In the years since the 2016 presidential election, questions of partisan identity and partisan polarization have burst into broader public discourse, and they have invariably been intertwined with curiosity about gender and gendered behavior, especially as it relates to partisanship and voting. What is women’s role in creating and sustaining the current political moment, or is politics as we experience it today shaped entirely by and for men? Political science as a discipline has of course tackled these questions for a much longer time, even though for some scholars, the current political moment has bestowed greater urgency on these long-running discussions and puzzles. However, even within political science, these two phenomena and their related questions have not always been examined in tandem.

This article investigates female voting behavior in the 2016 US presidential election through the lens of tall poppy syndrome, a theory suggesting that those in less prominent or celebrated roles sometimes seek to undermine individuals who pursue or attain extraordinary public success. Using data from the ANES, VOTER, and CCES surveys and controlling for alternative explanations, I find that women outside the workforce were more likely to vote against Hillary Clinton, indicating that their voting behavior may have been driven by tall poppy syndrome rather than solely by social conservatism. These findings highlight an underexplored factor in voting behavior, suggest widening avenues of partisan polarization, and point to the unique challenges that are faced by women who seek elected office.

The history and practice of party polarization in Congress is a gendered concept. Men have comprised the overwhelming majority of legislators from both parties, served as their party’s leaders, and dominated the party caucuses. As women and women of color have increased their presence in the institution, particularly among Democrats, gender and race have emerged as important themes in understanding party polarization in contemporary congresses. In an analysis of legislative activity of members in the 104th to the 117th Congresses, I find the two most distinct groups of partisans, Democratic women and Republican men, are prominently featured in the opposing party’s negative messaging to constituents and voters. The prominence of Democratic women as the focal point of negative messaging from the opposition has significant consequences for this group of officeholders. This study enhances our understanding of how gender dynamics inform party polarization in legislatures.

The overturning of the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade (1973) in the United States during the summer of 2022 with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated the nearly 50-year constitutional right to abortion, leading to the introduction of numerous new restrictions. This article examines how the language used in federally proposed anti-abortion legislation has evolved in the aftermath of the Roe decision. By exploring the gender and power dynamics that shape the contemporary abortion debate, alongside feminist legal theory, this study analyzes the language and effects of five bills that have been introduced since the ruling. After analyzing the proposed bills, there was a noticeable shift in anti-abortion strategies by Republican elected officials. Rather than directly criminalizing pregnant individuals, these bills target abortion providers, state funding, and the dissemination of information. This indirect approach sets to restrict abortion access by making it practically unattainable for many regardless of its legality.