Content uploaded by Marc Debus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marc Debus on Feb 12, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
LGBidentity and its implications for the policy
positions of parliamentary candidates
Marc Debus1and L. Constantin Wurthmann2
1School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany and 2GESIS –Leibniz-Institute for the Social
Sciences, Data and Research on Society, National Election Studies, Mannheim, Germany
Corresponding author: Marc Debus; Email: marc.debus@uni-mannheim.de
(Received 10 August 2023; revised 27 November 2023; accepted 18 December 2023)
Abstract
Several studies concentrate on the representation of minority groups and the policy goals that members of
these groups highlight when becoming candidates for public offices. However, we do not know much about
the degree of parliamentary representation of sexual minorities and what ideological profile politicians
with an LGBidentity adopt. We aim at filling this gap by analysing the ideological stances of LGB
candidates on key policy dimensions. Using data from the 2021 German candidate study, we find that the
self-identification as LGBcontributes significantly to adopting progressive stances on the socio-cultural
dimension and more favourable positions on welfare state expansion, regardless of further important
factors like party affiliation. Moreover, candidates who consider themselves LGBdo take on significantly
less traditional positions on the socio-cultural dimension compared to the position of their party,
indicating that increasing descriptive representation of LGBindividuals in parliament leads to a
strengthening of more progressive voices in parliament and a stronger substantive representation of LGB
interests.
Keywords: LGB; representation; parliamentary candidates; policy positions; German Bundestag
Introduction
LGB1individuals have increasingly been able to free themselves from their social niche existence
in recent decades, at least in many Western societies (Ayoub, 2016). As a result, they have
developed from an invisible electorate that could not be actively mobilized into a steadily more
visible and mobilized segment among voters (Proctor, 2022). Nevertheless, LGBindividuals are
still a selectively visible social group and very often choose when to “unmask their sexuality which
limits the ability of social scientists to study their attitudes and behaviours”(Turnbull-Dugarte,
2020a, 518). Following this perspective, an increasing number of empirical studies have been
devoted to the political behaviour, i.e. voting participation and voting behaviour, of LGB
individuals and have demonstrated that this social group, which is still only marginally researched,
might be and is capable of shaping politics (Guntermann and Beauvais, 2022; Grahn, 2023;
Hertzog, 1996; Perrella et al.,2012; Turnbull-Dugarte, 2020b; Wurthmann, 2023a). In contrast,
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Consortium for Political Research. This is an Open
Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
1We use the term “LGB”in this paper because we are only able to make a substantive statement about lesbian, gay,
bisexual, asexual and pansexual people based on the data we are referring to. Where the term LGB, LGBTQ or LGBT is used,
this is done in order not to misappropriate the statements made by other authors. We are unable to consider the identities of
individuals who identify as trans* and/or transgender since such information is not included in the dataset utilized for this
analysis.
European Political Science Review (2024), 1–20
doi:10.1017/S1755773924000018
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
the literature on LGBpoliticians and their political behaviour was considered “almost non-
existent”(Everitt, 2015, 178) only a few years ago. Today, three main branches of research can be
identified that are dedicated to the study of LGBpolitical elites. These include the performance
of LGBrepresentatives in parliaments. Reynolds (2013, 259) finds, for example, “that the
presence of even a small number of openly gay legislators is associated significantly with the future
passage of enhanced gay rights”. Similarly, Bönisch (2022) and Haider-Markel (2010) find that
LGBindividuals act as mediators and advocates for the interests of sexual minorities. Worth
mentioning is also the very recent research dedicated to the electoral success of LGBindividuals
and corresponding influential factors (e.g. Cravens, 2023; Everitt and Camp, 2014; Everitt and
Horvath, 2021; Magni and Reynolds, 2018,2021). The third strand is explicitly dedicated to the
public’s perception of LGBpoliticians and which indicators explain disapproval or approval
(Albaugh and Baisley, 2023; Haider-Markel et al.,2017; Jones and Brewer, 2019).
These approaches do not, however, study whether the sexual identity of politicians affects
which ideological positions or –more specifically –policy profiles on key issue dimensions they
adopt. Analysis of population surveys suggests that the sexual identity of individuals influences the
adoption of socio-economically left-wing and socio-culturally liberal attitudes (Turnbull-Dugarte,
2020b). However, there are no findings supporting this effect for candidates or politicians from
corresponding elite surveys reported yet. The present study aims to fill this gap and examines the
effect of the sexual identity of parliamentary candidates on their policy preferences. Against the
background of the finding that LGBcandidates are perceived as more liberal than heterosexual
candidates (Loepp and Redman, 2022; Magni and Reynolds, 2021), and sexuality thus functions as
a kind of cueing mechanism for voters (Magni and Reynolds, 2018), this assumption could already
prove to be too hasty. Preliminary findings provide evidence that parties of the radical right
actively solicit votes from sexual minorities and elect members of this group to the highest party
offices –instrumentally motivated to create sentiment against other minorities such as Muslims or
trans* individuals (Magni and Reynolds, 2023; Turnbull-Dugarte and L´opez Ortega, 2023). It is
therefore all the more important to shed light on the question whether LGBpoliticians tend
towards more progressive attitudes than heterosexual ones and if there is variation across parties
with differing ideological profiles. Subsequently, the question arises whether a higher degree of
descriptive representation, as described by Reynolds (2013), would necessarily lead to a higher
degree of substantive representation (Pitkin, 1967), which should be congruent with previous
findings on attitudes of the LGBpopulation (e.g. Turnbull-Dugarte, 2020b).
In line with existing studies which find that MPs with a working-class background
(e.g., Hemingway, 2022), female legislators (e.g., Erzeel and Celis, 2016) and MPs of specific ethnic
origin (e.g., Ellis and Wilson, 2013) represent the interests of their peer group in parliament, we
expect parliamentary candidates who identify as LGBto represent the interests of this social
group, so that LGBcandidates for parliament should be more progressive on socio-cultural
issues and more left-wing on socio-economic issues than heterosexual candidates. Empirically, we
study in this contribution the determinants of policy preferences of candidates for a recent
parliamentary election –the German Bundestag in 2021 –and analyse if parliamentary candidates
who identify themselves as LGBadopt a distinct profile on key dimensions that reflect major
conflict lines in modern societies.
In so doing, we take a closer look at the positions parliamentary candidates adopted on the
socio-cultural dimension, thus differentiating between preferences for a pluralist position and a
traditionalist position on the order of society and individual lifestyles on the one hand, and on a
socio-economic dimension that distinguishes negative from positive views on fiscal conservatism
on the other. We make use of the German Candidate Study 2021 (GLES, 2023) that covers a wide
range of information on the attitudes, values and personal characteristics of politicians, including
their self-reported sexual identity. We find that the self-identification as LGBresults in a more
progressive position on the socio-cultural dimension and a more state-interventionist position on
a socio-economic dimension. Furthermore, individuals identifying as LGBtend to adopt less
2 Marc Debus and L. Constantin Wurthmann
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
conventional stances on socio-cultural issues than what is typically associated with their political
party. This suggests that having more LGBrepresentatives in parliament enhances the influence
of progressive perspectives and better represents the interests of the LGBcommunity, even
when controlling for the partisan affiliation of parliamentary candidates. To derive these findings,
we review the existing literature in the following section and develop four hypotheses that guide
the empirical analysis. Before presenting the results, we provide a more detailed description of
the data and of the analytical strategy. The final section concludes by discussing limitations of the
present study and by presenting ideas for future research.
The sexuality gap in political behaviour revisited
The voting behaviour and political attitudes of LGBindividuals are still widely understudied as
contributions focusing on this topic are still rare (Perrella et al.,2012; Mejdrich and Burge, 2018).
Nevertheless, more and more studies address this issue and thus also deal with an old stereotype
that “all the gays are liberal”(Worthen, 2020, 27). Indeed, LGBindividuals do not only take
liberal positions on issues that directly concern them, like, for instance, same-sex marriages or
adoption rights for same-sex couples (Denise, 2017). They also hold more progressive positions on
abortion, climate and environmental policy, and the death penalty than heterosexuals do (Egan,
2012; Worthen, 2020; Schnabel, 2018). All in all, LGBindividuals “are significantly more liberal
in their attitudes than are heterosexuals with identical demographic backgrounds”(Hertzog, 1996,
81). Differences in attitudes also manifest themselves in the fact that with their income rising,
heterosexuals tend to be more hostile to redistribution efforts and are less likely to vote for left-
wing parties, whereas this is less often the case for LGBcitizens (Turnbull-Dugarte, 2020b). Self-
identifying as LGBis a strong predictor that shapes how individuals perceive the world
(Schnabel, 2018) and how they vote (Hertzog, 1996). Indeed, the support of LGBindividuals for
social democratic or socially liberal parties is significantly above average as studies on voting
behaviour and party preferences in the United States (Egan, 2012; Hertzog, 1996; Swank, 2018),
Canada (Perrella et al.,2012,2019), Germany (Wurthmann, 2023a), and the UK (Turnbull-
Dugarte, 2022) indicate. This is explained by the longstanding support of LGBrights by these
parties (Haider-Markel, 2010; Turnbull-Dugarte, 2020a; Wurthmann, 2023a), which reflects a
congruence of parties and voters (Tremblay, 2019). LGBindividuals, however, turn out to be a
particularly loyal group of voters: “Like women, LGBT citizens are geographically and ethnically
dispersed, but unlike women, they do tend to vote for parties that are sympathetic to their group’s
needs”(Reynolds, 2013, 261). Interestingly, recent findings also provide evidence that bisexual
and transgender individuals are about slightly less liberal than lesbians and gays (Jones, 2021).
Haider-Markel et al. (2017) show that openly gay and lesbian candidates are still rejected by
about a third of all voters because of their sexuality. Some voters still penalize candidates
belonging to a sexual or gender minority (Magni and Reynolds, 2021). Nevertheless, LGB
candidates perform as well as straight candidates on the ballots (Magni and Reynolds, 2018)as
long as they adopt heteronormative standards and are married and/or have children (Everitt and
Horvath, 2021). One explanation for this counterintuitive result is that “voters who would be
inclined to vote against an LGBT candidate would probably not vote for most Democratic
candidates”(Haider-Markel et al.,2017, 12), whereas gay Republicans enjoy a higher support than
straight Republicans do because Democrats are “sympathetic to the sexuality cue as well as
Republicans attracted to the partisan heuristic”(Loepp and Redman, 2022, 307). Generally
speaking, gay candidates are perceived to be more liberal than their heterosexual counterparts
(Magni and Reynolds, 2021) and, in addition, they run more often for left-leaning or liberal parties
than for conservatives (Everitt and Camp, 2014).
But what other forms of substantial representation can actually be expected when LGB
candidates succeed in entering parliament remains unclear. We know that the social background
LGBidentity and its implications for candidates’policy positions 3
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
and the identities of politicians originating from their gender, professional background, family
structure or religious denomination can play an important role in the political process and can
affect policy outputs and the final outcomes of the political process (Bailey, 1999; see also
Baumann et al.,2015; Burden, 2007). One can therefore expect that the election of LGB
candidates into political offices leads to a greater degree of substantial representation of the
interests of LGBindividuals in the political process, so that policy outputs should stronger
integrate and reflect the policy preferences of the LGBcommunity (Bönisch, 2022; Haider-
Markel, 2010; Magni and Reynolds, 2021; Reynolds, 2013).
Besides adopting more progressive positions on socio-cultural policies, we also know from
existing research that LGBindividuals tend to adopt more left-wing positions on economic
issues than the heterosexual population (Turnbull-Dugarte, 2020b). Kleiman et al. (2015) explain
this pattern by referring to the experience of marginalization that many LGBindividuals make,
so that they are more likely to show solidarity with other, economically determined minorities.
In addition, socialization and discrimination experiences of LGBindividuals may have “altered
their ideological predispositions to make them more supportive of leftist ideals, or that they are
likely to be mobilized towards those who seek to cater to their aggregate policy preferences as a
means of advancing their own welfare”(Turnbull-Dugarte, 2020a, 531). For this reason,
a straightforward expectation would be that candidates for public office who identify as LGBare
also fiscally less conservative.2
Following these existing findings on LGBindividuals’attitudes and policy preferences as well
as their experience with discrimination in various policy domains, we argue that candidates for
public office who identify themselves as LGB(and mention this accordingly in surveys) adopt
not only policy positions similar to other LGBindividuals. Moreover, candidates who compete
for votes in elections should have an intrinsic motivation to change the status quo so that life
conditions for individuals belonging to the same group should improve. One would therefore
expect not only that candidates identifying as LGBadopt a distinct ideological profile in line
with the one of their constituents, but also deviate from their party line on key policy issues that
are considered to be relevant for these individuals. We know from studies on legislative behaviour
that MPs with specific personal characteristics that can be related to a policy issue adopt distinct
policy profiles in the process of legislative decision-making for vote-seeking reasons in general and
for gaining a distinct policy profile within their party as well as among the public in particular
(e.g., Burden, 2007). For instance, religious denomination, gender, and parental status of elected
politicians can matter for decision-making processes on moral policy issues, and elected
politicians with a specific ethnic background are more active in legislative debates on citizen and
minority rights (e.g., Bailer et al.,2022; Baumann et al.,2015; Dingler and Kroeber, 2023).
Drawing on these lines of reasoning, we expect not only that candidates for public office
who identify themselves as LGBfollow the ideological positions of LGBindividuals on the
socio-cultural and the socio-economic dimension, but also see themselves as more progressive and
socio-economically less conservative than their respective party –because of an intrinsic
2Some recent studies indicate that advocacy for LGBrights can be linked to ethnocentric perspectives, potentially
masking anti-immigrant sentiments (Turnbull-Dugarte and Ortega, 2023; Hunklinger and Ajanovi´c, 2022; Wurthmann,
2023a; Spierings, 2021). This suggests that the progressive policy positions among LGBindividuals on socio-cultural issues
might exclude issues related to migration and integration, because –according to this perspective –permissive migration
policies would endanger the progressive achievements of Western liberal democracies on the acceptance of homosexuality.
Yet, further research points out that LGBindividuals tend to hold more liberal, progressive and permissive views than
heterosexuals in general, including issues like migration (Hertzog, 1996; Egan, 2012; Schnabel, 2018; Worthen, 2020). Given
that the data we use also includes a policy dimension differentiating between restrictive and permissive positions on migration,
we test if LGBcandidates differ significantly in their migration policy positions from heterosexual candidates. The results
reveal that there is no significant effect of the LGBidentity of candidates on their migration policy position, so that
candidates with an LGBbackground are –at least for the German parliament in 2021 –neither more nor less in favour of
permissive migration policies (see Table A3 in the online appendix).
4 Marc Debus and L. Constantin Wurthmann
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
motivation to change the status quo policy in favour of LGBindividuals, in particular on
diversity policy. On the basis of these considerations, we formulate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: LGBcandidates adopt more liberal positions on the socio-cultural dimension
than candidates who identify as heterosexual.
Hypothesis 2: LGBcandidates favour a stronger welfare state than candidates who identify as
heterosexual.
Hypothesis 3: Candidates identifying as LGBconsider themselves as more liberal on the socio-
cultural dimension than their respective party.
Hypothesis 4: Candidates identifying as LGBconsider themselves as fiscally less conservative
than their respective party.
Case selection and research design
We select the 2021 German Bundestag election to evaluate the hypotheses. Focusing on Germany
has several advantages. First, diversity issues became –likewise in several other modern
democracies –a highly salient issue in German party competition with the far-right populist
Alternative for Germany (AfD) actively campaigning against anti-discrimination law proposals,
whereas parties with societally progressive positions like the Alliance 90/The Greens (Greens),
The Left, the Social Democrats (SPD) and the liberal Free Democrats (FDP) are in favour of
policies that protect the rights of sexual minorities (Abou-Chadi et al.,2021; Jankowski et al.,2022;
Wurthmann, 2023a). In addition, and as the descriptive results will show, the German case allows
for analysing the policy profile of LGBcandidates not only predominantly from liberal and
progressive parties on socio-cultural issues, but also from parties which adopt moderate to explicit
traditionalist profiles on the order of society like CDU, CSU and AfD.
Secondly, intra-party unity and cohesion among German parties is relatively high and
deviating from the party line can be risky for individual politicians in terms of their chances to get
(re-)nominated (Baumann et al.,2017; Sieberer et al.,2020), so that the focus on Bundestag
candidates can be considered as a least likely case to find evidence for an impact of the sexual
identity of candidates on their individual policy positions.
Third, a further advantage of the German case is the electoral system for the federal parliament
and different processes of candidate selection that originate from the electoral system. 299 MPs
were elected directly in districts, and the parties’candidates for a direct candidacy in a district are
selected in local party conventions and thus in a context where minority candidates in general, and
LGBcandidates in particular, tend to face higher hurdles to win a nomination (see, e.g., Debus
and Himmelrath, 2024; Haider-Markel et al.,2017,2019; Kulich et al.,2014). The remaining seats
in the Bundestag are elected from party lists which cannot be changed by the voters. State-level
party conventions, where the party leadership has more influence on the outcome of the candidate
selection process than in decentralized meetings of the local party membership, decide on the
composition of the list, and minority candidates have better chances to win list positions even in
case of parties with a more traditionalist profile on socio-cultural issues since this signals diversity
to the public when presenting the parties’candidates (see, e.g., Mügge et al.,2019). The empirical
focus on the German Bundestag allows, therefore, to differentiate between different candidate
modes and to evaluate whether the types of candidacies are related with the LGBbackground of
candidates and their policy positions on the policy dimensions under study.
Fourth, the 2021 German Candidate Study (GLES, 2023) provides –besides data on the
positions of candidates on key ideological dimensions, which form the dependent variable in our
analysis –information on the sexual identity which the candidates for the 2021 Bundestag election
identify with. All candidates of the parties that were represented in the Bundestag with
LGBidentity and its implications for candidates’policy positions 5
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
parliamentary group status before the 2021 Bundestag elections were asked to participate in the
study: the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Christian Social Union (CSU)3, the SPD, the
AfD, the FDP, the Left and the Greens. In summary, 735 partial and full interviews were realized
during the data collection process which took place from 19 October 2021 to 31 January 2022.
If we look at the percentages of the extent to which particular characteristics are over- or under-
represented in the sample in direct comparison to the population of all candidates and elected
MPs as a whole, it becomes obvious that Green candidates and elected Green MPs are clearly
over-represented in the sample, while those of the AfD are clearly under-represented.4Further
deviations with regard to other party groups, biological sex, age or type of candidacy are not of
further concern (see Table A1 in the online Appendix).
Table 1provides information on the number and share of candidates (and elected MPs) who
identified as LGBin the candidate survey. In addition, Table 1provides information on how
many candidates refused to answer the sexual identity question, either by giving no response,
stating explicitly not to answer a question on this topic, or by stopping the interview.5Taking these
possibilities together, almost 11% of the candidates participating in the survey refused to answer
the question on their sexual identity. This share does not vary much across parties. With the
exception of the FDP candidates, of which 18% did not want to provide information on their
sexual identity, between 8% and 11% of the respective parties’candidates did not participate in
answering this question. While the share of LGBcandidates participating in the survey is highest
among SPD, FDP, Greens and The Left and thus among those parties in Germany that adopt
progressive positions in societal affairs in general (e.g., Jankowski et al.,2022) and on diversity
issues in particular (Wurthmann, 2023a), the share of respondents with an LGBidentity is
clearly smaller among the candidates of the rather traditionalist CDU, CSU and the AfD.
Nevertheless, there are LGBcandidates among parties with a more traditionalist socio-cultural
profile in the sample, which allows for evaluating whether LGBcandidates are more progressive
than other candidates and their party across the complete ideological party spectrum.
When turning to the share of elected LGBcandidates, we find a very similar pattern for SPD,
FDP and Green Bundestag members when comparing to their share of LGBcandidates. Between
approx. 12% and 15% of the elected candidates of these three parties who participated in the
Table 1. Number of candidates and elected candidates covered in the analysis, by party
Party
Number of
candidates
Number of candidates who
refused to answer the sexual
identity question
Number of LGB
candidates
(share in %)
Number of
elected
candidates
Number of elected
LGBcandidates
(share in %)
CDU 116 10 (8.6%) 7 (6%) 32 1 (3.1%)
CSU 28 3 (10.7%) 1 (3.6%) 9 0 (0%)
SPD 119 11 (9.2%) 14 (11.8%) 59 7 (11.9%)
FDP 122 22 (18%) 15 (12.2%) 25 3 (12%)
Greens 164 14 (8.5%) 27 (16.4%) 34 5 (14.7%)
The Left 125 13 (10.4%) 18 (14.4%) 6 0 (0%)
AfD 61 6 (9.8%) 2 (3.3%) 11 0 (0%)
Total 735 79 (10.7%) 84 (11.4%) 160 16 (9.1%)
Source: German Candidate Study 2021 (GLES, 2023).
3The CSU only competes for votes in Bavaria, while the CDU competes for voters in all German states except for Bavaria.
4It is important to note that the survey respondents were informed before answering the question that their response on the
sexual identity question will remain anonymous and cannot be connected to the names of the candidates in the published
survey. We are therefore confident that we not only cover LGBcandidates who revealed their sexual identity to the public,
but also those candidates who are not openly LGB.
549 respondents (6.7%) of the 735 candidates who participated in the survey did not answer the question on their sexual
identity, and 28 respondents (3.8%) stopped the interview. The question on the sexual identity of the candidates was the last
question asked in the survey.
6 Marc Debus and L. Constantin Wurthmann
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
candidate survey identify themselves as LGB, whereas the rate is significantly lower in case of the
CDU (3.1%) and goes down to zero for CSU, AfD and The Left. These descriptive data already
indicate that it is –besides theoretical reasons, because if LGBindividuals are socio-culturally
more progressive and fiscally less conservative, they should be more likely to run for parties to the
left of the ideological centre –important to control for the party affiliation of the candidates in the
multivariate analysis. Because of the missing representation of LGBcandidates from AfD, CSU,
and The Left who got elected to the parliament, we focus on the candidates only when evaluating
the hypotheses. Separate regression models which are based on the elected candidates are
presented in the appendix (see Table A2 in the online appendix).
Dependent variables
Our analysis aims at estimating the effect of LGBidentity among parliamentary candidates on,
first, their positions on a socio-cultural and on a socio-economic conflict dimension and, secondly,
on the policy distance –individually perceived by the candidates –between the candidates and
their respective party on both dimensions. In a first step, the Bundestag candidates who
participated in the survey were confronted with a scale on which they were asked to position
themselves. The socio-cultural dimension ranged from (1) priority of individual development
opportunities to (11) priority of preserving traditions and lifestyles. In the socio-economic
dimension, the conflict ranged originally between the extreme poles of (1) less taxes and
contributions, even if this means fewer welfare state services, and (11) more welfare state services,
even if this means more taxes and contributions. In order to have similar directions of the two
scales, in which lower scores represent progressive or liberal policies and higher scores
traditionalist or fiscally conservative positions, we reversed the direction of the socio-economic
scale, so that lower scores represent preferences for an increasing scope of the welfare state, while
higher scores indicate fiscally conservative preferences. In a second step, the respondents were
asked to rank the position of their parties on these dimensions. To determine whether the
candidates position themselves socio-culturally and socio-economically more to the left or to
the right than their parties, we subtract the party position from the individual position.6Negative
values then indicate that respondents position themselves to the left of the party, thus having more
pluralist-progressive and fiscally less conservative positions, while positive values indicate that
respondents position themselves to the right of the party’s assumed position, i.e. thinking that they
are more traditionalist and fiscally more conservative than their party.
Focal independent variable
In order to find out the sexual identity of the interviewees, which is our focal explanatory variable,
the survey respondents were given the opportunity to make this statement via the following
selection of answer categories: (1) heterosexual, (2) homosexual, (3) bi- or pansexual, (4) asexual,
(5) other orientation, namely [free field] and (6) the statement “I do not wish to comment on this
topic”. We branded those respondents as individuals identifying as LGBwho considered
themselves as homosexual, bi- or pansexual or asexual as well as those respondents who entered
statements in answer category 5 that could be classified as LGB. Although distinct differences in
policy preferences between lesbians, gays and bisexuals can be identified (Jones, 2021), the number
of respondents is too small for a more differentiated analysis in this case and future studies with a
larger sample need to study if there are differences in the attitudes and policy positions between
6The results do not substantively change when concentrating on the distance between a candidate and their party, measured
by the average position of the respective party.
LGBidentity and its implications for candidates’policy positions 7
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
‘sub-groups’of sexual orientations and identities.7Accordingly, we created a new dichotomous
variable ‘LGB’where candidates who identified as LGBindividuals received a coding of (1),
whereas all heterosexuals who were evident from choosing 1 as well as from the free-field
statements from category 5 were coded with (0).
Not all members who consider themselves as LGBmay be willing to reveal their sexual
orientation. Simultaneously, we are explicitly referring to individuals who define their own sexual
identity, using it as a manifestation of their self-identity construction (Hertzog, 1996; Guyan,
2022). Given the absence of more preferable alternatives for self-disclosure, this practice continues
to be widely employed (e.g., Turnbull-Dugarte, 2022; Wurthmann, 2023a; Albaugh and Baisley,
2023). Nevertheless, there could be an additional self-selection bias, as some politicians may opt
not to acknowledge their affiliation with the LGBcommunity. Considering that the survey was
conducted through respondents autonomously completing digital questionnaires, thus eliminat-
ing interviewer effects observed elsewhere (e.g., Kühne et al.,2019), and given the stringent
confidentiality measures provided to the participants regarding the information they provide on
their sexual identity, this potential self-selection effect can be considered minimized but not
completely eliminated due to the lack of alternative data.
Controls
Parties occupy the most diverse positions in political space, and individuals support or join parties
because of a decisive overlap in the positions on key policy issues. Thus, LGBindividuals should
be more likely to support or join parties with, for instance, a liberal profile on the socio-cultural
dimension. There is empirical evidence that LGBcandidates are significantly more likely to run
for parties that are more left-leaning (Everitt and Camp, 2014). However, it has been pointed out
that members of sexual minorities are not a political monolith (Jones, 2021; Turnbull-Dugarte,
2022), not so much concerning political representatives, but rather to those politically represented.
This is all the truer when, as in the present case of the Federal Republic of Germany, one of the
leading figures of the radical right-wing AfD is a woman self-identifying as lesbian. Therefore –
and because of the disproportionate representation of candidates from the left and liberal
spectrum –we control for the party affiliation of the candidates in the following.
In addition, the age of candidates and the squared age (to control for a non-linear relationship)
and a candidate’s sex serve as control variables in the statistical models. Furthermore, the
inclusion of a differentiated measurement of the respondent’s place of residence is an essential
control variable. Historically, LGBindividuals have frequently relocated to urban areas due to
persistent stigmatization in rural areas (Aldrich, 2004). It is not for nothing that “the lesbian and
gay rights movement has made its most dramatic political impact in the cities”(Bailey, 1999, 3).
To date, it is evident that individuals from rural areas are less supportive of LGBindividuals
(Thompson, 2023). It is therefore all the more understandable that LGBcandidates are also
more likely to run in urban areas (Everitt and Camp, 2014; Haider-Markel, 2010), and vote-
seeking candidates should adopt more progressive positions on diversity issues, regardless of the
candidates’sexual orientation. Using rural areas and villages as a reference category, we, therefore,
include ‘living in a small city’,‘living in the suburb of a big city’and ‘living in a big city’in the form
of dummies as further control variables. Because of the possible effects of the German mixed-
member electoral system on candidate selection outcomes and the policy preferences of
nominated candidates, we include a binary coded variable in the empirical models that identify
7There is empirical evidence that bisexuals are less liberal than lesbians and gay men (Hertzog, 1996; Worthen, 2020; Jones,
2021). Among other things, a less pronounced involvement in the community networks of sexual minorities, the
comparatively less frequent experience of coming out, and the corresponding conversion effects of adopting relatively
progressive stances have been used to explain the variation in ideological positions between homo- and bisexual individuals
(Egan, 2012; Jones, 2021).
8 Marc Debus and L. Constantin Wurthmann
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
those candidates who aimed at winning one of the 299 district seats in the Bundestag, which were
directly elected by plurality rule. Candidates who appeared only on party lists or ‘dual candidacies’
who aimed at winning parliamentary representation by running on a party list and competing for
district votes are coded (0).8
For explaining the positions of the candidates and individually perceived distance between
candidates and their party on the two ideological dimensions under study, we apply simple OLS
regression models to test the set of hypotheses.
Results
Descriptive analyses
Before turning to the evaluation of the hypotheses with multivariate methods, we provide a
descriptive overview on the characteristics of the dependent variables and how they vary across the
sexual identity of candidates and their party affiliation. Figure 1shows the positions that
candidates of CDU, CSU, SPD, FDP, Greens, The Left and of the AfD adopted on the societal
dimension (upper panel) and the economic dimension (lower panel). Furthermore, Figure 1
differentiates between the sexual identity of the candidates and thus between politicians with
heterosexual orientation and those who consider themselves as LGB. We refer to boxplots as a
way to present the intra-party variation in the positions the candidates adopt. The boxplots in
Figure 1provide information on the distribution of the policy positions of the parties’candidates
on the socio-cultural and socio-economic policy dimensions, respectively. The line within the box
shows the median position, the box provides information on the 25th and 75th percentile of the
distribution of policy positions among the candidates of the parties.
As Figure 1indicates, there is clear variation in the self-placement of candidates on both
dimensions between and within parties. On average, the parties’candidates reflect the standard
patterns of party competition on both dimensions: while –in line with the analysis of spatial party
competition in Germany –Greens, FDP, the Left and SPD adopt more progressive positions on
socio-cultural issues, Christian Democrats and in particular candidates from CSU and the AfD
take rather traditionalist positions. Yet, there is –when focusing on heterosexual candidates only –
a remarkable intra-party heterogeneity on that dimension. For instance, there are some SPD
candidates with heterosexual orientation who are more traditional on the socio-cultural
dimension than their party colleagues and some CDU candidates with more progressive positions.
However, when shifting the perspective to LGBcandidates only, they are not only more
or at least similarly progressive on that dimension. Moreover, there are only very few LGB
candidates –all from CDU and CSU –across all seven parties, who adopt a rather traditionalist
position on this policy domain. This descriptive finding speaks already in favour of hypothesis 1.
We cannot observe a similar pattern for the economic policy positions of the candidates. While, as
expected, the candidates of parties to the left of the centre (SPD, Greens and The Left) are more in
favour of a stronger welfare state than for cutting taxes and the contrary is the case for parties of
the centre and on the right of it (CDU, CSU, FDP and AfD), LGBcandidates from the parties of
the centre or right tend to adopt similar positions on the socio-economic dimension than their
parties and do not differ that strongly from heterosexual politicians.
When shifting the perspective to the individually perceived distances between the
self-placement of a candidate on the two dimensions under study and the position of the
respective candidate attached to their party, we find that most candidates do not deviate strongly
from the party line, regardless if we look at the socio-cultural or the socio-economic dimensions
8It is almost impossible to estimate which party list position ‘secures’winning a seat in the Bundestag (Manow and Nistor,
2009). Even being the first person on the list does not ensure winning parliamentary representation if a state party wins more
district seats than it should win according to the party list vote. We therefore refrain from including the party list position of a
candidate in the analysis.
LGBidentity and its implications for candidates’policy positions 9
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
(see Figure 2). However, there is –according to the boxplots in Figure 2–a slight trend that LGB
candidates consider themselves a bit more in favour of progressive policies on the socio-cultural
dimension than their party, indicated by negative scores in the upper panel of Figure 2. We can
observe this pattern in particular for the candidates of SPD, Greens, FDP and –interestingly –for
the radical right and populist AfD. There is a similar, albeit weaker pattern for the socio-economic
Figure 1. Positions of candidates on the socio-cultural dimension (upper panel) and the socio-economic dimension (lower
panel), differentiated by sexual orientation and party affiliation.
Source: German Candidate Study 2021 (GLES, 2023), own calculations.
10 Marc Debus and L. Constantin Wurthmann
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
dimension as the lower panel of Figure 2indicates. Whether these descriptive patterns remain
stable when controlling for several other important factors that have an impact on the candidates’
positions is evaluated in the following subsection.
Figure 2. Distances between candidates and their parties on the socio-cultural and the socio-economic dimensions,
differentiated by sexual orientation and party affiliation.
Source: German Candidate Study 2021 (GLES, 2023). Comment: Negative scores indicate that candidates consider themselves more in
favour of progressive policies on the socio-cultural dimension, while positive scores indicate that candidates take more traditional
positions than their party. In the socio-economic policy dimension, negative scores indicate that candidates favour a stronger welfare
state more than their party, while positive scores signal that candidates are more in favour of fiscal conservative economic policies than
their party.
LGBidentity and its implications for candidates’policy positions 11
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Multivariate analyses
The results of the OLS regression models in Table 2below allow for evaluating hypotheses 1 and 2.
The dependent variable is the self-reported position of a candidate on the socio-cultural
dimension. In model 1, low scores represent a progressive position and high scores reflect a
traditional position, while model 2 refers to the socio-economic dimension that distinguishes
between preferences for an increasing government spending (low scores) and fiscally conservative
positions (high scores). Our main variable of interest is the self-reported sexual identity of a survey
respondent, that is, whether the candidate identifies as heterosexual or as LGB. Model 1
indicates support for our first hypothesis. Even when controlling for important further personal
characteristics, contextual features like the area of living and the party affiliation, and the mode of
candidacy, we find that LGBcandidates for the 2021 Bundestag election are significantly more
progressive on the socio-cultural dimension.
It is worthwhile mentioning that the effect of the variable covering information on the sexual
identity of candidates remains stable and significant when we control for the party affiliation of the
candidates. The variables covering information on the party affiliation of candidates take the
Table 2. Determinants of the policy positions of candidates in the 2021 German Bundestag election
Model 1 Model 2
Position on the socio-cultural dimension Position on the socio-economic dimension
LGB−0.483* −0.421*
(0.240) (0.198)
Christian Democratic Union 2.010** 4.172**
(0.267) (0.222)
Christian Social Union 3.581** 4.703**
(0.438) (0.363)
Free Democratic Party −1.064** 5.398**
(0.273) (0.227)
Green Party −0.508* −0.004
(0.249) (0.206)
The Left −0.225 −1.046**
(0.290) (0.239)
Alternative for Germany 3.709** 5.286**
(0.349) (0.292)
Age 0.0700.049
(0.040) (0.033)
Age (squared) −0.001 −0.001
(0.000) (0.000)
Female 0.099 −0.735**
(0.167) (0.139)
Candidate living in a :::
:::smaller city −0.236 −0.376*
(0.194) (0.160)
:::suburb of a big city −0.499
−0.006
(0.285) (0.235)
:::big city −0.712** −0.450**
(0.206) (0.172)
District candidacy only −0.181 −0.062
(0.220) (0.181)
Constant 2.156* 2.820**
(0.878) (0.728)
N637 638
AIC 2655.513 2419.667
R20.436 0.751
Note: The dependent variable is the position of a respondent on a social-cultural policy dimension (model 1) and on a socio-economic policy
dimension (model 2). SPD candidates form the reference category. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. Significance leve ls:
=p<0.1; * =p<0.05; ** =p<0.01.
12 Marc Debus and L. Constantin Wurthmann
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
theoretical perspective of substantial representation into account: individuals are more likely to
join and run for a political party that shares their policy views, represents the candidates’interests
and the interests of the social group the respective candidates aim to represent. Candidates who
consider themselves as LGB(and want to stand for the interests of LGBindividuals) should be
more likely to join and run for parties with more progressive or pluralist positions on socio-
cultural issues. Indeed, candidates adopt more traditionalist positions if they were nominated by
the CDU and in particular by CSU and AfD (and thus by parties with a conservative profile on the
socio-cultural policy dimension), when compared to candidates of the SPD, which form the
reference category in the regression models. By contrast, candidates of the Greens and the FDP are
more progressive than SPD candidates. Candidates of the socialist Left do not differ significantly
from representatives of the Social Democratic party.
The fact that the variable identifying LGBcandidates helps to explain the positions of
candidates on the socio-cultural dimension –despite controlling for the theoretically important
party affiliation of candidates –suggests that an increasing share of LGBcandidates would help
to shape the status quo in socio-cultural policies in a more progressive direction. Indeed, when
restricting the analysis to those candidates who won a seat in the Bundestag in 2021, they are
significantly more progressive and thus in favour of pluralist forms of individuals’way of life
if they identify as LGB, regardless of their party affiliation and further control variables
(see Table A2 in the online appendix).
Model 2 in Table 2tests the second hypothesis. We find –as expected –that candidates with
LGBidentity are fiscally less conservative than heterosexual candidates, even when controlling
for the party membership and further structural characteristics of candidates. Again, and as
expected, the party affiliation of candidates plays an important role and explains the position of
candidates, with Christian democratic, liberal FDP and far-right AfD representatives being more
in favour of fiscal conservatism than SPD candidates, while candidates of the socialist Left prefer a
strong welfare state to a higher degree than Social Democrats.
Figure 3shows the estimated position of the candidates on the socio-cultural dimension and on
the socio-economic policy dimension. The estimates are based on models 1 and 2 from Table 2.
Figure 3demonstrates that LGBcandidates are slightly but to a statistically significant degree
more progressive than heterosexual candidates and tend to be more in favour of a stronger welfare
state than candidates who consider themselves heterosexual. This substantive effect for both
dimensions under study indicates that the sexual orientation of parliamentary candidates –in
addition to the party affiliation of the respective politicians –matters for the policy positions
candidates adopt on two key policy dimensions.
In a second step, we evaluate hypotheses 3 and 4 and thus the expectation that candidates who
identify as LGBconsider themselves more progressive on socio-cultural affairs and fiscally less
conservative on the socio-economic policy dimension. By referring to studies on substantive
representation and the literature on legislative behaviour, we argued that politicians with specific
personal characteristics that can be related to a policy issue develop distinct ideological profiles for
vote-seeking behaviour in general and for gaining a distinct profile within their party and among
the public in particular. The results of OLS regression analyses presented in Table 3provide
evidence that LGBcandidates consider themselves significantly more progressive on the socio-
cultural dimension than their respective party (see model 1 in Table 3). There is, by contrast, no
such effect when shifting the perspective to the socio-economic dimension. An LGBbackground
does not imply that a candidate of parties represented in the Bundestag elected in 2021 considers
themself fiscally less conservative than the party that nominated the respective candidate. Having
a closer look on the party affiliation of the candidates reveals also some interesting results.
The results presented in Table 2indicate that candidates of the CDU and AfD assume a more
progressive orientation on socio-cultural issues than their respective party, whereas Green
party candidates and those of the socialist Left show a significantly less progressive position
on that dimension than the party which nominated them. When shifting the perspective to the
LGBidentity and its implications for candidates’policy positions 13
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
socio-economic dimension, all candidates adopt –with the exception of the ones of the Green
party –more fiscally conservative positions than their respective parties when compared to SPD
candidates who form the reference group in the regression models.
Figure 4shows the substantive effect of the variable identifying candidates with LGBidentity.
While candidates with a heterosexual identity consider themselves as neither more progressive nor
more traditionalist than their parties, LGBcandidates position themselves as significantly more
progressive than the party that nominated them. There is, by contrast, no similar effect when
shifting the perspective to the socio-economic dimension and the individually perceived
distance between a candidate and their party. Thus, there is only robust empirical evidence for
hypothesis 3, but not for our fourth hypothesis: LGBcandidates consider themselves more
progressive than their party, but not fiscally less conservative than the party that nominated them.
Likewise with the results of the analyses of the candidates’positions on both dimensions, the
findings on the individually perceived distance between the candidates and their parties indicate
again that an increasing representation of candidates who consider themselves as LGBis likely
to produce stronger shifts of the status quo in socio-cultural issues.
To check the robustness of these findings and if the estimated effects are of random nature, we
differentiate between heterosexual respondents and those candidates who rejected to answer the
question on their sexual identity or by stopping the interview.9The results show no significant
effects, that is, candidates who refused to answer the question on their sexual identity do not differ
from heterosexual candidates neither in their positions on the socio-cultural and the socio-
economic dimensions nor in the distance towards their party on both dimensions (see Tables A4
and A5 in the online appendix).
Figure 3. Estimated policy positions of candidates on the socio-cultural and the socio-economic policy dimensions,
differentiated between heterosexual and LGBidentity of candidates.
Comment: The predicted positions are based on models 1 and 2 from Table 2. Bars indicate 90% confidence intervals.
9As already mentioned in footnote 5, 49 respondents (6.7%) of the 735 candidates who participated in the survey did not
answer the question on their sexual identity, and 28 respondents (3.8%) stopped the interview.
14 Marc Debus and L. Constantin Wurthmann
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Conclusion
We asked in this contribution whether representatives of political parties who consider themselves
as LGBare socio-culturally and socio-economically more progressive and more in favour of a
welfare state expansion than heterosexual politicians. We evaluated our hypotheses by using the
candidate study of the 2021 German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES, 2023). We found that the
variation in the candidates’positions on the socio-cultural dimension and on the socio-economic
dimension can be explained by information on the self-reported sexual identity of candidates,
even when we control for important further explanatory variables like, for instance, the party
affiliation of candidates, and, thus, the respective parties’ideological orientation. In addition, the
results of the analyses suggest that LGBcandidates adopt significantly more progressive
positions than their own parties on socio-cultural issues such as diversity policy, according to the
self-placement of candidates and the placements of the parties by the candidates in the survey.
The findings of this contribution thus indicate that (increasing) representation of LGB
individuals in parliaments and legislatures should make it more likely that more progressive
Table 3. Determinants of the perceived policy distance between the positions of candidates and their parties in the 2021
German Bundestag election
Model 1 Model 2
Distance to a candidate’s party
on a socio-cultural dimension
Distance to a candidate’s party
on a socio-economic dimension
LGB−0.464* −0.022
(0.199) (0.162)
Christian Democratic Union −0.485* 0.577**
(0.221) (0.183)
Christian Social Union −0.172 1.101**
(0.362) (0.298)
Free Democratic Party 0.203 0.331
(0.227) (0.188)
Green Party 0.746** 0.329
(0.207) (0.169)
The Left 0.480* 0.534**
(0.242) (0.196)
Alternative for Germany −0.746* 0.907**
(0.289) (0.239)
Age 0.033 0.048
(0.033) (0.027)
Age (squared) −0.000 −0.001
(0.000) (0.000)
Female −0.157 −0.530**
(0.139) (0.115)
Candidate living in a :::
:::smaller city −0.201 −0.204
(0.161) (0.132)
:::suburb of a big city −0.537* −0.056
(0.236) (0.193)
:::big city −0.332
−0.169
(0.171) (0.142)
District candidacy only 0.000 −0.081
(0.182) (0.148)
Constant −0.691 −1.001
(0.733) (0.598)
N633 634
AIC 2397.757 2153.830
r2 0.097 0.090
Note: The dependent variable is the distance between the position of a candidate and her party on a socio-cultural (model 1) and a socio-
economic policy dimension (model 2). SPD candidates form the referen ce category. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. Significance
levels: =p<0.1; * =p<0.05; ** =p<0.01.
LGBidentity and its implications for candidates’policy positions 15
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
positions on societal issues can be expressed in the parliamentary process. This is not only because
of the descriptive presence of this social group among parliamentary candidates (and those who
get elected), but also in terms of substantive representation since LGBcandidates consider
themselves significantly more progressive on socio-cultural issues than their parties. These
patterns might also increase the likelihood that LGBfriendly policies get implemented in the
legislative process once more candidates with a LGBidentity get elected, so that the status quo
on socio-cultural issues in general, and on diversity policy in particular, is likely to change
substantially in a progressive direction. Of course, future research should test the implications of
an increasing presence of LGBpoliticians in parliament on policy outputs and policy outcomes
in more detail. For instance, one would expect that laws and law proposals increasingly consider
the interests of LGBpeople on issues related to, for instance, tax or family policy not only when
societally progressive parties are more strongly represented in parliament, but also when
politicians who identify themselves as LGBare more often represented in parliament compared
to current or previous legislative periods. Furthermore, and with reference to recent studies on the
effects of the parliamentary presence of women on interruptions in debates in the US Congress
(Miller and Sutherland, 2023), it would also be useful to investigate whether a more visible LGB
presence in parliament also changes the content and style of parliamentary debates, and if so, in
which form and which direction.
The findings presented here also point into the direction that the prejudice that “all the gays are
liberal”(Worthen, 2020, 27) cannot be confirmed, but that such a basic tendency is just as true at
the level of political elites as at the level of the population. Future studies must therefore focus
more on systematic differences with regard to more specific issue preferences. We have, yet, to
consider that the results presented here are based on a small subset of all candidates for only one
parliamentary election at one point in time. Similarly, it was not possible to differentiate between
different sexual identities. It would be desirable to consider this in future studies. However, this
Figure 4. Estimated difference between the position of candidates and their parties on a socio-cultural and a socio-
economic dimension, differentiated between heterosexual and LGBidentity.
Comment: The predicted positions are based on models 1 and 2 from Table 3. Bars indicate 90% confidence interval s. Negative scores on
the y-axis indicate that candidates consider themselves as more progressive/more in favour of increasing welfare benefits than their
party, while positive scores indicate a more traditional/fiscally conservative position than the respective party of the candidates.
16 Marc Debus and L. Constantin Wurthmann
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
requires sufficient and more fine-grained data, which was not available in the present case. Future
research should try to collect information on the sexual identity and further personal
characteristics of candidates and elected politicians by means of sophisticated surveys in a
comparative research design, so that, for instance, one could study processes of transnational
LGBmobilization on the elite level (Ayoub, 2013). For example, an increasing share of LGB
legislators in a political system with a lower degree of party discipline than in the German
Bundestag –for instance, in presidential systems where the government does not depend on a
majority in the legislature –should result –depending on the societal policy preferences of the
members of the executive –in more policies that favour and strengthen the rights of sexual
minorities.
Moreover, in the current situation, unresolved inquiries warrant additional investigation.
Owing to the limited sample size, it was not possible to explore age-related impacts on candidates.
Over time, cohort effects may surface, suggesting that younger candidates exhibit less progressive
thinking than their older counterparts, as the latter were raised in environments more heavily
influenced by discrimination. Another issue left unanswered for future exploration is whether the
finding by Haider-Markel (2010) that a growing number of LGBlegislators correlates with an
increase in bills favouring sexual minorities and a decrease in hostile bills can be replicated when
not only taking the sexual identity of MPs into account, but also their policy preferences on a
dimension that covers diversity policy.
Furthermore, the currently available data does not permit additional distinctions concerning
attitudes within the LGBparliamentary candidates. However, such a differentiation would be
advantageous, particularly considering potentially different interests and attitudes among the
various subgroups behind the LGBacronym (e.g., Jones 2021; Hertzog 1996). As highlighted by
Murib (2017), there is a pressing need for this differentiation, as it could shed light on disparities
in treatment within the LGBcommunity. This is especially pertinent in the context of the
evolving societal relevance of the treatment of trans* individuals (Haider-Markel et al.,2017;
Jones and Brewer, 2019; Magni and Reynolds, 2021; Wurthmann 2023b). Consequently, there is
untapped potential for further research in the analysis of LGBpolitical elites and their impact on
the political process and its outcomes.
Supplementary material. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577
3924000018.
Acknowledgments. Authors are listed in alphabetical order. Both authors contributed equally to all work. We thank the
anonymous reviewers and the European Political Science Review (EPSR) editors for valuable comments and suggestions.
Support for this research was provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/German Research Foundation (DE1667/4-3).
Competing interests. All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest or competing interests.
References
Abou-Chadi, Tarik, Magdalena Breyer, and Theresa Gessler.“The (Re)politicisation of Gender in Western Europe.”
European Journal of Politics and Gender 4.2 (2021): 311–4. https://doi.org/10.1332/251510821X16177312096679.
Albaugh, Quinn, and Elizabeth Baisley.“Gender and LGBT Affinity Effects: The Case of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.”
Politics & Gender 19.4 (2023): 1156–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X23000302.
Aldrich, Robert.“Homosexuality and the City: An Historical Overview.”Urban Studies 41.9 (2004): 1719–37.
Ayoub, Phillip M. “Cooperative Transnationalism in Contemporary Europe: Europeanization and Political Opportunities for
LGBT Mobilization in the European Union.”European Political Science Review 5.2 (2013): 279–310. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1755773912000161.
Ayoub, Phillip M. When States Come Out. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2016.
Bailer, Stefanie, Christian Breunig, Nathalie Giger, and Andreas M. Wüst.“The Diminishing Value of Representing the
Disadvantaged: Between Group Representation and Individual Career Paths.”British Journal of Political Science 52.2
(2022): 535–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123420000642
Bailey, Robert W. Gay Politics, Urban Politics: Identity and Economics in the Urban Setting. New York: Columbia UP, 1999.
LGBidentity and its implications for candidates’policy positions 17
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Baumann, Markus, Marc Debus, and Tristan Klingelhöfer.“Keeping One’s Seat: The Competitiveness of MP Renomination
in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems.”The Journal of Politics 79.3 (2017): 979–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/690945.
Baumann, Markus, Marc Debus, and Jochen Müller.“Personal Characteristics of MPs and Legislative Behavior in Moral
Policymaking.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 40.2 (2015): 179–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12072.
Bönisch, Lea E. “What Factors Shape the Substantive Representation of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals in Parliament?
Testing the Impact of Minority Membership, Political Values and Awareness.”Parliamentary Affairs 75.4 (2022): 843–66,
https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab033.
Burden, Barry C. Personal Roots of Representation. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2007.
Cravens, R. G. “Christian Nationalism: A Stained-Glass Ceiling for LGBT Candidates?”Politics, Groups, and Identities 11.5
(2023): 1016–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2022.2070076.
Debus, Marc, and Noam Himmelrath. “Who Runs in the End? New Evidence on the Effects of Gender, Ethnicity and
Intersectionality on Candidate Selection”.Political Studies Review (2024). https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241226616.
Denise, Eric J. “Sexual Orientation Differences in Attitudes about Sexuality, Race, and Gender.”Social Science Research 61.1
(2017): 126–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.05.002.
Dingler, Sarah C., and Corinna Kroeber.“Myths About Women in the Political Executive—How Gender Stereotypes Shape
the Way MPs Assess the Competences of Ministers”.Political Research Quarterly 76.3 (2023): 1403–17. https://doi.org/
10.1177/10659129221141871.
Egan, Patrick J. “Group Cohesion without Group Mobilization: The Case of Lesbian, Gays and Bisexuals.”British Journal of
Political Science 42.3 (2012): 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123411000500.
Ellis, William C., and Walter C. Wilson.“Minority Chairs and Congressional Attention to Minority Issues: The Effect of
Descriptive Representation in Positions of Institutional Power.”Social Science Quarterly 94.5 (2013): 1207–21. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ssqu.12023.
Erzeel, Silvia, and Karen Celis.“Political parties, ideology and the substantive representation of women.”Party Politics 55.5
(2016): 576–86, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068816655561.
Everitt, Joanna.“Gender and Sexual Diversity in Provincial Election Campaigns.”Canadian Political Science Review 9.1
(2015): 177–92. https://doi.org/10.24124/c677/20151208.
Everitt, Joanna, and Michael Camp.“In versus Out: LGBT Politicians in Canada.”Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue
d’études canadiennes 48.1 (2014): 226–51. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.48.1.226.
Everitt, Joanna, and Laszlo Horvath.“Public Attitudes and Private Prejudices: Assessing Voters’Willingness to Vote for
Out Lesbian and Gay Candidates.”Frontiers in Political Science 72.3 (2021): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.
662095.
GLES.GLES Kandidierendenstudie 2021. ZA7704, Data file Version 2.0.0. Cologne: GESIS, 2023. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.
14100.
Grahn, Michal.“Still Proud at the Polls? LGBTRights Don’t Dilute the Sexuality Turnout Gap.”European Journal of
Political Research (2023). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12624.
Guntermann, Eric, and Edana Beauvais.“The Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Vote in a More Tolerant Canada.”Canadian
Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 55.2 (2022): 373–403. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000
8423922000026.
Guyan, Kevin.“Constructing a Queer Population? Asking about Sexual Orientation in Scotland’s 2022 Census.”Journal of
Gender Studies 31.6 (2022): 782–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2020.1866513.
Haider-Markel, Donald P. Out and Running. Gay and Lesbian Candidates, Elections, and Policy Representation. Washington,
DC: Georgetown UP, 2010.
Haider-Markel, Donald P., Patrick Gauding, Andrew Flores, Daniel C. Lewis, Patrick Miller, Jami Taylor, and
Barry Tadlock.Year of the LGBTQ Candidate? LGBTQ State Legislative Candidates in the Trump Era. Paper prepared for
presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 2019.
https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2019-6r31v.
Haider-Markel, Donald P., Patrick Miller, Andrew Flores, Daniel C. Lewis, Barry Tadlock, and Jami Taylor.“Bringing ‘T’
to the table: understanding individual support of transgender candidates for public office.”Politics, Groups, and Identities
5.3 (2017): 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1272472.
Hemingway, Alexander.“Does Class Shape Legislators’Approach to Inequality and Economic Policy? A Comparative View.”
Government and Opposition 57.1 (2022): 84–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2020.27.
Hertzog, Mark.The Lavender Vote. Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals in American Electoral Politics. New York: New York
UP, 1996.
Hunklinger, Michael, and Edma Ajanovi´c.“Voting Right? Analyzing Electoral Homonationalism of LGBTIQ* Voters in
Austria and Germany.”Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 29.1 (2022): 24–49. https://doi.org/
10.1093/sp/jxab014
Jankowski, Michael, Anna-Sophie Kurella, Christian Stecker, Andreas Blätte, Thomas Bräuninger, Marc Debus,
Jochen Müller, and Susanne Pickel.“Die Positionen der Parteien zur Bundestagswahl 2021: Ergebnisse des Open Expert
Surveys.”Politische Vierteljahresschrift 63.1 (2022): 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-022-00378-7.
18 Marc Debus and L. Constantin Wurthmann
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Jones, Philip E. “Political Distinctiveness and Diversity among LGBT Americans.”Public Opinion Quarterly 85.2 (2021):
594–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab030.
Jones, Philip E., and Paul R. Brewer.“Gender Identity as a Political Cue: Voter Responses to Transgender Candidates.”
The Journal of Politics 81.2 (2019): 697–701. https://doi.org/10.1086/701835.
Kleiman, Sela, Lisa B. Spanierman, and Nathan G. Smith.“Translating Oppression: Understanding How Sexual Minority
Status is Associated with White Men’s Racial Attitudes.”Psychology of Men & Masculinity 16.4 (2015): 404–15. https://
psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0038797.
Kühne, Simon, Martin Kroh, and David Richter.“Comparing Self-Reported and Partnership-Inferred Sexual Orientation in
Household Surveys.”Journal of Official Statistics 35.4 (2019): 777–805. https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2019-0033.
Kulich, Clara, Michelle K. Ryan, and S. Alexander Haslam.“The Political Glass Cliff: Understanding How Seat Selection
Contributes to the Underperformance of Ethnic Minority Candidates.”Political Research Quarterly 67.1 (2014): 84–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913495740.
Loepp, Eric, and Shane M. Redman.“Partisanship, Sexuality, and Perceptions of Candidates.”Journal of Elections, Public
Opinion and Parties 32.2 (2022): 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1711099.
Magni, Gabriele, and Andrew Reynolds.“Candidate Sexual Orientation Didn’t Matter (in the Way You Might Think) in the
2015 UK General Election.”American Political Science Review 112.3 (2018): 713–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305
5418000102.
Magni, Gabriele, and Andrew Reynolds.“Voter Preferences and the Political Underrepresentation of Minority Groups:
Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender Candidates in Advanced Democracies.”The Journal of Politics 83.4 (2021): 1199–215.
https://doi.org/10.1086/712142.
Magni, Gabriele, and Andrew Reynolds.“Why Europe’s Right Embraces Gay Rights.”Journal of Democracy 34.1 (2023):
50–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2023.0003.
Manow, Philip, and Martina Nistor.“Wann ist ein Listenplatz sicher? Eine Untersuchung der Bundestagswahlen 1953 bis
2002.”Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 40.3 (2009): 603–20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24239126.
Mejdrich, Austin, and Ryan Burge.How Do LGBT Voters Navigate the Political Landscape? An Analysis of Vote Choice and
Public Opinion in 2016.Unpublished Manuscript, Eastern Illinois University, 2018.
Miller, Michael G., and Joseph L. Sutherland.“The Effect of Gender on Interruptions at Congressional Hearings.”American
Political Science Review 117.1 (2023): 103–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000260.
Mügge, Liza M., Daphne J. van der Pas, and Marc van de Wardt.“Representing their own? Ethnic minority women in the
Dutch Parliament.”West European Politics 42.4 (2019): 705–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2019.1573036.
Murib, Zein. “Rethinking GLBT as a political category in US politics.”LGBTQ Politics: A Critical Reader, edited by Marla
Brettschneider, Susan Burgess, and Christine Keating, New York: New York UP (2017), pp. 14–33.
Perrella, Andrea M. L., Steven D. Brown, and Barry J. Kay.“Voting Behaviour among the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual
and Transgendered Electorate.”Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 45.1 (2012):
89–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000842391100093X.
Perrella, Andrea M. L., Steven D. Brown, and Barry J. Kay.“Profile of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Electorate in Canada.”
Queering Representation. LGBTQ People and Electoral Politics in Canada, edited by Manon Tremblay, UBC Press (2019),
pp. 51–79.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel.The Concept of Representation. University of California Press, 1967.
Proctor, Andrew.“Coming out to Vote: The Construction of a Lesbian and Gay Electoral Constituency in the United States.”
American Political Science Review 116.3 (2022): 777–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001465.
Reynolds, Andrew.“Representation and Rights: The Impact of LGBT Legislators in Comparative Perspective.”American
Political Science Review 107.2 (2013): 259–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000051.
Schnabel, Landon.“Sexual Orientation and Social Attitudes.”Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 4(2018).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118769550.
Sieberer, Ulrich, Thomas Saalfeld, Tamaki Ohmura, Henning Bergmann, and Stefanie Bailer.“Roll-Call Votes in the
German Bundestag: A New Dataset, 1949-2013.”British Journal of Political Science 50.3 (2020): 1137–45. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0007123418000406.
Spierings, Niels.“Homonationalism and Voting for the Populist Radical Right: Addressing Unanswered Questions by
Zooming in on the Dutch Case.”International Journal of Public Opinion Research 33.1 (2021): 171–82. https://doi.org/
10.1093/ijpor/edaa005.
Swank, Eric.“Who Voted for Hillary Clinton? Sexual Identities, Gender, and Family Influences.”Journal of GLBT Family
Studies 14.1–2 (2018): 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1421335.
Thompson, Jack.“Rural Identity and LGBTQ Public Opinion in the United States.”Public Opinion Quarterly 87.4 (2023):
956–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad045.
Tremblay, Manon. “Introduction.”Queering Representation. LGBTQ People and Electoral Politics in Canada, edited by
Manon Tremblay, Vancouver: UBC Press (2019), pp. 3–47.
Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J. “Cross-Pressures and the European Lavender Vote: Testing the Conditionality of the Sexuality
Gap.”Electoral Studies 68 (2020b): 102234, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102234.
LGBidentity and its implications for candidates’policy positions 19
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J. “The European Lavender Vote: Sexuality, Ideology and Vote Choice in Western Europe.”
European Journal of Political Research 59.3 (2020a): 517–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12366.
Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J. “Who Wins the British Lavender Vote? (Mostly) Labour.”Politics, Groups, and Identities 10.3
(2022): 388–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2020.1838304.
Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J., and Alberto L´opez Ortega.“Instrumentally Inclusive: The Political Psychology of
Homonationalism.”American Political Science Review (2023). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000849.
Worthen, Mercedes.“‘All the Gays Are Liberal?’Sexuality and Gender Gaps in Political Perspectives among Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Mostly Heterosexual, and Heterosexual College Students in the Southern USA.”Sexuality Research and Social
Policy 17.1 (2020): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0365-6.
Wurthmann, L. Constantin.“German Gays Go Green? Voting Behaviour of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals in the 2021
German Federal Election.”Electoral Studies 81 (2023a). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102558.
Wurthmann, L. Constantin.“The German Transgender Self-Determination Law: Explanatory Factors for Support within the
Population.”European Journal of Politics and Gender (2023b). https://doi.org/10.1332/251510821X16702343170849.
Cite this article: Debus M and Wurthmann LC (2024). LGBidentity and its implications for the policy positions of
parliamentary candidates. European Political Science Review,1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018
20 Marc Debus and L. Constantin Wurthmann
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773924000018 Published online by Cambridge University Press
