Gender and Morality in Plenary Speeches

This paper examines how gender shapes the use of moral rhetoric in parliamentary debates, focusing on differences in how men and women Members of Parliament (MPs) use moral foundations. Drawing on Moral Foundations Theory, we argue that gendered socialization leads women to emphasize Care and Fairness, while men are more likely to invoke Loyalty and Authority. Beyond these baseline differences, we propose that moral claim-making is also strategic: women adapt their use of moral arguments in response to electoral incentives and policy contexts, as reputational pressures intensifies. To test these expectations, we analyze plenary speeches from 17 European Union member states between 2015 and 2022 using the ParlaMint 5 English translated corpus. We rely on a dictionary-based approach to identify references to moral foundations. The findings partially support gendered patterns predicted by theory: women are more likely to employ Care-related arguments, while evidence for Fairness is mixed. Contrary to expectations, women also reference Loyalty more frequently than men. Furthermore, we find that gender differences are shaped by context. They are most pronounced in debates on feminine policy areas and diminish in masculine domains. Electoral proximity also conditions these patterns, indicating strategic adaptation. Overall, the study demonstrates that moral rhetoric in politics reflects both gendered norms and strategic behavior.