Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study conducts a computational analysis of 6,531 speeches from the UK Parliament over 200 years to investigate the representation of women and the embedded sexism in political discourse. Utilizing large language models, the authors classify perspectives on women's suffrage and reveal that 54% of anti-suffrage speeches contain sexist content, contrasting with only 21% of pro-suffrage speeches, which predominantly exhibit benevolent sexism. The research also highlights a significant disparity in support for women's political rights between female and male MPs, with findings aligning with the theory of Ambivalent Sexism.
Over half of the speeches against women's representation in Parliament are laced with sexism, revealing a stark contrast in rhetorical strategies between supporters and opponents of suffrage.
The language a legislature uses to debate women's rights, even in favour of them, encodes systematic patterns of sexism that persist across two centuries. In this work, we analyse 6,531 speeches over 200 years of UK parliamentary debate (Hansard, 1803-2005) by using large language models to classify a speaker's perspective towards women's suffrage and political representation, as well as analyse sexist speech in parliament from the lens of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. We also release this parliamentary dataset, an organized and metadata-enriched version of the publicly available Hansard Corpus optimized for computational social science research, with 6.7 million speeches across 1.2 million debates, with 89% gender-matching for speeches by MPs from the House of Commons. We find that 54% of speeches opposing women's representation contain sexist content, compared to 21% of speeches that are for the cause, and that the two sides use fundamentally different types of sexism: anti-suffrage rhetoric combines hostile and benevolent framing, while pro-suffrage sexism is overwhelmingly benevolent. Female MPs support women's political rights at 93% compared to 70% for male MPs, a gap that closes only after enfranchisement. Our findings are evidence that benevolent and hostile sexism are used in different rhetorical contexts in a manner consistent with the theory of Ambivalent Sexism.