Introduction
For a number of years now and after long being neglected, LGBTIQ+ politics has been one of the emerging subfields in political science (Mucciaroni, Reference Mucciaroni2011; Paternotte, Reference Paternotte2018; Magni, Reference Magni2020). At the same time, the political relevance of LGBTIQ+ issues has increased in contemporary politics. This is evident, for instance, through the generalised increase in descriptive representation and out representatives (Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2013; Casey and Reynolds, Reference Casey and Reynolds2015; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2023), which has been reported by works within one of the most prominent strands in this rising literature: i.e. on the political careers of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, etc. (LGBTIQ+) candidates.
Historically, studying the political dimension of the LGBTIQ+ population, which also includes other aspects such as political participation, attitudes and voting behaviour, has been problematic. An instance amongst several is the hardly surmountable hindrance faced by studies on the political participation of LGBTIQ+ people related to questions on gender identity and sexual orientation pertaining to sensitive data (e.g. Guyan, Reference Guyan2022). This all makes the rise in scholarly output on LGBTIQ+ politics, and particularly LGBTIQ+ careers, even more interesting and relevant.
Here, we specifically intend to answer the following question: what are scholars faced with when approaching the existing literature on LGBTIQ+ political careers? With this goal in mind, in this succinct but detailed contribution we critically analyse this literature, highlighting commonalities and imbalances in this varied body of works (Haider-Markel, Reference Haider-Markel2021).
Following this introduction, we will review the substantive aspects covered by the literature on LGBTIQ+ political careers, stressing some of the elements that are currently overlooked. Likewise, we will subsequently analyse the research design features characterising these works. Lastly, we will conclude by illustrating future research directions that can contribute to this literature, particularly in regard to the unresolved questions that emerge from our analytical review.
What: substantive findings
We begin by reviewing the substantive findings of the existing literature on LGBTIQ+ political careers and the factors that foster or hinder them. The starting point of this scholarly debate is that gender identity and sexual orientation matter for voters as political cues during elections (Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2018a; Jones and Brewer, Reference Jones and Brewer2019), and hence for the fortunes of political candidates. In this regard, the most widespread notion is that, generally speaking, LGBTIQ+ candidates are penalised compared to their cisgender and heterosexual counterparts (e.g. Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2021).Footnote 1 Further, within this differentiated population subgroup, being a trans candidate means facing an even stronger electoral penalty (Jones et al., Reference Jones, Brewer, Young, Lambe and Hoffman2018; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2021, Reference Magni and Reynolds2023).Footnote 2 Beyond this, the existing literature has predominantly and extensively investigated the factors associated with the electoral success – or lack thereof – of LGBTIQ+ candidates, which can be divided into the following broad categories: party-political, compositional, candidate profile and sociopsychological elements.
First, as to be expected, party-political dynamics are fundamental in the careers of LGBTIQ+ candidates. To start with, in the vast majority of cases, descriptive data show how LGBTIQ+ candidates have historically been selected by left and/or socioculturally liberal parties (Haider-Markel, Reference Haider-Markel2010; Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2013) – overwhelmingly, in the case of trans candidates (Casey and Reynolds, Reference Casey and Reynolds2015). However, a growing number of LGBTIQ+ candidates has been put forward by right-wing parties in recent years, albeit this does not apply to trans candidates (Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2013; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2023). Further, as to be expected, the career prospects of LGBTIQ+ candidates depend on the amount of support or reticence of potential gatekeepers within the party structure, as well as the party leadership (Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2013). Finally, the specific impact of different electoral systems is still to be explored, as preliminary descriptive data seem to point to an increase of LGBTIQ+ elected politicians across different systems (Casey and Reynolds, Reference Casey and Reynolds2015).
Second, the careers of LGBTIQ+ candidates are fundamentally tied to the political, socioeconomic and cultural composition of the constituency in which they run. Here, the literature seems unanimous in its assessment: the electoral success of LGBTIQ+ candidates is generally associated with electorates made up of highly educated, higher-income, younger, secular and more socially diverse voters with liberal attitudes (Button et al., Reference Button, Wald and Rienzo1999; Haider-Markel, Reference Haider-Markel2010; Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2013; Haider-Markel et al., Reference Haider-Markel, Miller, Flores, Lewis, Tadlock and Taylor2017; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Brewer, Young, Lambe and Hoffman2018; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2018b, Reference Magni and Reynolds2021). Conversely, more conservative, religious and less socially diverse contexts, often with right-wing parties in power, ‘older’ in age and with lower levels of education, are detrimental to LGBTIQ+ candidates' electoral performance (Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2013; Haider-Markel et al., Reference Haider-Markel, Miller, Flores, Lewis, Tadlock and Taylor2017; Miller et al., Reference Miller, Flores, Haider-Markel, Lewis, Tadlock and Taylor2017; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Brewer, Young, Lambe and Hoffman2018; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2018b; Loepp and Redman, Reference Loepp and Redman2022). Moreover, descriptive representation is also important for electoral outcomes, as gender-non-conforming people will exhibit greater support for LGBTIQ+ candidates (Haider-Markel et al., Reference Haider-Markel, Miller, Flores, Lewis, Tadlock and Taylor2017).
Third, candidate profile is also essential for the electoral fortunes of LGBTIQ+ politicians. For a start, being LGBTIQ+ is not only tied to prejudice and concerns surrounding electability, but also to its political heuristic function of constituting an identity cue for liberal values, which can hence draw opposition (and, conversely, support) from the aforementioned population subgroups (Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2021). Further, in general terms coming out has been shown to electorally penalise LGBTIQ+ candidates and should be put off for as long as possible (Golebiowska, Reference Golebiowska2003). What moderates (or exacerbates) this LGBTIQ+ electoral penalty from a sociocultural viewpoint is, for instance, whether LGBTIQ+ candidates conform to heteronormative social norms on relationships or not (Everitt and Horvath, Reference Everitt and Horvath2021); and if they have previous electoral experience (Haider-Markel, Reference Haider-Markel2010; Casey and Reynolds, Reference Casey and Reynolds2015).
Lastly, more sociopsychological and personality-based dynamics related to voters are also at play. Robust evidence shows how some of the most prominent mechanisms leading the above population subgroups to electorally oppose LGBTIQ+ people at large, and more specifically candidates, are higher levels of disgust sensitivity (Crawford et al., Reference Crawford, Inbar and Maloney2014; Haider-Markel et al., Reference Haider-Markel, Miller, Flores, Lewis, Tadlock and Taylor2017; Miller et al., Reference Miller, Flores, Haider-Markel, Lewis, Tadlock and Taylor2017) and need for cognitive closure (Jones et al., Reference Jones, Brewer, Young, Lambe and Hoffman2018). Further, gender- and sexuality-related stereotypes also play a role at the ballot box under certain circumstances (Golebiowska, Reference Golebiowska2002), especially penalising stereotype-consistent gay males and lesbian candidates who do not emphasise both feminine and masculine traits (Golebiowska, Reference Golebiowska2001). Of course, social dynamics that increase the visibility and social capital of the LGBTIQ+ community, such as media coverage and direct connections to LGBTIQ+ people, contribute to moderating such electoral penalties (Flores, Reference Flores2015; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Brewer, Young, Lambe and Hoffman2018; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2021).
With that being said, two points should now be made. First, works on LGBTIQ+ political careers provide readers with extensive knowledge about the factors and dynamics that shape LGBTIQ+ candidates' success at the polls. Conversely, much less is currently known about how gender identity and sexual orientation impact other important aspects of LGBTIQ+ political careers, e.g. the entry and permanence in politics (Bouvard, Reference Bouvard2023). For instance, in light of the recent increase in LGBTIQ+ political representation, are LGBTIQ+ candidates mostly ‘newcomer’ or ‘peripheral’ political profiles, or are there also sizeable portions of more established and experienced local- and national-level politicians (e.g. Marino et al., Reference Marino, Martocchia Diodati, Verzichelli, Seddone and Sandri2021)? Do LGBTIQ+ politicians fare differently in primaries? And do LGBTIQ+ politicians follow the same governmental and parliamentary career paths as other, non-LGBTIQ+ colleagues emerging from non-US contributions (for a most recent overview, see Sandri and Seddone Reference Sandri and Seddone2021)? These questions have not been empirically explored yet by the specialised literature on LGBTIQ+ political careers.
Second, another contribution emerging from our review is highlighting a number of relevant factors potentially aiding or disrupting the careers of LGBTIQ+ candidates that are currently left uncovered by this literature, as they have only been explored vis-à-vis other minorities. These topics include the political consequences of intersectionality derived from belonging to multiple minorities, which can either constitute a strategic advantage or disadvantage. Such an impact, shaped by formal (e.g. quotas) and informal (e.g. discrimination) dynamics alike (e.g. Mügge and Erzeel, Reference Mügge and Erzeel2016), has mostly been analysed in studies on gender and race (Philpot and Walton, Reference Philpot and Walton2007; Gershon and Monforti, Reference Gershon and Monforti2019), barring few exceptions (e.g. Doan and Haider-Markel, Reference Doan and Haider-Markel2010). It could hence be further explored at the intersection between being LGBTIQ+ and belonging to other minorities.
Additionally, whilst it is well-known that gendered patterns concerning different electoral issues and policy domains determine differences in the perceived competence of male and female candidates in public opinion and media coverage (Huddy and Terkildsen, Reference Huddy and Terkildsen1993), our review highlights how the exploration of such dynamics is still to be extended to LGBTIQ+ candidates.
Further, whilst we know from extant works that a favourable environment towards the LGBTIQ+ community is conducive to the extension of this subgroup's rights (Riggle and Ellis, Reference Riggle and Ellis1994), the literature on LGBTIQ+ political careers does not elucidate whether this favourable climate also translates into a career advantage, and how. Moreover, generally speaking, minority candidates are penalised in constituencies characterised by a climate of exclusionary ‘ethnocentrism’ and social antipathy towards outgroups, for instance on religious grounds (Kalkan et al., Reference Kalkan, Layman and Green2018). Yet, we currently lack evidence concerning whether this pattern specifically extends to LGBTIQ+ candidates as well.
Lastly, our review shows that the existing literature overlooks other factors that may impact the course of LGBTIQ+ political careers. These include, for instance, targeted hate campaigns, which have generally been shown to hinder the political representation of minority candidates (e.g. vis-à-vis women) by pressuring them into lowering their political ambition or even quitting politics (e.g. Krook and Sanín, Reference Krook and Sanín2020). Another underexplored factor is the different relationships of LGBTIQ+ candidates with the related social movements, civic associations and activists, which – depending on the person and level of election – may characterise career trajectories in a different way compared to purely party-political factors.
How: research design characteristics
We now review how the scholarly contributions that analyse LGBTIQ+ political careers reached the illustrated substantive conclusions, hence focussing on aspects of research design. In this regard, we are able to highlight a number of prominent commonalities emerging from this literature, especially in light of the aforementioned predominant focus on the electoral success of LGBTIQ+ candidates in specific contexts.
A first common aspect is the use of quantitative methods. In particular, data from surveys, survey experiments and other experimental designs are chiefly analysed by means of descriptive statistics (Casey and Reynolds, Reference Casey and Reynolds2015; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2023); a wide range of regression techniques such as ordinary least squares, logistic, multinomial logistic and seemingly unrelated regression (Button et al., Reference Button, Wald and Rienzo1999; Golebiowska, Reference Golebiowska2001; Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2013; Flores, Reference Flores2015; Haider-Markel et al., Reference Haider-Markel, Miller, Flores, Lewis, Tadlock and Taylor2017; Miller et al., Reference Miller, Flores, Haider-Markel, Lewis, Tadlock and Taylor2017; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Brewer, Young, Lambe and Hoffman2018; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2018a; Jones and Brewer, Reference Jones and Brewer2019; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2021; Loepp and Redman, Reference Loepp and Redman2022); two-way and multiple analyses of variance (Golebiowska, Reference Golebiowska2003; Everitt and Horvath, Reference Everitt and Horvath2021); and analysis of conditional average treatment effects (Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2018b). Further, it must be noted how there are at times inconsistencies between the results of studies relying on observational and experimental data (for instance, Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2018a; Reference Magni and Reynolds2021). There is also a minority of studies adopting qualitative or mixed-methods designs, either solely relying on the thematic analysis of interview data or open survey responses, or combining it with the quantitative analysis of descriptive statistics (Golebiowska, Reference Golebiowska2002; Haider-Markel, Reference Haider-Markel2010; Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2018).
The second design commonality emerging from our review concerns the geographical scope of works within this literature. Indeed, almost all contributions focus on the US, either at the national or the local level (e.g. the Greater Boston Area in Golebiowska, Reference Golebiowska2003). The few exceptions that do not focus on the US are either placed within analogous high-income, English-speaking developed countries (Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2018a, Reference Magni and Reynolds2021; Tremblay, Reference Tremblay2019; Everitt and Horvath, Reference Everitt and Horvath2021) or in very large and diverse groups of national contexts, mostly but not solely from OECD, European and Western countries (Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2013; Casey and Reynolds, Reference Casey and Reynolds2015; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2023).
Finally, most of such contributions concerning the factors favouring or penalising LGBTIQ+ candidates reach their conclusions by analysing voters' behaviour (Golebiowska, Reference Golebiowska2001, Reference Golebiowska2003; Haider-Markel et al., Reference Haider-Markel, Miller, Flores, Lewis, Tadlock and Taylor2017; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Brewer, Young, Lambe and Hoffman2018; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2018a, Reference Magni and Reynolds2018b; Jones and Brewer, Reference Jones and Brewer2019; Everitt and Horvath, Reference Everitt and Horvath2021; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2021; Loepp and Redman, Reference Loepp and Redman2022) and attitudes (Flores, Reference Flores2015; Miller et al., Reference Miller, Flores, Haider-Markel, Lewis, Tadlock and Taylor2017). Fewer works focus instead on LGBTIQ+ candidates themselves and are split between those employing aggregate-level data to explore which factors favour the careers of publicly out LGBTIQ+ candidates (Button et al., Reference Button, Wald and Rienzo1999; Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2013; Casey and Reynolds, Reference Casey and Reynolds2015; Magni and Reynolds, Reference Magni and Reynolds2023); and those retrieving data from the direct involvement of LGBTIQ+ candidates as participating subjects in their research (Golebiowska, Reference Golebiowska2002; Haider-Markel, Reference Haider-Markel2010; Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2018).
The predominant (although, not constant) design characteristics of the literature on LGBTIQ+ political careers emerging from our review are perfectly compatible with the key substantive focus on electoral contests illustrated above. This is true in terms of the methods traditionally employed in electoral studies (i.e. largely quantitative); the selection of a spatial context in which elections are especially important for politicians as individuals, not least because of the less structured nature of American parties; and the abundance of relevant data on LGBTIQ+ voting behaviour and public opinion on LGBTIQ+ issues at different levels in the US.
Yet, these imbalances highlight the opportunity for the literature on LGBTIQ+ political careers to expand this consolidated knowledge beyond the sole aspect of electoral performance. If we look at strands of literature on other minorities outside of LGBTIQ+ politics, this has mostly been done by looking at the direct experience of minority politicians, most often employing more qualitative and interview-based research designs (e.g. Evans and Reher, Reference Evans and Reher2023). These different approaches are well-suited to investigate the personal experiences, perceptions, representations, strategies and values of minority candidates within the party-political and broader societal contexts in which they are embedded (van Dijk, Reference van Dijk2023). As this critical examination points to, following similar pathways centred around politicians' direct experiences may be very fruitful for expanding the scope of the literature on LGBTIQ+ political careers.
Finally, we believe questions of generalisability should be asked concerning the findings of this literature, as they are based on contexts with very similar sociocultural and party-political/electoral characteristics. Of course, variation along both such dimensions and the related factors – e.g. on the one hand the level of sociocultural liberalism, and on the other the presence of more or less structured parties and candidate-centred electoral systems – may impact the structure of political opportunities faced by LGBTIQ+ politicians, and hence their career trajectories. Therefore, we reckon that future works should further explore how different configurations of sociocultural and party-political/electoral features shape LGBTIQ+ career dynamics by extending the geographical scope of this literature.
Conclusions and next steps
Our analytical review of the literature on LGBTIQ+ political careers provides us with a number of relevant and underexplored questions: in light of the empirical evidence provided by the literature on political careers in non-US contexts, how do candidate selection and career progression work in the case of LGBTIQ+ politicians? Which are the specific profiles and career paths of LGBTIQ+ candidates, and do they differ from those of non-LGBTIQ+ politicians? Do the determinants of LGBTIQ+ career trajectories apply across different contexts and to all candidates from this minority, or are there intersectional differences between the various subgroups or even individuals making them up?
One of the main contributions of our review is highlighting the ample room for a future research agenda complementing the existing works in this strand of literature. More specifically, future research on LGBTIQ+ political careers should go into greater depth concerning: (a) the individual and contextual factors (Vercesi, Reference Vercesi2018) favouring or disfavouring LGBTIQ+ political careers as a whole, including in so far empirically unexplored contexts with different sociocultural and party-political/electoral characteristics, to see which and whether of such factors makes a difference in LGBTIQ+ political careers; (b) the impact of formal rules and other internal party-specific dynamics, such as the openness of candidate selection rules and the degree of intra-party personalisation, on the selection and career progression of LGBTIQ+ candidates both in parliamentary and governmental terms (e.g. Marino et al., Reference Marino, Martocchia Diodati, Verzichelli, Seddone and Sandri2021); (c) likewise, the impact of informal norms such as those concerning performance-based promotion criteria and portfolio allocation vis-à-vis politicians from gender and sexual minorities (e.g. Smrek, Reference Smrek2022); and (d) the commonalities and differences in the experiences of LGBTIQ+ candidates, both between and within the various subgroups making up the LGBTIQ+ population (e.g. see Magni and Imse, Reference Magni and Imse2023).
The broader subfield of LGBTIQ+ politics, which focuses on the political dimension of the LGBTIQ+ population at large – e.g. in terms of political participation, representation, attitudes and voting behaviour – is ever-expanding. We are hopeful that political science as a discipline will keep engaging in the necessary act of further focussing on and investing resources in the LGBTIQ+ politics subfield and its large research agenda, which also concerns LGBTIQ+ candidates and political careers. It is in regard to this specific aspect that, through this analytical review of the related literature, we hope to contribute to this collective effort.
Funding
The research has been funded by the CARIPLO Foundation ‘Inequalities Research’ Research Grant, as part of the ‘Assessing obstacles and inequalities in gender and LGBT + political leadership and careers: an intersectional perspective (GENPOLEAD)’ research project.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Open access
