Media representations in contemporary democracies are crucial for the claim of political leadership as they affect the forming of political will. However, in political science in Germany, female political leadership has barely been analysed with qualitative methods for more than a decade. In order to address this gap, my paper compares the media representations of female social democratic candidates running for Prime Minister at the state (Laender) level in Germany in eleven election campaigns from 1994 to 2012. I analyse the construction of gender and its impact on claiming power. I argue that (during the whole period analysed) women have been represented as “the other gender” in the political field. But there has been an as-yet inconsistent change from “the outsiders” to “the smart exception”. I focus on three aspects: 1. In media representations, women’s political careers are judged legitimate only when approved by a powerful man. Ambitions of their own are seen as abnormal whereas – metaphorically speaking – rattling the chancellors offices fence (as the young Gerhard Schröder did) for men is seen as proof of strength of purpose. 2. For male Prime Ministers there are a variety of images: e.g. the “Landesvater” (the country’s father), the man of action, the intellectual, the workers’ leader, the political alpha-dog or the papershuffler. For women running for this office in contrast “Landesmutter” is the dominant medial metaphor. This transfers (formerly private) personal attributes of solicitude into the political sphere. In the nineties and up to the beginning of this century these characteristics were judged as not appropriate for political office demeaning and reifying female characteristics. Meanwhile they are acknowledged as attributes of political competence e.g. with the metaphor “schwäbische Hausfrau” (Swabian housewife). Yet this is an inconsistent medial change as motherly attributes potentially bring women politicians back into the private sphere. 3. In media representations political success and political defeat are gendered. Success and assertiveness are coded masculine whereas defeat, failure and renunciation are coded feminine. In the early election campaigns this caused a double bind. Successful women were presented with male attributes. Only in case of defeat their “medial gender” corresponded with the social one. In both cases the consequence was a demeaning media coverage. I show that in later campaigns the gendered coding remained but did no longer discriminate women. For men, however, there still is hardly a worse critique than imputing feminine attributions. In the period analysed there is a change in media representations of female top-candidates from general undermining and negation of qualification for political office to more differentiated attributions. At the same time masculinity, formerly the unspoken norm in the political field, becomes debatable. At present this is associated with criticism of a masculine political habitus nick-named the “alpha-dog”. My conclusion is that, despite a more appreciative media coverage, in the public sphere of media female top-politicians still have to reflect upon the consequences of gendered media representation as the risk of omission, trivialisation and condemnation remains at any time.
