Comparison of Structures

Monarchies held a limited, but clear path for female leadership, while democracies did not. But there are also differences in the way democratic systems are organized. Importantly, there is a clear correlation between the level of female representation in politics and the type of electoral system that a political system uses. Countries with lower female representation often have mixed or majority systems. In the majority system, the oldest globally, the candidate with the most votes wins. While this does create a stable system of democracy, a clear criticism is that it creates unfairness, gives a large majority to a party with a usually minor national victory, and excludes minority perspectives. There are two types of majority systems: Simple Majority (where the candidate with the most votes wins) and Absolute Majority (combining votes until a candidate gets more than half, used in France). Plurality systems give seats to the candidate who wins the most votes, even if they do not have the majority. These systems are used in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. In these systems, women struggle due to challenges of access and sexism at the polls.

By contrast, Belgium in 1889 created a system of Proportional Representation which allocated seats based on electoral strength, preventing a single force from dominating. Globally, a consistent pattern emerges in the distribution of female parliamentarians. Among the five countries with 30% or more women in their single or lower house (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands), three employ a proportional electoral system, while the remaining two utilize a mixed electoral system. Notice that none use a majoritarian system. Whereas, in the case of the eight countries with 29-25% female Members of Parliament in their lower or single house (New Zealand, Seychelles, Austria, Germany, Iceland, Argentina, Mozambique, and South Africa), all use either proportional or mixed electoral systems, with none adhering to a majoritarian system. Almost 90% of nations lacking female parliamentarians utilize a majority system. 

The head of government and their job description vary by democracy. Some use a Prime Minister, while others, like the United States, use a President. In Parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister is elected by the Legislature. While less democratic, these systems actually allow for more women to rise to the top because their peers who know them and their quality of work get to elect them to the highest office. In Presidential systems, the president is elected by the people, which may seem more democratic, but this presents barriers to getting women elected, notably sexism on the campaign trail. 

History of the “Women’s Vote”

Following suffrage, organizations like the League of Women Voters and later the National Organization for Women (NOW) took on the role of educating voters, supporting policy changes, and pushing for representation across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines. They mobilized women, ran registration drives, and advocated for women as voters.

One of the things men feared when considering suffrage was that women would form a distinct voting bloc and one day out vote men, but this fear was never realized. Issues of race, class, geography, and industry divided women, just as they had men. Since the very first election, women have held varying views on the issues.

Women of color, like men, faced voter suppression, citizenship barriers, and racial violence, and had priorities shaped by their exclusion from full political rights. Zitkala-Ša, a leading Native American activist, fought for Native citizenship and the ability of Indigenous communities to participate equally in American political life. Chinese American suffragist Mabel Ping Hua-Lee continued advocating for racial inclusion and immigrant rights, recognizing that the 19th Amendment did not grant voting rights to women barred from citizenship by laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act. Black women activists such as Mary B. Talbert and Mary Church Terrell emphasized anti-lynching campaigns, civil rights, and enforcement of the 15th Amendment. They warned that Black women in the South still could not vote and faced violence, intimidation, or arrest when trying to exercise their new constitutional rights.

Black women became a distinctive, cohesive voting bloc. After gaining suffrage, Black women rallied around civil rights and economic justice. They advocated for voting rights protections and education access, which became prominent during the Civil Rights Movement and beyond. Black women were active organizers in both the early suffrage movement and in later political arenas, especially as they faced unique challenges from both racism and sexism. Notably, recent election cycles show Black women voters remain one of the most unified and politically consistent demographics in the U.S., with 92% of Black women voting for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election—a significant political statement on representation and progressive change.

While the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote, its impact was uneven. The amendment primarily benefited white women in practice, as Black, Indigenous, Asian, and Latina women continued to face significant voting restrictions.

After the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, many white suffragists immediately turned their attention to expanding women’s legal and economic equality. Some, led by Alice Paul, looked at the extensive legal codes in every single state that reinforced, through dozens of individual laws, discrimination against women, and led Paul to argue that the next essential step was an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which promised blanket constitutional equality for men and women. They saw suffrage as only the beginning of a broader campaign to remove all legal distinctions based on sex. The ERA, Paul theorized, would nullify outdated laws and create sweeping change. The ERA was introduced in every session of Congress but not ratified for decades.

Kamala Harris[1]

Other white reformers, including the League of Women Voters and Carrie Chapman Catt, did not want such radical change and instead chose to take the issue one law at a time. Catt prioritized social welfare, education, labor protections, and reforms that addressed women’s everyday needs. They feared that “absolute equality” under the ERA would wipe out protective labor laws for women and children. Instead of a single sweeping amendment, they advocated a piecemeal strategy to improve childcare, education, home economics, employment opportunities, public health, and married women’s citizenship rights. These efforts also included support for federal programs like the Sheppard-Towner Act, which offered maternal and infant health services but faced backlash during the Red Scare for allegedly promoting “socialism.”

Paul was quick to point out to Catt that protective laws implicitly justify second-class status.  But Catt maintained that until women shared the responsibility of governance and sacrifice equally with men, they would have to submit to discriminatory laws.

The vote and the decades of activism that followed catalyzed a broader movement for legal equality, culminating in mid-century legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Although initially more focused on racial equality, these acts also laid the groundwork for gender equality protections, recognizing that discrimination based on race and gender were often intertwined.

Figures like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a young lawyer, worked to challenge each individual discriminatory law. Ginsburg was part of the first generation of women to graduate law school and hold careers in law. Unable to get a job at a firm, she became a law professor—teaching had always been an acceptable job for a lady. The problem with tackling gender discrimination in law was that men had over a century and a half to write discriminatory laws and establish legal precedent. Since the system was designed by men to protect men, she strategically chose a case that hurt men based solely on their gender. In Moritz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Ginsburg challenged tax laws that denied male caregivers the same benefits given to women in similar roles. By framing gender equality as beneficial to both men and women, she addressed entrenched legal discrimination. She took on case after case like this and argued for the ACLU at the Supreme Court. Ginsburg’s work highlighted how voting rights and increased representation influenced judicial and legal systems, contributing to the broader recognition of gender equality. She became only the second woman added to the high court, and while her trajectory was unique, she’d forged a way in a field not designed for her.

Ginsburg later in life as a Supreme Court Justice with other women justices: pictured O'Connor, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan[2]

Women continue to lack adequate representation in government. In 1962, there were only two women in the US Senate and 18 women members of the House of Representatives. Hattie Caraway and Margaret Chase Smith were the first women Senators serving in the 1930s and 1940s, but by 1962, their progress had not cleared the way for more women. Caraway of Arkansas became the first woman to win election to the Senate in 1932 and 1949 Margaret Chase Smith of Maine followed her, becoming the first woman to serve in both the US House of Representatives and the Senate. Only two women had ever served in the President’s cabinet and only six had served as foreign ministers or ambassadors. No woman had served on the Supreme Court and only two women were federal district judges. Across the country, there were over 7,000 elected state legislature positions, only 234 of which were held by women.

Women were needed wherever laws and decisions were made. The first women in political positions sometimes got there by association with their husbands in power. Natalie Tayloe Ross won a special election to fill a vacancy caused by the death of her husband as Governor of Wyoming. Inaugurated fifteen days before Miriam Ferguson of Texas, Ross was the first woman sworn in as a US governor in 1925. Ferguson, too, was elected twice as a surrogate for her husband, who could not run for re-election. In Alabama, Lurleen Wallace was also elected as a surrogate for her husband. In 1975,  Ella T. Grasso was elected in her own right in Connecticut.

Women also found places in the Senate and House of Representatives in larger numbers. Bella Abzug served in the House of Representatives from 1971-1977. She was called “Battling Bella” because of her unwavering support for civil rights, gay rights, and women’s rights. She often said, “A woman’s place is in the house–the House of Representatives.”

Margaret Chase Smith from Maine became the first woman elected to the Senate in 1949. Although others preceded her, she was the first woman elected, as others had been appointed to serve. Since she had previously served in the House, she was the first to do both.

Shirley Chisholm was the first African American to serve in the House. She faced both gender and race-based discrimination her entire career in politics. In 1972, she campaigned for President during the Democratic primary. She was unfairly blocked from participating in televised debates by her male peers. She took legal action but was only permitted to make a single speech. Even though she was unsuccessful, Chisholm raised hope that a future woman might occupy the White House.

Shirley Chisolm[3]

Jimmy Carter’s presidency marked a transformative era for gender equity in the United States. Elected in 1976, he championed the Equal Rights Amendment and set new benchmarks for representation by appointing an unprecedented number of women and people of color to the federal judiciary and executive branch. Notably, Carter appointed Patricia Roberts Harris as the first Black woman to serve in a presidential cabinet as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Carter extended the ratification deadline for the Equal Rights Amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1972. His administration also enacted key legislation like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and ratified the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, while creating a permanent office for the First Lady, setting a precedent for future administrations.

In his post-presidency, Carter remained deeply committed to combating gender-based violence and discrimination globally. Through the Carter Center, he addressed systemic injustices such as human trafficking, female genital mutilation, and gender inequity in over 145 countries. Carter’s advocacy extended to criticizing the Southern Baptist Convention for its subjugation of women, leading him to sever ties with the denomination while continuing to support women pastors in his local church.

But progress for women in politics would feel stagnant through the conservative era that followed. By 1980, 22 women served in the House of Representatives and two were in the Senate. Hillary Clinton's appointment by her husband, President Bill Clinton, as head of the healthcare task force marked a significant deviation from traditional First Lady roles, symbolizing the administration's commitment to women’s leadership. However, her high-profile involvement and the task force’s secretive operations drew criticism and became a political liability. The healthcare reform effort ultimately failed, hindered by public backlash, Republican opposition, and internal missteps. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton’s prominence in shaping policy underscored the administration’s broader emphasis on advancing women’s roles in public and political life.

While the right to vote was a pivotal achievement, it was only the first step in a larger journey toward equality. Suffrage laid the groundwork for women’s political agency, which has grown and diversified over the years. The emergence of Black women as a powerful and unified voting bloc reflects the continued impact of the 19th Amendment and women’s rights activism. Today, women’s voting power continues to shape American politics, influencing policies on issues ranging from healthcare to civil rights and demonstrating that while the path has been uneven, the right to vote significantly altered the trajectory of women’s rights.

Women Political Philosophers

For centuries, political philosophy was built largely by men who defined justice, freedom, and power based on their own experiences. Women lived under these systems, but without access to universities, advanced study, or the authority to publish influential works, they had little opportunity to critique or reshape them. When Abigail Adams advocated for women, for instance, her husband laughed her off. Other than her disdain, Adams had little power to stop him from designing a patriarchal government that denied women power in the system that governed them. It took 144 years for women to mobilize and advocate to change the system, and decades more for that hard earned political power to result in system level changes, some changes they are still waiting on or seeing rolled back.

The 20th century was a turning point for women’s political philosophy. As women gained access to higher education, earned doctorates, and secured professorships, they finally had the tools and institutional platforms to examine political systems from the inside. In fact, many women, denied positions of power in the private and public sectors, found opportunity at universities where they thrived. Many early female politicians and justices came to their public service through academia. A remarkable generation of women philosophers, diverse in background, method, politics, and identity, began rewriting the foundations of political thought.

One of the earliest women to break into the world of political and moral philosophy was Simone Weil (1909–1943). A French philosopher and mystic, Weil rejected a comfortable intellectual life and instead worked in factories so she could understand the true conditions of labor. Her firsthand experience shaped her analysis of industrial society, which she believed had spiritually impoverished modern people. In The Need for Roots, Weil argued that societies were suffering from “uprootedness”—a lack of connection to history, land, community, and meaning. Weil’s commitment to understanding suffering, powerlessness, and the state laid early groundwork for feminist and political thinkers who would later examine oppression from within social, economic, racial, and gendered structures.

Living through the rise of Nazi Germany, Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) brought a different lens to political philosophy. A Jewish scholar forced into exile, she analyzed how totalitarian systems mobilized ordinary people to participate in extraordinary crimes. Her controversial claim that evil can be “banal,” committed by unreflective average citizens and bureaucrats reshaped global discussions about responsibility and moral agency. She became an American citizen in 1950 and published her most famous work, The Origins of Totalitarianism in 1951. Arendt’s work influenced later feminist theorists by showing how political violence and domination arise from everyday structures, not only overt tyrants. She also helped open academic spaces to women thinkers by achieving a level of global prominence few women philosophers had reached before mid-century.

In the early Enlightenment, when government reflected the family structure, headed by a patriarch, Locke had argued that men should not be subjected to an absolute monarch and instead were equal citizens in the public sphere. When challenged, he asserted that his new idea did not change the family structure where women, children, and chattel were dependents on masters in their home. When women finally achieved the vote, they had entered the public world of equality only to find oppression in the home. As women increasingly worked outside the home, they found they came home to an unequal distribution of labor and responsibility for children. It is no wonder that early women philosophers took on the challenge set by Locke and everyone else: if democracy was to thrive in government, then the family needed to reflect that. To change the family meant challenging gendered assumptions, norms, and constructs.

Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) was part of this powerful generation of women change makers. Her landmark 1949 book The Second Sex asserted that women are not born with a fixed sense of being female, but that social norms “make” women by pressuring them to adopt a narrow and subordinate femininity. She famously observed, “One is not born, but becomes, a woman,” reflecting the view that gender is a social construct. Trained in Existentialism, she argued that humans must choose who they become, but that women are systematically denied this freedom and treated as second class. De Beauvoir insisted that gender inequality was embedded not just in laws or institutions, but in cultural expectations that shaped women’s possibilities from birth. Her work gave later feminist philosophers—especially Judith Butler, Susan Moller Okin, and María Lugones—a foundation for examining how societies construct and enforce gender roles.

By the 1970s, the women’s liberation movement had opened doors for more radical critiques of political structures. Shulamith Firestone (1945–2012) wrote The Dialectic of Sex and argued that the deepest source of women’s oppression was the biological family itself. Firestone believed that societies throughout history had replicated and enforced the hierarchical structure of the nuclear family, entrenching inequalities between men and women. She envisioned reproductive technologies that would free women from biological and domestic constraints, dismantling gender hierarchy at its root. Her provocative claim that the goal of feminism must be “the elimination of the sex distinction itself” pushed feminist theory to reimagine both gender and the social order.

María Lugones (1944–2020) offered another transformative contribution toward deconstructing gender: showing how colonialism created and imposed modern systems of gender. She argued that many Indigenous societies had fluid or egalitarian gender systems before European conquest, which then imposed patriarchal binaries as tools of domination. Judith Butler (1956–present) built on de Beauvoir, responded in part to Firestone and Lugones, and revolutionized feminist theory by arguing that gender is not a stable identity at all. Instead, it is performed, created through repeated behaviors that follow social norms. This idea challenged the very foundations of how societies understand families, masculinity, femininity, sexuality, and identity. Butler’s work opened political philosophy to questions of fluidity, nonbinary identities, transgender rights, and the power of norms in shaping lives.

Simone de Beauvoir[4]

Susan Moller Okin (1946–2004) turned attention to the home—a sphere long ignored by traditional political theorists. In Justice, Gender, and the Family, she argued that gender inequality begins in families that teach children sexist norms, assign unequal household labor, and limit women’s opportunities. If the family is unjust, Okin argued, then the society built upon it cannot truly be equal.

Challenging gender and family as constructs were only one challenge, bell hooks (1952–2021) expanded the feminist critique by centering race and class. Born Gloria Watkins, she adopted the pen name “bell hooks” to honor her grandmother and to direct readers’ attention to her ideas rather than her identity. Her groundbreaking work Ain’t I a Woman (1981) exposed how the sexual exploitation of Black women during slavery produced a lasting “devaluation of Black womanhood.” hooks insisted that feminism must confront racism and class inequality, arguing that any feminism ignoring these forces simply replicates oppression. Her analysis deeply influenced later philosophers like Angela Davis (1944–present), who expanded this intersectional lens even further. Davis connected race, gender, and class to the politics of incarceration. A scholar-activist targeted by the FBI and later acquitted, Davis used her personal experiences to critique the U.S. justice system. She argued that prisons are tools of racial and economic oppression, disproportionately harming communities of color and reproducing inequality. Davis urged feminists to examine not only domestic or workplace inequality but also state violence, policing, incarceration, surveillance, that shape the lives of marginalized women.

Across the 20th century, women fundamentally reshaped political philosophy. Weil, Arendt, and de Beauvoir laid early foundations; Firestone, hooks, Davis, and Okin expanded feminist critiques into new realms; Lugones and Butler transformed how gender, identity, and colonialism are understood. Each provided frameworks for dismantling social systems that hindered women’s advancement and equal opportunity. Women philosophers critiqued the system from the academic sphere. All the while, the political world around them saw incremental change in women’s representation, friendly policy, and opportunity.

Challenges Facing Female Politicians

What happened when women entered the political realm in the 20^th century? Sadly, women candidates encounter barriers to office at every stage of the political process in ways that men do not and for reasons related to gender constructs outlined by women philosophers. Women candidates require recruitment and encouragement, but are less likely than men to receive it. In the US system, on average, women win elected office at similar rates as men, but fewer women choose to run for office. The lack of supportive policies for working families, like subsidized childcare, paid maternity and caregiving leaves, among others, discourage some women from running for office. 

Elizabeth Warren on Campaign[5]

People are more willing to elect women candidates, but sexism by proxy keeps women from being elected. A longitudinal study by the Gallup Poll spanning 65 years indicated a shift in Americans' perspective on whether they would vote for a well-qualified woman for president. In 1937, only 33% responded affirmatively, while by 1999, 92% expressed a positive stance. Despite this optimistic trend influenced by feminism, a 2019 poll found that among those who claimed they would vote for a woman, 33% believed their neighbor would not. This phenomenon, known as "sexism by proxy," involves individuals altering their voting behavior based on perceived electability rooted in outdated sexist standards that they may not personally endorse. It serves as a potential strategy to mask sexism and create an unseen barrier for women in politics.

Despite the growing, even record-setting involvement of women in US politics, a majority of political positions at both state and federal levels are still held by men. As of 2021, only 25% of Senators, 29% of the Representatives, only 12 of 50 Governors, and only 32% of state-level legislators are women. This is alarming because women are more than half the US population!

Progress has slowed in recent decades. In 1979, women held only 3% of seats in the US Congress, 10% in state legislatures, and 11% in statewide elective executive offices. The percentage of seats in the US Congress held by women has increased sixfold, and the percentage in state legislatures and statewide elective executive offices has more than doubled. However, from 2009 to 2015, women's representation in Congress grew only slightly, from 16.8% to 19.4%. During the same period, their representation in statewide elective executive offices barely changed (from 22.6% to 24.6%), and their representation in state legislatures decreased from 24.3% to 24.2%.[6] In 2026, women make up 28% of Congress.[7]

Status of Women in the US Democracy 

The political status of women in the US is at an interesting juncture 100 years after winning the right to vote. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research tracks the “Status of Women in the States,” and uses data to raise awareness, improve policies, and promote women’s equality. They concluded that, “women continue to be underrepresented in governments across the nation and face barriers that often make it difficult for them to exercise political power and assume leadership positions in the public sphere.”[8]

They created the Political Participation Composite Index, which uses four different data points to measure women’s status: voter registration, voter turnout, representation in elected office, and women’s institutional resources. In the US, not a single state received a grade of “A” on its index score. The highest-ranking state was New Hampshire, with a score of B+-- the only state to receive that score. New Hampshire is set apart because it was in the top one-third for women’s voter registration and turnout. Additionally, in 2012, the state made history by having all women in the top executive offices: Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Kelly Ayote, Representative Ann McLane Kuster, Representative Carol Shea-Porter, and Governor Maggie Hassan. New Hampshire and its neighboring New England states are the exception, not the norm. Most states did poorly on the Political Participation Composite Index, with southern states in particular falling far behind: Arkansas, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia scored an F!

Do we need more women candidates? Emily’s List thinks so. This organization works to endorse and elect “Democratic Pro-Choice Women.” So does Winning for Women, which fundraises for Republican candidates with the slogan, “Advancing and Engaging Conservative Women.” Both encourage and coach women to run for office. But the premise of these group’s position is that women lawmakers will produce more women-friendly policies. Is that true? The evidence is blurry.

On the one hand, men and women in general see the status of women differently. According to studies by PEW Research Center, while men and women agree that sexual harassment, differing legal status, different social pressures, and a lack of women in power are problems that hold women back, the margin by which they agree differs greatly by gender. Most women overwhelmingly agree with this list, with over 70% of respondents agreeing, while most men only agree at just over the 50% margin.[9] If men and women do not agree on the challenges facing women, how can women expect male politicians to pass policies that align with their needs? 

Political scientists have studied the benefits of having women in elected office for family friendly policy. Using data from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Jessica Saracino found, “Women legislators in the United States are more likely than their male counterparts to include legislation concerning women, children, and families among their top priorities… [and] are more successful in their efforts to pass these bills into law.”^[10] She claims a “strong relationship between the status of women and the number of women legislators in that state.”^[11] Similarly, Amy Caiazza found that women produced better outcomes for women and family-friendly policy. While left-leaning politicians of any gender supported bills on women’s rights, the gender of the candidate mattered more.^[12] She also found that when women engage in politics as electors, men engage on issues women care about.^[13] In other words, women are a powerful voting group. Therefore, work at the state level to raise women’s status leads to greater representation, cyclically producing greater everyday results for women.

Longitudinal studies show optimistic trends. The Gallup Poll conducted a 65 years study which  showed a shift in public opinion on having a female president.^[14] When the study began in 1937, only 33% of respondents approved, but by 1999 92% said yes. However these trends reveal a psychological concept where feminism has changed what is acceptable to say, but not changed covert behaior, like what one does in the privacy of the voting booth. Even when people are not covertly sexist, women candidates face challenges from “sexism by proxy.” A 2019 poll by IPSOS found that of those who said they would vote for a woman, 33% thought their neighbors would not.^[15] This “sexism by proxy,” causes voters to change their votes based on electability and not their own opinion.

A Woman President

The failure of the US system to function for women is evident in the still small numbers of women holding offices in the US.  Still, in every election season, women run for office and vie for the highest position: the presidency. Among the list of presidents that school children memorize in order, should be the list of women who have won nominations and seats, as their rise is notable, significant, and in spite of a structure that limits their trajectory.

Geraldine Ferraro[16]

Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman nominated as Vice President on a major party ticket. Running alongside Walter F. Mondale as his choice for the vice presidency. Ferraro was an outstanding pick as a lawyer, assistant district attorney, and three-term member of the House of Representatives. They lost in a landslide election to Ronald Reagan.

The first woman to have her name formally placed into nomination for president by a major party was Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican senator from Maine. In 1964, Smith entered several state primaries and earned twenty-seven votes on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention before withdrawing. A former teacher who succeeded her late husband in the U.S. House, Smith went on to serve four terms in the Senate and became known for her independent voice in an era when women were rarely seen in national leadership roles.

In 1972, Shirley Chisholm, a Democrat from New York, became the first African American woman to seek a major-party presidential nomination. Her national campaign—waged across twelve primaries—was designed to educate voters and push the Democratic Party toward greater inclusion. Chisholm ultimately received nearly 152 delegate votes at the Democratic National Convention. Before her run, she had already made history as the first Black woman in Congress, where she served from 1969 to 1983 and championed civil rights, education, and child welfare. That same year, fellow Democrat Patsy Takemoto Mink of Hawaii briefly entered the Oregon primary as an antiwar candidate.

From the 1970s through the early twenty-first century, many women ran for president on third-party tickets or as “issue candidates.” Ellen McCormack ran as an anti-abortion Democrat in 1976, becoming the first woman to receive federal matching funds and Secret Service protection. Sonia Johnson (Citizens Party, 1984), Lenora Fulani (New Alliance Party, 1988 and 1992), Cynthia McKinney (Green Party, 2008), Jill Stein (Green Party, 2012, 2016, 2024), and Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian Party, 2020) each used their presidential bids to raise issues they believed major parties were neglecting. Though these runs rarely earned a significant share of the vote, they broadened the political landscape and pushed national conversations on peace, civil rights, environmental policy, and government reform.

Other women tested the waters for major-party nominations without reaching the primary season or lasting long in it. Patricia Schroeder’s 1988 exploratory campaign drew wide attention for highlighting the challenges women faced in fundraising and media coverage, while Elizabeth Dole in 2000 and Carly Fiorina in 2016 both entered Republican primaries before withdrawing after failing to gain sufficient traction. In 2012, Representative Michele Bachmann made headlines when she won the Iowa Ames Straw Poll but soon fell behind in the primaries.

Sarah Palin became the second woman vice presidential nominee from a major U.S. party in 2008, running on the Republican ticket alongside Senator John McCain. At the time, Palin was the Governor of Alaska. The ticket lost to Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

The most consequential breakthrough came in 2016, when Hillary Rodham Clinton secured the Democratic Party’s nomination for president—the first time a woman won a major party’s nod. A former First Lady, U.S. senator, and Secretary of State, Clinton had previously run in 2008 and served in the Obama administration before launching her 2016 campaign. She won the popular vote by nearly three million ballots, though she ultimately lost the Electoral College. Her nomination marked a historic milestone for women in American politics and reshaped expectations for future races.

The 2020 election cycle saw a historically diverse field of women seeking the Democratic nomination. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand; Representatives Tulsi Gabbard; author Marianne Williamson; and others ran competitive campaigns that reflected women’s growing presence in the highest levels of government. Though none secured the nomination, their candidacies demonstrated that female leadership in presidential politics had become both expected and normalized.

In the Republican Party, former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley made history in 2024 as the first Republican woman to win a presidential nominating contest. Though she ultimately fell short of the nomination, her victories marked a significant first within her party.

Kamala Harris, a former California attorney general and U.S. senator, ran briefly in the 2020 Democratic primaries before becoming the first woman—and the first Black and South Asian American—to serve as vice president. In 2024, after President Joe Biden ended his reelection campaign, Harris won the Democratic nomination, becoming the second woman in U.S. history to lead a major-party ticket. She won 48.3% of the popular vote and 226 electoral votes before conceding the general election.

The women who ran for the presidency—across parties, ideologies, and decades—collectively reshaped American politics. While only a few have achieved major-party nominations, many more paved the way by forcing political institutions, the media, and voters to rethink who could and should lead the nation. Their campaigns mark both the progress achieved and the barriers that remain in the ongoing struggle for full gender equality in political life.

Conclusion

As women entered the electorate, they confronted a system that did not function for them. Majoritarian voting rules to presidential-style politics that often hindered their rise to leadership, women faced barriers from the social constructs around gender. Throughout the 20^th century, women organized, strategized, and pushed the boundaries of representation, from suffragists and civil rights activists to legal architects, political pioneers, and political philosophers. Their efforts demonstrate that political equality requires more than formal rights; it depends on access, representation, and systems that allow all voices to shape governance. The evolution of the “women’s vote” and the growth of women’s political influence show both how far the nation has come and how much unfinished work remains.

[1] Gage Skidmore, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz at campaign rally in Glendale, Arizona, August 9, 2024, Photograph, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kamala_Harris_%26_Tim_Walz_-_53915639353.jpg.

[2] Steve Petteway, “The four women who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.” October 1, 2010. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O%27Connor,_Sotomayor,_Ginsburg,_and_Kagan.jpg.

[3] Shirley Chisholm, 1972, Photograph, Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shirley_Chisholm.jpg.

[4] Liu Dong'ao, “Crop of File:Simone de Beauvoir & Jean-Paul Sartre in Beijing 1955,” October 1, 1995. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simone_de_Beauvoir_in_1955_(colorized_and_upscaled).png.

[5] Elizabeth Warren. “Speech in Atlanta.” https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elizabeth_Warren%27s_Speech_in_Atlanta,_GA_-_49645433611.jpg.

[6] A.W. Geiger and Kim Parker, “For Women’s History Month, a look at gender gains – and gaps – in the U.S.,” PEW Research Center, last modified March 15, 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/15/for-womens-history-month-a-look-at-gender-gains-and-gaps-in-the-u-s/.

[7] Anna Jackson. “Women Account for 28% of Lawmakers in the 119^th Congress unchanged from the Last Congress.” PEW Research Center. February 2, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/21/women-account-for-28-of-lawmakers-in-the-119th-congress-unchanged-from-the-last-congress/.

[8] The Institute for Women’s Policy Research. “Status of Women in the States.” 2024. https://iwpr.org/status-of-women-in-the-us/. 

[9] Fingerhut, Hannah. “In both parties, men and women differ over whether women still face obstacles to progress.” PEW Research Center. August 16, 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/16/in-both-parties-men-and-women-differ-over-whether-women-still-face-obstacles-to-progress/.

[10] Jessica Saracino, “The Effect of Socioeconomic Status on the Number of Women in State Legislatures,” Public Purpose: An Interdixciplinary Journal American University’s Graduate School of Public Affairs, Vol. 6. Issue 1 (Spring 2008), https://www.american.edu/spa/publicpurpose/upload/the-effect-of-socioeconomic-status-on-the-number-of-women-in-state-legislatures.pdf, 125.

[11] Saracino, “The Effect of Socioeconomic Status on the number of women in State Legislatures,” 125.

[12] Caiazza, “Does Women's Representation in Elected Office Lead to Women-Friendly Policy?” 41.

[13] Caiazza, “Does Women's Representation in Elected Office Lead to Women-Friendly Policy?” 45.

[14] Frank Newport, David Moore, and Lydia Saad, “Long-Term Gallup Poll Trends: A Portrait of American Public Opinion Through the Century,” last modified December 20, 1999, http://news.gallup.com/poll/3400/longterm-gallup-poll-trends-portrait-american-public-opinion.aspx.

[15] Mary McGrath, “Opinion: Are Americans ready for a female president? Yes. In fact they might prefer one,” last modified November 24, 2019, http://www/latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-11-24/elect-woman-president-warren.

[16] U.S. House of Representatives. “Geraldine Ferraro.” 1978. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geraldine_Ferraro_1981_pictorial.jpg.