Elected Representatives' Social Group Priorities: Sociodemographic and Ideological Drivers

Political representation is often enacted through claims about specific social groups rather than an abstract connection to an entire (party) electorate (Miller & Stokes, 1963; Page & Shapiro, 1983; Adams et al., 2004). In fact, elected officials’ focus of representation covers a broad range of social groups, including women, youth, migrants, and the working class (Willems et al., forthcoming; Eulau et al., 1959; Fenno, 1978). However, a central concern in representation studies is the underrepresentation of disadvantaged groups in parliaments and whether descriptive similarity—electing representatives who share these characteristics—leads to effective advocacy for these social groups (Carnes & Lupu, 2015; Saalfeld, 2014; Stockemer & Sundström, 2025). While research has shown that legislators may pay more attention to the interests of people ‘like them,’ evidence also indicates that personal background alone has a limited impact, with advocacy often constrained by electoral incentives, party discipline, or voter demographics (Bailer et al., 2022; McClean, 2025; Broockman, 2013). Still, most studies on descriptive representation overlook legislators’ ideological predispositions. However, ideology may be equally, if not more, influential. Left-leaning parties have historically prioritized disadvantaged groups, such as workers, while right-leaning parties have emphasized advantaged constituencies, such as employers (Lipset & Rokkan, 1967; Kitschelt, 1994). Recent research confirms that these ideological patterns continue in current party appeals (e.g., Bornschier et al., 2021), but most studies on party group appeals have not examined differences across the ideological spectrum (see, for instance, Thau, 2019). Therefore, this paper examines how personal sociodemographic background and ideological predispositions jointly shape which social groups elected officials claim to represent. It contributes by integrating multiple strands of research—descriptive representation and party group appeals—into a comparative framework that considers several disadvantaged groups simultaneously. Using survey data from 786 (sub)national representatives across nine countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Israel, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland), the study finds that left-leaning legislators are more likely to prioritize disadvantaged groups than their right-wing colleagues. Personal background alone has little effect, except among right-wing legislators from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are more likely than their co-partisans to claim representation for disadvantaged social groups. Women legislators also tend to prioritize disadvantaged groups. Overall, findings suggest that ideology primarily drives legislators’ social group priorities, while personal background plays a secondary role, especially for right-leaning politicians. By connecting research on descriptive representation and party appeals, this study highlights the structural and contextual factors shaping social group representation in contemporary parliaments.