Puentes: The Theory and Praxis of Latina(x) Activism." Politics, Groups, and Identities 10 (2): 171–88.

  • 30

    Holman, Mirya R., and Anna Mitchell Mahoney. 2023. "Take (Her) to the Limit: Term Limits Do Not Diminish Women's Overperformance in Legislative Office." Legislative Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 681–94.

  • 31

    McGrath, Robert J., Josh Ryan, and Jatia Wrighten. 2025. "High Hurdles: Legislative Professionalism and the Effectiveness of Women State Legislators." The Journal of Politics (Online): 1-64.

  • 32

    Eatough and Preece 2025; Volden and Wiseman 2018; Volden, Wiseman, and Wittmer 2013

  • 33

    Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018

  • 34

    Holman, Mirya R., Anna Mahoney, and Emma Hurler. 2022. "Let’s Work Together: Bill Success via Women’s Cosponsorship in U.S. State Legislatures." Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 676–90.

  • 35

    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.

  • 36

    Crewe, Emma, and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2025. "Cooperation in Polarized Legislatures: Learning from the Case of the Texas State House of Representatives." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 25 (4): 464–88.

  • 37

    Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. "Invisible Forces: Gender, Race, and Congressional Staff." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (1): 1–17; Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018

  • 38

    Wilson, Walter Clark, and Roberto Felix Carlos. 2014. “Do Women Representatives Regender Legislative Bureaucracy? Assessing the Effect of Representative Sex on Women’s Presence among US Congressional Staff.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 20 (2): 216–35.   

  • 39

    Dittmar 2023

  • 40

    Dittmar 2023

  • 41

    Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 347. 

  • 42

    Broockman, David E. 2014. “Do Female Politicians Empower Women to Vote or Run for Office? A Regression Discontinuity Approach.” Electoral Studies 34: 190–204; Dolan, Kathleen. 2006. “Symbolic Mobilization?: The Impact of Candidate Sex in American Elections.” American Politics Research 34 (6): 687–704; Lawless, Jennifer L. 2004. “Politics of Presence? Congresswomen and Symbolic Representation.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 81–99.

  • 43

    Atkeson, Lonna Rae, and Nancy Carrillo. 2007. "More is Better: The Influence of Collective Female Descriptive Representation on External Efficacy." Politics & Gender 3 (1): 79–101; Fridkin, Kim L., and Patrick J. Kenney. 2014. The Changing Face of Representation: The Gender of U.S. Senators and Constituent Communications. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press; Jones, Philip Edward. 2014. “Does the Descriptive Representation of Gender Influence Accountability for Substantive Representation?” Politics & Gender 10 (2): 175–99; Ladam, Christina, Jeffrey J. Harden, and Jason H. Windett. 2018. "Prominent Role Models: High‐Profile Female Politicians and the Emergence of Women as Candidates for Public Office." American Journal of Political Science 62 (2): 369–81.

  • 44

    Atkeson and Carrillo 2007; Reingold, Beth, and Jessica Harrell. 2010. "The Impact of Descriptive Representation on Women’s Political Engagement: Does Party Matter?" Political Research Quarterly 63 (2): 280–94.

  • 45

    Ladam, Harden, and Windett 2018

  • 46

    Manento, Cory, and Marie Schenk. 2021. "Role Models or Partisan Models? The Effect of Prominent Women Officeholders." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 21 (3): 221–42.

  • 47

    Costa, Mia, and Isabel Wallace. 2021. "More Women Candidates: The Effects of Increased Women’s Presence on Political Ambition, Efficacy, and Vote Choice." American Politics Research 49 (4): 368–80.

  • 48

    Campbell, David E., and Christina Wolbrecht. 2025. See Jane Run: How Women Politicians Matter for Young People. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; Wolbrecht, Christina, and David E. Campbell. 2026. "Nevertheless, Role Models Persisted: Girls Exposed To Women Politicians More Likely To Vote as Adults." Political Behavior 48: 253–72; see also Campbell, David E., and Christina Wolbrecht. 2006. "See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents." The Journal of Politics 68 (2): 233–47; Wolbrecht, Christina, and David E. Campbell. 2017. "Role Models Revisited: Youth, Novelty, and the Impact of Female Candidates." Politics, Groups, and Identities 5 (3): 418–34. 

  • 49

    Campbell and Wolbrecht 2025; Wolbrecht and Campbell 2026

  • 50

    Simien, Evelyn M. 2022. "The 2018 Congressional Midterms, Symbolic Empowerment, and Ayanna Pressley’s Mobilizing Effect: A Case Study for Future Analysis of Historic Firsts." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (3): 279–96.

  • 51

    Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2021. "Public Perceptions of Women’s Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy." American Political Science Review 115 (4): 1226–41.

  • 52

    Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2025. The Politics of Perception How Beliefs about Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the US. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 53

    Kaslovsky, Jaclyn, and Jon C. Rogowski. 2022. "Under the Microscope: Gender and Accountability in the US Congress." American Political Science Review 116 (2): 516–32.

  • 54

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

  • 55

    Sevi, Semra, Charles Crabtree, and André Blais. 2024. "Do Voters Punish Women Politicians More?" American Politics Research 52 (6): 701–8.

  • 56

    Thomsen, Danielle M., and Bailey K. Sanders. 2020. "Gender Differences in Legislator Responsiveness." Perspectives on Politics 18 (4): 1017–30.

  • 57

    Lazarus and Steigerwalt 2018

  • 58

    Iaryczower, Matias, Gabriel Lopez-Moctezuma, and Adam Meirowitz. 2024. "Career Concerns and the Dynamics of Electoral Accountability." American Journal of Political Science 68 (2): 696–713.

  • 59

    Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003.  "Congressional Enactments of Race–Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced–Gendered Institutions." American Political Science Review 97 (4): 529–50.

  • 60

    Boyd, Christina L., Paul M. Collins, and Lori A. Ringhand. 2025. "Gender, Race, and Interruptions at Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings." American Political Science Review 119 (1): 492–9.

  • 61

    Miller, Michael G., and Joseph L. Sutherland. 2023. "The Effect of Gender on Interruptions at Congressional Hearings." American Political Science Review 117 (1): 103–21.

  • 62

    Dittmar 2023

  • 63

    Krook, Mona Lena. 2020. Violence against Women in Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 64

    Herrick, Rebekah, and Sue Thomas. 2022. “Not Just Sticks and Stones: Psychological Abuse and Physical Violence among U.S. State Senators.” Politics & Gender 18(2): 422–47. 

  • 65

    Herrick, Rebekah, Sue Thomas, Lori Franklin, Marcia L. Godwin, Eveline Gnabasik, and Jean Reith Schroedel. 2021. “Physical Violence and Psychological Abuse Against Female and Male Mayors in the United States.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (4): 681–98.

  • 66

    Herrick, Rebekah, and Sue Thomas. 2023. "An Intersectional Exploration of Psychological Violence, Threats, and Physical Violence of Mayors in 2021." American Politics Research 52 (3): 264–78.

  • 67

    Krook 2020; Bjarnegård, Elin, and Pär Zetterberg. 2023. Gender and Violence against Political Actors. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; Ramachandran, Gowri, Chisun Lee, Maya Kornberg, Kimberly Peeler-Allen, Ruby Edlin, Julia Fishman, Jiyoon Park, and Grady Yuthok Short. 2024. Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders: The Threat to Democracy. Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, New York, NY. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/intimidation-state-and-local-officeholders

  • 68

    Carroll, Susan J., and Ronnee Schreiber. 1997. "Media Coverage of Women in the 103rd Congress." Women, Media, and Politics, ed. Pippa Norris, 131–48. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Fridkin and Kenney 2014; Niven, David, and Jeremy Zilber. 2001. “‘How Does She Have Time for Kids and Congress?’: Views on Gender and Media Coverage from House Offices.” Women & Politics 23 (1–2): 147–65.

  • 69

    Gershon, Sarah Allen. 2012. “When Race, Gender, and the Media Intersect: Campaign News Coverage of Minority Congresswomen.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 33 (2): 105–25.

  • 70

    Andrich, Aliya, Marko Bachl, and Emese Domahidi. 2023. "Goodbye, Gender Stereotypes? Trait Attributions to Politicians in 11 years of News Coverage." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 100 (3): 473–97; Van der Pas, Daphne Joanna, and Loes Aaldering. 2020. "Gender Differences in Political Media Coverage: A Meta-Analysis." Journal of Communication 70 (1): 114–43.

  • 71

    Kesgin, Baris, and Katherine Graham McCormick. 2026. "Introducing the American Women Political Leaders’ Operational Codes Dataset." PS: Political Science & Politics 59 (1): 38–44.

  • 72

    Dittmar, Sanbonmatsu, and Carroll 2018

  • 73

    Huffman, Nicole, Lauren P. Olson, and Ryan J. Vander Wielen. 2025. "Proving Her Strength: The Partisan and Gendered Implications of Legislative Obstruction." Legislative Studies Quarterly 50 (4): 1–15.

  • 74

    Bauer, Nichole M., Laurel Harbridge Yong, and Yanna Krupnikov. 2017. "Who is Punished? Conditions Affecting Voter Evaluations of Legislators Who Do Not Compromise." Political Behavior 39 (2): 279–300.

  • 75

    Butler, Daniel M., Thad Kousser, and Stan Oklobdzija. 2023. "Do Male and Female Legislators Have Different Twitter Communication Styles?" State Politics & Policy Quarterly 23 (2): 117–39.

  • 76

    Tillery, B. Alvin. 2021. "Tweeting Racial Representation: How the Congressional Black Caucus Used Twitter in the 113th Congress." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (2): 219–38.

  • 77

    Dickson, Zachary P. 2025. "The Gender Gap in Elite-Voter Responsiveness Online." Perspectives on Politics 23 (2): 477–93.

  • 78

    Brisbane, Laura, Whitney Hua, and Thomas Jamieson. 2023. "Morality and the Glass Ceiling: How Elite Rhetoric Reflects Gendered Strategies and Perspectives." Politics & Gender 19 (3): 806–40.