Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:50:42.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the Gender and Partisan Dynamics of Abortion Voting in the House of Representatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2021

Kelly L. Rolfes-Haase  and
Michele L. Swers Open the ORCID record for Michele L. Swers [Opens in a new window]
Kelly L. Rolfes-Haase
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Michele L. Swers
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Analyzing votes on abortion-related legislation from the 103rd (1993–94) to the 115th (2017–18) Congresses, we find that both gender and party influence members’ voting behavior. Among Republicans, women are more likely than men to oppose pro-life initiatives, although the impact of gender attenuates over time. Among Democrats, apparent gender differences in voting behavior are explained by the nature of the districts they represent. We also find that the type of abortion issue impacts the influence of gender. Republican women are more likely than Republican men to defect on policies that highlight women's autonomy, such as on bills related to contraception, while Democratic men are more likely than Democratic women to support legislation related to abortion bans. These gender differences reflect a complex dynamic of members’ responsiveness to public opinion on specific issues and party efforts to influence that opinion in ways that favor perceptions of party issue expertise.

Keywords

RepresentationvotingabortionCongressHouse of Representativesgender and legislative behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 448 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Women, Gender, and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors would like to thank Kelly Dittmar, Rebecca Kreitzer, Frances Lee, Hans Noel, Ikuma Ogura, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and the anonymous reviewers for their advice and comments. We thank Nicole Asmussen Mathew, Gary Jacobson, Ella Foster-Molina, Craig Volden, and Alan Wiseman for sharing data.

References

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Adams, Greg D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 718–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, Scott H., and Hall, Thad E.. 2011. Abortion Politics in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., and Pischke, Jörn-Steffen. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A. 2013. “Is Today's Court the Most Conservative in 60 Years? Challenges and Opportunities in Measuring Judicial Preferences.” Journal of Politics 75 (3): 821–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands, and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentele, Keith Gunnar, Sager, Rebecca, and Aykanaian, Amanda. 2018. “Rewinding Roe v. Wade: Understanding the Accelerated Adoption of State-Level Restrictive Abortion Legislation, 2008–2014.” Journal of Women, Politics and Policy 39 (4): 490–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkman, Michael B., and O'Connor, Robert E.. 1993. “Do Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy.” American Politics Quarterly 21 (1): 102–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowman, Bridget. 2020. “Will a Tea Party Challenge Work in Trump's GOP? Kay Granger is Going to Find Out.” Roll Call, February 22. https://www.rollcall.com/2020/02/22/will-a-tea-party-challenge-work-in-trumps-gop-kay-granger-is-going-to-find-out/ (accessed August 1, 2020).Google Scholar
Burrell, Barbara. 2014. Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Woods, James. 2002. “The Role of Party Activists in the Evolution of the Abortion Issue.” Political Behavior 24: 362–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Jelen, Ted G., and Wilcox, Clyde. 1992. Between Two Absolutes: Public Opinion and the Politics of Abortion. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, Melody, and Cooperman, Rosalyn. 2018. “Can't Buy Them Love: How Party Culture Among Donors Contributes to the Party Gap in Women's Representation.” Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1211–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deckman, Melissa. 2016. Tea Party Women: Mama Grizzlies, Grassroots Leaders, and the Changing Face of the American Right. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, Kelly. 2016. “No, Women Didn't Abandon Clinton, nor Did She Fail to Win Their Support.” Presidential Gender Watch, November 11. https://presidentialgenderwatch.org/no-women-didnt-abandon-clinton-fail-win-support/ (accessed March 5, 2020).Google Scholar
Dittmar, Kelly, Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Carroll, Susan J.. 2018. A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen's Perspectives on Why Their Presence Matters. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dodson, Debra L. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 2017. Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
Foster-Molina, Ella. 2017. “Historical Congressional Legislation and District Demographics 1972–2014.” Harvard Dataverse, V2, UNF:6:yiLGWnus7Bn3psO0Tjzi2A== [fileUNF]. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CI2EPI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frasure-Yokley, Lorrie. 2018. “Choosing the Velvet Glove: Women Voters, Ambivalent Sexism and Vote Choice in 2016.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics 3 (Suppl. 1): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, Brian. 2009. “Are Female House Members Still More Liberal in a Polarized Era? The Conditional Nature of the Relationship Between Descriptive and Substantive Representation.” Congress and the Presidency 36 (2): 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, Paul. 1997. “Framing the Partial Birth Abortion Debate: A Survey Experiment.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Association Conference, Chicago.Google Scholar
Freedman, Paul. 2003. “Partial Victory: The Power of an Unenforced Abortion Ban.” Slate, December 9.Google Scholar
Green, Matthew. 2019. Legislative Hardball: The House Freedom Caucus and the Power of Threat-Making in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, William. 2004. “The Behavior of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator of Limited Dependent Variable Models in the Presence of Fixed Effects.” Econometrics Journal 7 (1): 98–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, Matt, and Hopkins, David A.. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitzer, Rebecca J. 2015. “Politics and Morality in State Abortion Policy.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 15 (1): 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B., Poole, Keith, Rosenthal, Howard, Boche, Adam, Rudkin, Aaron, and Sonnet, Luke. 2019. “Voteview: Congressional Roll-Call Votes Database.” https://voteview.com/ (accessed June 24, 2019).Google Scholar
Mathew, Nicole Asmussen. 2018. “Evangelizing Congress: The Emergence of Evangelical Republicans and Party Polarization in Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 43 (3): 409–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, Jim. 2018. “Sixty-Two Percent View Planned Parenthood Favorably.” Gallup, June 27. https://news.gallup.com/poll/236126/sixty-two-percent-view-planned-parenthood-favorably.aspx (accessed May 5, 2020).Google Scholar
Oldmixon, Elizabeth A. 2002. “Culture Wars in the Congressional Theater: How the U.S. House of Representatives Legislates Morality, 1993–1998.” Social Science Quarterly 83 (3): 755–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldmixon, Elizabeth A. 2005. Uncompromising Positions: God, Sex, and the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Osborn, Tracy L. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender, and Representation in the State Legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Barbara, and Simon, Dennis. 2008. Breaking the Political Glass Ceiling: Women and Congressional Elections. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn, and McGhee, Eric. 2013. “What It Takes to Win: Questioning ‘Gender Neutral’ Outcomes in U.S. House Elections.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 439–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perine, Keith. 2003. “Abortion Rights Advocates Spurn Fetus Protection Bill.” CQ Weekly, July 19, 1825–27.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex Gender, and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth, Kreitzer, Rebecca J., Osborn, Tracy, and Swers, Michele L.. 2020. “Anti-Abortion Policymaking and Women's Representation.” Political Research Quarterly. Published online March 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920903381.Google Scholar
Richards, Cecile, with Peterson, Lauren. 2018. Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out, and Finding the Courage to Lead. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
Rose, Melody. 2007. Safe, Legal, and Unavailable? Abortion Politics in the United States Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Rovner, Julie. 2006. “‘Partial-Birth Abortion’: Separating Fact from Spin.” National Public Radio, February 21. https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin (accessed May 5, 2020).Google Scholar
Saad, Lydia. 2007. “Public Divided on ‘Pro-Choice’ vs. ‘Pro-life’ Abortion Labels.” Gallup, May 21. https://news.gallup.com/poll/27628/public-divided-prochoice-vs-prolife-abortion-labels.aspx (accessed May 5, 2020).Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Gender Equality, Political Parties, and the Politics of Women's Place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Saul, Rebekah. 1998. “The Child Custody Protection Act: A ‘Minor’ Issue at the Top of the Antiabortion Agenda.” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 1 (4): 1–2, 7.Google ScholarPubMed
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, Patrick. 2010. Cycles of Spin: Strategic Communication in the U.S. Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sides, John. 2006. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.” British Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 407–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda, and Williamson, Vanessa. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 1998. “Are Congresswomen More Likely to Vote for Women's Issue Bills than Their Male Colleagues?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (3): 435–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2013. Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2018. “From the Republican Revolution to the Tea Party Wave: Republican Women and the Politics of Women's Issues.” In The Right Women: Republican Party Activists, Candidates, and Legislators, eds. Shames, Shauna and Och, Malliga. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 199–228.Google Scholar
Tatalovich, Raymond, and Schier, David. 1993. “The Persistence of Ideological Cleavage in Voting on Abortion Legislation in the House of Representatives, 1973–1998.” American Politics Quarterly 21 (1): 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, Danielle M., and Swers, Michele L.. 2017. “Which Women Can Run? Gender, Partisanship, and Candidate Donor Networks.” Political Research Quarterly 70 (2): 449–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanSickle-Ward, Rachel, and Wallsten, Kevin. 2019. The Politics of the Pill: Gender, Framing, and Policymaking in the Battle over Birth Control. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. The Politics of Women's Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar