Taiwan’s achievement in passing a marriage-equality law in 2019 and the democratic backlash against LGBTQ+ rights deserve scholarly attention in Asia and beyond. Specifically, Taiwan’s road to marriage equality led to these empirical puzzles: What explains the conservative shift in Taiwan’s public perceptions toward LGBTQ+ rights? How would the backlash against LGBTQ+ rights impact Taiwan’s democracy? What does Taiwan’s experience inform us about norm localization and LGBTQ+ politics in Asia and beyond?

The strategic framing of the Christian right—that is, the symbolic use of family and its localization of conservative values using Confucian norms—enabled them to couch their religious beliefs and facilitate collective action among different groups. This study offers a culture-based explanation of how the Christian right successfully established a single-issue coalition against LGBTQ+ rights. The article is organized as follows. First, it engages current literature on discourse analysis, norms contestation, and contentious politics. Second, the study proposes a two-part framework for understanding how the Christian right effectively constructs their conservative claims to gain public support. A comparative analysis of the discourse from the conservative and progressive sides sheds light on how their narratives shaped the marriage-equality debate. Third, it addresses how this countermovement impacts Taiwan’s democracy and human rights.

This article examines the effectiveness of LGBTQ groups in Congress by looking at voting in favor of bills concerning queer rights. I find that the effect of donations is present in the early period of queer bills before Congress but disappears in bills post-2018. Instead, party is the dominant explanation for votes on bills. This has implications for the strategies that should be employed by LGBTQ+ interests at the national level and implications for how political science should examine the interactions between interest groups and new venues of change.

Artificial intelligence in higher education has expanded worldwide with the growth of AI technologies. The emergent applications of artificial intelligence in higher education (AIEd) in course preparation, delivery, and administration as well as in learning assistants and prediction for the sake of learners are widely considered important innovations that can change education worldwide. The Armenian case was examined via a survey that was conducted at the country’s leading universities to investigate whether and how faculty use AIEd. Although the results indicate that many Armenian teaching faculty use AIEd in narrow capacities and acknowledge the potential usefulness of AIEd in the practical administration of Armenia’s higher education, the use of AIEd is not deep.

We consider how LGBT+ legal rights frameworks, broadly construed, can be used to bolster support within the general public for transgender subgroup rights. Our research is informed by theoretical perspectives on appeals to superordinate identities to reduce prejudice. Based on a survey experiment in the United States, we find that framing a salient transgender advocacy issue—transgender participation in sports—within a broader LGBT+ legal rights framework increases public support for transgender inclusion in sports. There is a nearly 10 percentage-point increase in support, including among partisan Republicans, when transgender rights in sports are preceded by priming and framing around the more general LGBT+ rights struggle. Our results underscore the importance of broader LGBT+ rights advocacy to public acceptance of the transgender community.

Conducting elite interviews presents well-documented challenges, often linked to dynamics that are influenced by researchers’ status. This aspect of positionality is sometimes characterized as “insider” or “outsider” status, but scholars have noted the lack of nuance in this rigid binary. Drawing on experiences during interviews with policy elites—primarily in England—this article describes the author’s “in-betweener” status and reviews four methodological considerations from this perspective, highlighting the challenges and opportunities associated with different points on the insider–outsider spectrum. These observations are meant to stimulate reflexivity among researchers regardless of their status.

“Gender ideology” rhetoric has diffused globally. Mobilized by a coalition of conservative actors, this discursive innovation helps to fuel the election of far-right politicians who scapegoat LGBTQ people, migrants, racial and ethnic minorities, and women as responsible for economic downturns as well as social and political disorder. This essay outlines the history and current landscape of gender ideology for political scientists and situates it in relation to the rise of far-right and authoritarian regimes globally. It builds on these political trends by concluding with a research agenda for scholars of LGBTQ politics to consider moving forward.

Drag has a long history in the LGBTQ community as a means of political engagement, activism, protest, and community building. Today, drag is popular in the LGBTQ community and in the rest of society. At the same time, it is routinely a target of conservative backlash against the LGBTQ community. Despite drag’s inherently political nature, political science has failed to engage substantially with the influence of drag. This article offers a justification and research agenda to bring drag into the mainstream of political science.

This is the expanded written version of the James Madison Lecture delivered on September 6, 2024, at the APSA Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, PA. I grapple with the pressing question before us as social scientists and as citizens: How and why have US politics and governance arrived at the present juncture where long-standing constitutional practices and democratically responsive governance are very much at stake? My answer focuses on what I see as the prime driver of the current crisis: the recent radicalization of the Republican Party and its allies, as they have pursued two forms and phases of antidemocratic politics. The first version involves maximum use of legal hardball steps that stretch existing laws and rules to disadvantage partisan opponents (I also call this approach “McConnellism” in honor of its chief practitioner, outgoing GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky). The second approach targets political competitors and government operations with extralegal harassment, threats of violence, and even actual violence. Drawing on my own research with many collaborators, as well as from many excellent studies by colleagues in political science and beyond, I will dissect the elite and popular roots of recent Republican embrace of both forms of antidemocratic politics.

Former president Trump has maintained broad support despite falsely contending that he was the victim of electoral fraud, also known as the “big lie.” We consider both the antecedents of this phenomenon and its consequences. We propose that Trump supporters’ already established deep personal alignment—identity fusion—with their leader predisposed them to believe the lie. Accepting it then set the foundation for other identity-protecting beliefs and attitudes. Using a three-wave panel of Trump supporters, we found that the more fused they were before the 2020 election, the stronger their belief in the big lie grew between 2021 and 2024. Accepting the big lie helped solidify fusion with Trump and had consequences for related attitudes. Belief in the big lie predicted downplaying the criminal charges against Trump and supporting his antidemocratic policy agenda. Fueled by and fueling further fusion, belief in the big lie is a primary component of a larger narrative that emboldens Trump and justifies antidemocratic behavior.