Exploring motivations to (mis)represent: An intersectional analysis of the descriptive, constitutive, and substantive representation of disabled people in parliaments

Disabled people are universally descriptively underrepresented in parliament yet claims to represent them are abundant. This article argues that understanding this requires moving beyond conventional theories linking descriptive and substantive representation to account for contested claims and intersectional dynamics. It develops a critical framework to analyse the diverse claims made about and for disabled people by both disabled and non-disabled politicians, distinguishing between constitutive and substantive representation, and drawing on the Clogston–Haller typology from disability studies. Integrating political representation theory and disability research, it maps how intersecting identities and motivations explain who speaks for disabled people, situating disability at the intersections of gender, minority, and ideological politics. It further explores how mechanisms such as group consciousness, intersectional linked fate, and intergroup solidarity influence claims-making. These assumptions are tested using a mixed methods analysis of parliamentary questions (2000–2025) on disability in two descriptively diverse parliaments: Aotearoa-New Zealand and Scotland. In both cases, disabled politicians consistently engage in disability advocacy, meanwhile gender and ideology shape non-disabled politicians’ engagement. Findings highlight how intersections of gender, minority, and disability politics – mediated by ideology and opportunity – shape claims-making, offering new insights into how group voices are (mis)represented and how allied group claims are articulated within parliament.