Representing ‘Women’s Interests’ in 2025: Senate Messaging at the Intersection of Party, Gender, and Race
-
Sarah Allen Gershon
and
Nadia E. Brown
Abstract
Lawmakers from historically marginalized groups often emphasize unique political messages from their counterparts that hinge on their identities or those of their constituency. Because symbolic representation increases constituent support and satisfaction, elected officials are keen to use high-profile nomination hearings as an opportunity to communicate their positions as a tool to maintain or expand constituent backing. Using the case of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s nominationhearing for the Health and Human Services Secretary, we find that partisanship plays a crucial role in how elected officials style their identity-based messaging. Furthermore, scholars’ traditional understanding of gender, women’s issues, and intersectional issues is evolving. Our analysis spotlights the ways in which elected officials’ contemporary communication around women and related issues has evolved from earlier findings in our field.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Hope Martinez for her research assistance.
See Table A1.
Logistic regression predicting likelihood of senators discussing women & women’s issues, children & families.
| Women & women’s issues | Children & families | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | (Robust S.E.) | Coef. | (Robust S.E.) | |||
| Democratic woman | 14.60 | (0.46) | ** | −2.07 | (1.15) | † |
| Democratic man | 13.09 | (0.87) | ** | −2.13 | (0.99) | * |
| Republican man | 14.49 | (0.59) | ** | −1.12 | (0.89) | |
| White | 0.08 | (0.57) | 1.07 | (0.94) | ||
| Seniority | −0.02 | (0.02) | −0.03 | (0.03) | ||
| Competitiveness | 0.03 | (0.08) | 0.13 | (0.11) | ||
| Constant | −17.82 | (4.45) | ** | −8.75 | (6.47) | |
| Wald X2 | 1,671.29 | 17.37 | ||||
| Prob. > X2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| N | 195 | 195 | ||||
-
†p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Binary codes are used for Democratic Women, Democratic Men and Republican Men (Republican Women are the comparison group), Senator Sanders is omitted from the analyses. Seniority is captured as years in office and competitiveness is measured relying on the percent vote share in the most recent election the senator faced.[8] Two senators – Senator Moody and Senator Husted – were appointed in 2025. Their vote share reflects that of the most recent election of their predecessors (Marco Rubio and JD Vance, respectively) (Table A2).
Logistic regression predicting likelihood of senators discussing race, ethnicity & related issues.
| All senators | Black and white senators only | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | (Robust S.E.) | Coef. | (Robust S.E.) | |||
| Black | 5.37 | (1.58) | ** | 5.21 | (1.58) | ** |
| Democrat | −1.12 | (1.71) | −1.08 | (1.68) | ||
| Seniority | 0.06 | (0.08) | 0.06 | (0.08) | ||
| Competitiveness | −0.34 | (0.08) | ** | −0.33 | (0.08) | ** |
| Constant | 12.18 | (7.63) | 11.81 | (7.46) | ||
| Wald X2 | 143.73 | 133.30 | ||||
| Prob. > X2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| N | 233 | 217 | ||||
-
†p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Binary codes are used for whether the senator is Black (compared with all others). Seniority is captured as years in office and competitiveness is measured relying on the percent vote share in the most recent election the senator faced. Two senators – Senator Moody and Senator Husted – were appointed in 2025. Their vote share reflects that of the most recent election of their predecessors (Marco Rubio and JD Vance, respectively). Senator gender is not included as no male senators spoke about this topic. Given that only white and Black senators spoke about these issues, the model was also estimated examining speaking segments among those senators specifically (results reported above).
References
Aboulenein, A., and S. Kelly. 2025. “Kennedy Clinches Top US Health Job Despite Anti-Vaccine Views.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/kennedy-clear-final-senate-hurdle-bid-top-us-health-job-2025-02-13/ (accessed February 13, 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Beres, D. 2025. “Maga’s Era of ‘Soft Eugenics’: Let the Weak Get Sick, Help the Clever Breed.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/may/04/maga-soft-eugenics (accessed November 11, 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Brown, N. E., and S. A. Gershon. 2016a. “Intersectional Presentations: an Exploratory Study of Minority Congresswomen’s Websites’ Biographies.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 13 (1): 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742058x15000181.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, N. E., and S. A. Gershon. 2016b. “Protecting (Which?) Women: a Content Analysis of the House Floor Debate on the 2012 Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.” The year in C-SPAN archives research: 173–218.10.2307/j.ctt1wf4dqz.14Search in Google Scholar
Brown, N. E., and S. A. Gershon. 2017. “Examining Intersectionality and Symbolic Representation.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 5 (3): 500–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1321995.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, N. E., S. A. Gershon, and L. Hanson-Figueroa. 2021. “More than Partisans: The Role of Identity in the Justice Kavanaugh Hearings.” In The Evolution of Political Rhetoric: The Year in C-Span Archives Research, Vol. 6, edited by Robert X. Browning. IN: Purdue University Press.10.2307/j.ctv15pjz0f.7Search in Google Scholar
Bystrom, Dianne G., Terry Robertson, Mary Christine Banwart, and Lynda Lee Kaid, eds. 2005. Gender and Candidate Communication: Videostyle, Webstyle, Newstyle. Routledge.10.4324/9780203323137Search in Google Scholar
Canon, David T. 1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of the Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226789088.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation. New Jersey: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., and L. L. Carli. 2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Search in Google Scholar
English, A., K. Pearson, and D. Z. Strolovitch. 2019. “Who represents Me? Race, Gender, Partisan Congruence, and Representational Alternatives in a Polarized America.” Political Research Quarterly 72 (4): 785–804.10.1177/1065912918806048Search in Google Scholar
Evans, H. 2016. “Do Women Only Talk About “Female Issues”? Gender and Issue Discussion on Twitter.” Online Information Review 40 (5): 660–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-10-2015-0338.Search in Google Scholar
Fenichel Pitkin, H. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520340503Search in Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Fridkin, K. L., and G. S. Woodall. 2005. “Different Portraits, Different Leaders? Gender Differences in US Senators’ Presentation of Self.” Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195180824.003.0005.Search in Google Scholar
Gershon, S. A. 2008. “Communicating Female and Minority Interests Online: A Study of Web Site Issue Discussion Among Female, Latino, and African American Members of Congress.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 13 (2): 120–40.10.1177/1940161208315741Search in Google Scholar
Gershon, S. A., and J. L. Monforti. 2021. “Intersecting Campaigns: Candidate Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Voter Evaluations.” Politics, Groups, and Identities. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2019.1584752.Search in Google Scholar
Gulati, G. J. 2004. “Members of Congress and Presentation of Self on the World Wide Web.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 9 (1): 22–40.10.1177/1081180X03259758Search in Google Scholar
Hayes, D. 2005. “Candidate Qualities Through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 908–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00163.x.Search in Google Scholar
Hayes, D., and J. L. Lawless. 2016. Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigns in a Polarized Era. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316336007Search in Google Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Paul T., and David Bowen. 2025. “Confirming RFK Jr. Could Mean Swift and Unchecked Upheaval for Vaccines.” Health Affairs Forefront.Search in Google Scholar
Laurencin, C. T., and A. McClinton. 2020. “The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Call to Action to Identify and Address Racial and Ethnic Disparities.” Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 7 (3): 398–402.10.1007/s40615-020-00756-0Search in Google Scholar
López-García, G., D. Palau-Sampio, B. Palomo, E. Campos-Domínguez, and P. Masip, eds. 2021. Politics of Disinformation. John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781119743347Search in Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
McDonald, M., R. Porter, and S. A. Treul. 2020. “Running as a Woman? Candidate Presentation in the 2018 Midterms.” Political Research Quarterly 73 (4): 967–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920915787.Search in Google Scholar
McIlwain, C. D., and S. M. Caliendo. 2020. “Race, Politics, and Public Policy.” In The Routledge Companion to Race and Ethnicity, 42–50. Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Osborn, T. L. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender and Representation in the State Legislatures. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199845347.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Petrocik, J. R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science: 825–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111797.Search in Google Scholar
Santia, M., and N. M. Bauer. 2023. “The Intersection of Candidate Gender and Ethnicity: How Voters Respond to Campaign Messages from Latinas.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 28 (4): 975–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211072697.Search in Google Scholar
Sapiro, V., and K. C. Walsh. 2002. “Doing Gender in Congressional Campaign Advertisements.” In Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Political. Berlin: Psychology.Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, Monica C. 2014. “Gender-Based Strategies on Candidate Websites.” Journal of Political Marketing 13 (4): 264–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.958373.Search in Google Scholar
Seitz, A., and S. Groves. 2025. “RFK Jr. on Defensive over His Vaccine Views as a Key Confirmation Vote Hangs in the Balance.” Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/rfk-confirmation-vaccines-health-kennedy-cassidy-248bfb16aa3a2a117efa54a2a3be920e (accessed January 30, 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Spence, J. T., and C. E. Buckner. 2000. “Instrumental and Expressive Traits, Trait Stereotypes, and Sexist Attitudes What do they Signify?” Psychology of Women Quarterly 24 (1): 44–62.10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.xSearch in Google Scholar
Spence, J. T., R. Helmreich, and J. Strapp. 1974. “The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: a Measure of Sex Role Stereotypes and Masculinity-Femininity.” Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 4: 43–4.10.1037/t02466-000Search in Google Scholar
Steinhauser, P. 2025. “Trump Health Secretary Nominee RFK Jr Survives Heated Hearings Ahead of Crucial Confirmation Votes.” Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-health-secretary-nominee-rfk-jr-survives-heated-hearings-ahead-crucial-confirmation-votes (accessed January 31, 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Sulkin, Tracy, Courtney M. Moriarty, and Veronica Hefner. 2007. “Congressional Candidates’ Issue Agendas On- and Off-Line.” Harvard International Journal of Press 12 (2): 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180x07299802.Search in Google Scholar
Swers, M. L. 2019. Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate. University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tatalovich, R. 2019. “Abortion: Prochoice Versus Prolife.” In Social Regulatory Policy, 177–209. Routledge.10.4324/9780429306358-7Search in Google Scholar
Tolleson-Rinehart, S. 1991. “Do Women Leaders Make a Difference? Substance, Style and Perceptions.” In Gender and Policymaking: Studies of Women in Office, edited by Debra L. Dodson. New Brunswick: Rutgers University, Center for the American Woman and Politics.Search in Google Scholar
Tolleson-Rinehart, S. 2001. “Do Women Leaders Make a Difference? Substance, Style and Perceptions.” In The Impact of Women in Public Office, edited by Susan J. Carroll. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, J. E., and D. L. Best. 1990. Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Multination Study, Rev. Sage Publications, Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Wineinger, C. 2021. “How can a Black Woman Be a Republican? an Intersectional Analysis of Identity Claims in the 2014 Mia Love Campaign.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (3): 566–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2019.1629316.Search in Google Scholar
Winter, J. 2025. “Will the MAHA Moms Turn on Trump?” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/will-the-maha-moms-turn-on-trump (accessed November 11, 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Zilber, D. N. J. 2000. “Elite Use of Racial Labels: Ideology and Preference for African American or Black.” Howard Journal of Communication 11 (4): 267–77.10.1080/10646170050204554Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
