Sexuality and political participation: expanding methodological and empirical frontiers

An established body of literature demonstrates that members of social minorities are less likely to participate in democratic processes (Just 2017; Rocha et al. 2010). The common mechanisms used to explain these gaps are social marginalization/discrimination; chronic inequalities in access to education and the labor market; weak political mobilization; or lack of role models among candidates (Dawson 1995; Miller 1989; Sanchez 2006). However, when it comes to sexual minorities – a social group with a history of civic disempowerment, the association appears to run in the opposite direction (Bowers & Whitley 2020; Moreau et al. 2019; Turnbull-Dugarte & Townsley 2020). Some of the pioneering research, which remains disproportionately focused on the relatively unique two-party context of the US, shows that lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans- and queer- (LGBTQ+) voters are more likely than comparable heterosexuals to turn up on the polling day, take part in a protest, hold liberal/cosmopolitan views and vote for a liberal/left-leaning party/candidate (Egan 2012; Hertzog 1996; Lewis et al. 2011; Turnbull-Dugarte 2020a,b,c). These associations persist even if other common drivers of political participation, like social class, education or place of residence are accounted for (Turnbull-Dugarte 2020c). While observing positive gaps in political participation among sexual minorities is a welcome news from the point of view of democratic inclusion and legitimacy, our current knowledge on the subject remains fractional due to data availability, restrictive sample sizes and lack of, necessary, cross-national comparative studies. We, therefore, do not yet know what explains the divergence in political participation – both electoral and non-electoral – and political preferences between heterosexuals and LGBTQ+ individuals. It is, for instance, plausible that the observed gaps are driven by electoral system type; temporary voter mobilization (e.g., in support of a particular party/policy); data- and/or sample-related biases (e.g., liberal LGBTQ+ individuals’ increased propensity to self-identity as such in social surveys); or other, previously unexplored mechanisms. More research is needed to ascertain the exact role sexuality plays as a driver of political participation/preferences. European (multiparty) electoral systems can help to shed new light on the political behavior and preferences of sexual minorities. There are considerable differences between Western and Central-East European countries in terms of public support for and legal protection of LGBTQ+ rights as well as the number of elite-level actors/parties that are openly committed to advancing the welfare of this social group. These differences can be used to test different theories about the link between sexuality and political participation/preferences (Spierings 2020). Is it likely, for instance, that sexuality-based mobilization grows stronger/weaker in the runup to/aftermath of a successful battle for civic empowerment and/or when a critical mass of political actors embrace LGBTQ+ rights? Or might it be that a temporary mobilization around LGBTQ+-related issues engenders a positive norm of political participation among sexual minorities that persists over time? Issues of LGBTQ+ representation have become increasingly important in public debates, but the political science scholarship focused on this minority group is yet to catch up. This workshop is an important step towards addressing this gap.