Existing research often interprets the limited impact of candidate gender on vote choice as evidence of minimal gender bias in politics. However, this overlooks the dual role of candidate gender, as both a heuristic for substantive representation and a trigger for sexism in voter decision-making. These competing mechanisms can diminish the effects of each other, obscuring the true influence of gender bias in electoral behavior. Using conjoint experiments in South Korea, a context where gender issues are highly politicized and sexism remains widespread, we examine how candidate gender affects voter evaluations in low- and high-information environments. Our findings reveal that in low-information settings, candidate gender serves as a cue for substantive representation, leading to co-sex voting among women, while simultaneously activating hostile sexism among male voters, reducing support for female candidates. In high-information settings, explicit candidate policy positions diminish the reliance on gender cues but do not eliminate gender bias. Instead, sexism manifests through opposition to gender-equity policies rather than direct discrimination against female candidates. These results suggest that information environments shape the expression of gender bias, rather than eliminating it, offering a more nuanced understanding of the conditions under which candidate gender influences electoral preferences.

This paper examines the gendered foundations of citizenship status among first-generation immigrants in Western Europe. It posits that foreign-born women are more likely than foreign-born men to become citizens in their new homeland if they originate from countries with greater gender inequality. Moreover, this relationship is amplified among highly educated female immigrants. In contrast, no gender gap in citizenship status exists among newcomers from origin countries with low gender inequality. The empirical analyses based on the individual-level data from the European Social Survey (ESS) 2010–22 confirm these expectations. These findings have important implications for our understanding of immigrant political integration in western democracies and the consequences of gender inequality around the world.

Research shows that women’s inclusion in decision-making bodies that produce anti-feminist policies can legitimize policies and institutions. When a woman attorney advocates for an anti-feminist outcome in the judiciary, are the courts perceived as more legitimate than when a man makes the same argument? Using a survey experiment where 1,395 participants read about a sexual harassment case argued by a male or female attorney, we find that female attorneys increase the legitimacy of anti-feminist rulings in only one specific instance: when a female attorney represents an employer and wins, and only for female participants who are much less likely to perceive that process as procedurally legitimate in the first place. Our results demonstrate that while there are some instances where attorney gender can legitimize judicial behavior, the courts are different from legislatures, and deploying women to advocate for anti-women outcomes has little impact on feelings of court legitimacy broadly.

Following a 2018 FEC ruling, US congressional candidates are increasingly using campaign funds for childcare expenses incurred while campaigning. This policy has the potential to increase descriptive representation, but the policy’s viability is dependent on how voters react to candidates using campaign funds for childcare. Using a national survey experiment, we find that the framing around the use of this policy influences public opinion in meaningful ways. For Democratic respondents, positive framing treatments increase support for a hypothetical woman candidate, and candidate attack frames do not decrease candidate support. For Republican respondents, positive framing treatments do not increase candidate support, while candidate attack frames decrease candidate support. Regarding support for the policy of permitting the use of campaign funds for childcare, results were universally positive. Both positive and negative frames increased support for the policy. This research contributes to multiple literatures by evaluating the public opinion effects of candidates using campaign funds for childcare.

Intersectionality is increasingly being operationalized as part of gender mainstreaming efforts across national and multilateral contexts. One prominent example can be located in Sweden’s 2015 institutional commitment to centering future gender equality policy in an intersectional analysis. This article explores the complexities of institutionalizing intersectionality in Swedish gender equality policy processes, drawing on the situated insights of public sector gender experts and Afro-Swedish feminist activists and politicians. Key findings include the prevalence of additive interpretations of intersectionality that privilege gender, limitations in statistical practices, and uneven commitments to intersectional policymaking across different institutional contexts. Recommendations for enhancing intersectional policymaking include the incorporation of ‘Equity Data’ and qualitative insights through structured dialogues with intersectionally marginalized communities. Ultimately, this article emphasizes the necessity of centering the voices of both institutional insiders and intersectionally marginalized stakeholders to address the shortcomings of intersectional practice to enhance its transformative potential in Sweden.

How does gender shape patterns of parliamentary speechmaking? We theorize and test three types of effects. The direct effect posits that female MPs speak less than their male peers. The access effect claims that the feminization of parliaments and parties is associated with higher gender bias in speech levels. The career effect foresees a greater gender bias in speech levels among MPs holding positions of power. Drawing on parliamentary speeches in South Africa (1999–2024), where high rates of female representation coexist with sexist norms and practices, we find evidence for all three effects. Female MPs make fewer speeches, and the growing feminization of institutions and the appointment of female MPs to leadership roles are not sufficient to reverse entrenched gender biases against women. Our findings highlight the need to go beyond the politics of presence and focus on the informal mechanisms that hinder women from performing their roles even when occupying positions of power.

Self-placement measures of masculinity and femininity have been gaining popularity in political science research, but questions remain about their long-term stability and the extent to which political views may impact gender identities. Taking advantage of two waves of measures of masculinity and femininity self-placement in an online panel, a categorical measure of masculinity and femininity (making use of a six-point scale, anchored scale) is found to be both highly stable and more stable than a scalar measure (making use of a 0 to 100 scale). The scalar measure is also found to be responsive to political views, such that men who report support for Donald Trump in the US Presidential elections identify as more masculine in the follow-up study. Overall, both measures are found to be relatively stable, bolstering the case that they are measuring a stable underlying construct.

Measuring the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation presents empirical and theoretical challenges. This article makes a distinctive empirical contribution that draws on the latest theoretical developments on the substantive representation of women (SRW). I provide an explorative qualitative analysis of representative claims in French parliamentary debates over a twenty-year period. I focus on three core questions: who is making claims? What are the claims saying? Which women are represented by the claims? The analysis considers the interplay between these questions and finds that SRW is complex and full of contestations. Most SRW comes from women and parties of the left, while most resistance (anti-SRW) comes from men and parties of the right. However, some women cross party lines to work together, while ideological differences emerge between women sharing descriptive traits. Crucially, I find that support for SRW is often restricted to claims that uphold the gendered and racialized status quo.

The social organization of care refers to the institutions, norms, and practices that govern the distribution of caring responsibilities and access to caring resources in unequal ways (Glenn 2000; 2012). There is compelling evidence that everywhere women still do the bulk of unpaid care work and that this restricts their opportunities to participate in economic and political life. These inequalities further spill over into the wider economy as many care occupations are poorly paid and predominantly filled by racialized and immigrant women, as well as women from less privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. Feminist scholarship demonstrates that care is not only an issue in its own right. It also lies at the heart of many other political phenomena from the development of welfare states (Ciccia and Sainsbury 2018; Gordon 1991; Koven and Michel 2013), to democratic backsliding and the rise of far-right parties (Briggs 2018; Farris and Rottenberg 2017; Meguid et al. 2025), to the politics of race, immigration, and same-sex families (Ayoub and Stoeckl 2024; Ferree 2021; Hancock 2004). Therefore, the social organization of care is a root cause of gender and intersecting inequalities.

Care and social reproduction are two prominent feminist frameworks for analyzing women’s oppression and envisioning emancipatory paths. Although they are sometimes used interchangeably, they have emerged from different intellectual traditions. Different strands of social reproduction theory move within a common Marxist tradition of anti-capitalist critique, while research on care has not developed as a unified field but rather along several parallel strands (Ciccia 2025; Fine 2007). These different orientations are often overlooked, leading to considerable misunderstandings of scholarship on care. Additionally, care is often viewed as occupying an uncomfortable position within contemporary feminisms due to its presumed association with mothering (Robinson 2015; Sevenhuijsen 1998) and white women (Davis 1981; Nadasen 2021; Raghuram 2016). Because of these complexities, the relationship between social reproduction and care remains contested, particularly when it comes to their ability to embrace divisions among women and understand the social organization of care as shaped by intersecting hierarchies of gender, class, race, nation, sexuality, ability, and age.

The assumption that family ties devalue caring by making it “women’s work” is commonplace. However, it is deeply problematic for three reasons: care is more than work; both material and immaterial goods are given value through institutional and interpersonal choices; and “family” is not only done in a patriarchal fashion. Each of these limitations can be overcome if giving and receiving care are valued; if so, a just society will be a caring one.

What is a caring state? The concept of caring state has been discussed in an emerging feminist and political theory literature (Chatzidakis et al. 2020; Daly, 1998; Engster 2007; Kim 2018; Vabø and Szebehely 2012). Often viewed as a concrete materialization of the Nordic welfare state ideal, a caring state is conceived as providing care that is universal, generous, good quality, accessible, affordable, flexible, and used by (almost) all (Vabø and Szebehely 2012). This definition contains two key elements: tax-financed, universal care accessible by all vulnerable groups, including pre-school children, the sick, the challenged, and the frail and older persons; and high-quality care carried out — and ensured — by professionally trained care workers (Dahl 2010; Dahl and Rasmussen 2012). The Nordic countries have promoted a caring state by converting care into a social right predicated on a dual worker--‘dual’carer model. This model envisions a combination of full-time paid work with caring duties, both in motherhood and when one’s own frail, older parents need care. The ideal of the caring state thus understands care justice as twofold: a right to be cared for through public provision of services and a concern for the work conditions, education, and recognition of care workers.

In August 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) issued the first-ever ruling from an international tribunal about the right to care. In Consultative Opinion 31, the IACHR affirmed three dimensions to care as a human right: the right to be cared for, the right to give care, and the right to self-care. The IACHR established that care constitutes a “universal human necessity and an indispensable condition for enjoying dignified existence” and that care, as a human right, sustains other human rights, like the right to health (IACHR 2025a). The IACHR further expressed concern about the unequal distribution of care burdens and called upon governments to establish measures that would advance the human right to care based on “social and familial co-responsibility … and the principles of equality and non-discrimination” (IACHR 2025a). The ruling profoundly reconceptualizes care’s normative and practical dimensions. If care is a human right with shared responsibility underlying its realization, then governments are obligated to provide care. Care becomes a public good that can be demanded, rather than a private cost that (mostly women) must bear.

Despite the essential role that migrant domestic workers perform, their work—and human worth—is often disregarded. The issues facing migrant domestic workers go beyond harsh labor conditions and immigration regulations that tie their work permits to their employers. These issues—all of which migrant domestic workers have shared with me—involve a disregard for their humanity through policies that treat them as sources of contagion (e.g., mandatory annual HIV and pregnancy tests) and as wards (e.g., employers’ refusal to permit days off and the imposition of curfews). The problems facing migrant domestic workers stem from a devaluing of care and domestic work, alongside the routine ignoring of their own caring needs. A key principle of a caring society emphasizes the importance of meeting people’s caring needs (Glenn 2000). The inability of policymakers to recognize and meet migrant domestic workers’ need for care through policies shows migrant domestic workers’ invisibility.

In a profession designed for men with housewives, academic mothers continue to shoulder a disproportionate burden. Motherhood penalties in academia are well-documented, with research consistently showing negative impacts on mothers’ publication rates (Di Leo et al. n.d.; Lutter and Schröder 2020; Morgan et al. 2021), citations (Lawson et al. 2021), and promotion trajectories (Antecol et al. 2018; Finkel and Olswang 1996; Mason et al. 2019) — effects not observed among fathers. In recent years, both institutional frameworks and grassroots movements have sought to address these inequities, yet their strategies and impacts differ significantly.

No matter the methodology, gaining access to potential research participants is one of the more difficult aspects of conducting field research. Sometimes, potential participants may be “hard to reach”—for example, they are physically located in remote areas where the lack of infrastructure necessitates extensive travel and/or difficult logistics. Alternatively, they may be “vulnerable” due to disenfranchisement (incarcerated populations), stigma (those living with HIV/AIDS), or at risk if they share their experiences (people living in authoritarian states). Or participants may be “hidden”—that is, no record of their experiences exists, which, in turn, makes it difficult to find and recruit them (Ellard-Gray et al. 2015).1

The Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) launched its Women, Money, & Politics Watch 2026 project in spring 2026, as an interactive resource for the public, candidates, officeholders, activists, and the media.1 CAWP, founded in 1971 as a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, is nationally recognized as the leading source of scholarly research and current data about women’s political participation in the United States. CAWP’s 2026 Women, Money, & Politics Watch provides users with real-time data about how women candidates are faring with fundraising statistics organized by candidate gender, party, and women’s racial/ethnic identities. Moreover, the project showcases the less-examined role of women as donors. This Notes from the Field offer an overview of the project including its mission and origins and describe its relationship to scholarship. CAWP’s approach to the study of money and politics is aimed at demystifying the process of donating and illuminating the fundraising landscape for the general public and political candidates, respectively.