Illiberal Gender Positions among Populist Rightwing Parties in the Scandinavian Countries? Adaptation, Foot-Dragging, or Radical Opposition?

This paper aims to map the possible illiberal or anti-liberal positions of populist rightwing parties (PRPs) on gender issues within the context of the three Scandinavian countries where gender equality is a norm strongly rooted in a secularized society and institutionalized into the welfare state (Borchorst and Siim 2008; Borhorst 2009). The main research question is whether and why the PRPs ideologically adapt to, try to resist, or present radical alternatives to the mainstream liberal ideologies of gender equality. The paper argues that such positioning is mitigated by how involved the party has become with formulating policies together with mainstream parties. One liberal tradition, dating its roots back to John Stuart Mill, broadly emphasizes women’s emancipation. A distinction could be made between breaking down coercive structures in society, and a broader ethos of gender equality (Neufeld and Van Schoelandt 2013). Contrary to this, the PRPs are sometimes perceived as ‘Männerparteien’, predominantly elected and represented by men (Mudde 2007; Spierings et al. 2015; Coffé 2018). In this vein, Akkermans (2015) shows that the PRPs come across as clearly more conservative in gender and family issues than the liberal mainstream parties. That could either entail a parochial, perhaps rurally based, foot-dragging anti-modernization; something the PRPs would share with many Christian parties. Yet, it may also be or turn into a more radical, anti-systemic and counter-cultural tendency with PRPs promoting or aligning with a ‘backlash’ against gender equality associated with misogynism, or ‘gender fatigue’ (Williamson 2019). Some PRPs have become members of government like the Progress Party in Norway 2013-2020, or have become support parties for such governments (Danish People’s Party 2001-2011, and 2015-2019; Sweden Democrats since 2022). (Meret 2015; Christiansen 2016; Jupskås 2016). This ‘mainstreaming’ may moderate PRPs on issues that are beyond their core interests – typically immigration and the EU. In Denmark, two further parties entered parliament in 2019 (New Right) and in 2022 (Danish Democrats). In the pro-gender equality Scandinavian context, PRPS may adapt fully or somewhat to the established discourse. They could also argue that gender equality s already achieved while focusing mostly on other items; or even promoting women’s issues when they could be combined with anti-immigration issues (e.g. Meret and Siim 2013). Yet, the pro-gender context may spur a strong counterresponse into one of the two illiberal versions described above (parochial or radically misogynistic). Thus, descriptively the paper aims to uncover how liberal or illiberal the PRPs elected to parliament in the three Scandinavian countries are on gender issues. Analytically, the paper seeks to evaluate whether the positions of the PRPs on gender issues are affected by mainstreaming of these parties into the governmental process. The expectation is that such mainstreaming will de-radicalize the PRPs on gender issues compared with other PRPs. The author has previously studied the mainstreaming of the Danish People’s Party on immigration policies, focusing on party platforms and important policies (Christiansen 2016; 2017). The paper will be part of the UNTWIST project funded by the EU: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101060836