Political candidates may interpret efforts to balance gender representation in different ways. Hilde Coffé (University of Bath), Catherine Bolzendahl (Oregon State University), and Åsa von Schoultz (University of Helsinki) show that in highly egalitarian contexts such as Finland, political nominees perceive being a woman as at least somewhat advantageous in their party’s nomination process—particularly women themselves. Such perceptions can shape who decides to run, how parties select candidates and how fair the process is seen to be. This underscores the importance of ensuring that selection procedures are transparent, legitimate and inclusive.
Debates about women’s political representation often focus on barriers such as lower levels of political ambition and gendered party gatekeeping — the practices that make it harder for women to be selected as candidates, including the higher standards they are often expected to meet. But in recent years, a different claim has begun to circulate in both media and political circles: that women may now enjoy an advantage in candidate selection.
Do political candidates themselves share this view?
Finland: a critical case
A new study of parliamentary candidates in Finland explores perceptions of gender advantage by asking a simple but revealing question: do politicians think being a woman helps when parties nominate candidates? And if so, are women or men more likely to believe this?
The study draws from a post‑election survey of candidates in the 2019 Finnish parliamentary election, conducted as part of the Comparative Candidate Survey. The survey respondents were already nominated, meaning they had already successfully passed the party gatekeeping stage — candidate selection being one of the most powerful gatekeeping stages in democratic politics. Parties decide who appears on the ballot and, in doing so, signal what kinds of candidates are valued.
Candidates were asked directly whether they felt that being a woman was an advantage in their party’s nomination process. Responses were then combined with register data on the gender balance of party lists across electoral districts.
Finland offers a particularly useful setting to explore this. It is one of the world’s most gender‑equal democracies, with women close to equal numbers in parliament and holding some of the most powerful political offices, including the office of prime ministers and the presidency. Finland’s open‑list proportional representation system also gives parties strong incentives to nominate balanced and diverse candidate lists. While there are no formal gender quotas, most parties openly aim for parity. If a “woman advantage” exists anywhere, Finland would be a likely place to find it.
A majority see some advantage — but women more than men
At first glance, the results seem to support the idea of a woman advantage. Almost two thirds of candidates, both men and women, believe that being a woman offers at least some advantage when parties nominate candidates. But there is a clear gender gap: women are significantly more likely than men to perceive being a woman as advantageous, while men are almost twice as likely as women to say that being a woman offers no advantage at all. This suggests that, broadly, women are more attuned to gendered selection dynamics, in contrast to the common assumption that men are more likely to see women as “favoured” by parties.
When numbers change, perceptions change — especially for women
Context matters. Women are most likely to perceive an advantage in parties where women are relatively underrepresented. In these parties, leaders may actively recruit women to balance their lists — a strategy that women candidates appear aware of. As women’s representation on party lists increases, the perception of an advantage fades. Once women are well represented, being a woman is no longer considered distinctive and is less likely to be seen as advantageous. Men’s views, by contrast, remain largely unchanged regardless of a party’s gender balance. This suggests that women are more sensitive than men to shifts in the gendered context of candidate selection.
Advantage or grievance?
To explore whether perceptions of a woman advantage reflect feelings of unfairness among men, the study also examines whether candidates feel personally disadvantaged because of their gender. Most candidates, including men, do not report that their gender works against them. But among the small share of men who do feel disadvantaged, the likelihood of perceiving a woman advantage rises sharply. This indicates that while a minority of men candidates interpret gender dynamics as a grievance, this perspective is not widespread.
What does this tell us?
How politicians perceive gender as an advantage or disadvantage affects how they interpret party behaviour, evaluate fairness in the selection process and think about gender equality more broadly. These perceptions are shaped by personal experience, meaning men and women can interpret the same signals from parties very differently.
The findings challenge simple narratives about gender and advantage in politics. Rather than men broadly resenting women’s gains, it is women candidates who are most likely to recognise when gender works in their favour — particularly when parties are seeking to correct imbalances. Paradoxically, women may perceive a woman advantage even while continuing to encounter well‑documented barriers to political careers, including lower political ambition and higher standards in candidate selection.
For policymakers and party organisations, this points to a broader issue. Increasing women’s representation is not only about formal rules and targets, but also about how recruitment processes are communicated and experienced. Efforts to promote gender balance should therefore be accompanied by greater transparency about selection criteria, alongside more structured recruitment and mentoring. This can reduce misperceptions by making clear how and why candidates are selected. In turn, it can support confidence and strengthen trust in the fairness of democratic processes.
Looking ahead
Finland may be an exceptional case, but the findings offer broader lessons on how gender parity initiatives shape political perceptions. They also raise important questions for future research. If women attribute success partly to gender rather than merit, could this reinforce imposter syndrome? And how might these perceptions differ in less gender‑equal political systems? As more democracies pursue balanced representation, understanding how candidates interpret these efforts will be crucial. Perceptions, after all, influence behaviour and, in turn, contribute to shaping the future of gender equality in democratic politics.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the IPR, nor of the University of Bath.
