The authors analyze gender differences in members’ speech participation on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Speeches increase members’ visibility and voice in the legislative process, providing opportunities for members to highlight their policy knowledge, constituents’ concerns, and partisan commitments. The authors hypothesize that women’s underrepresentation, coupled with the related challenges that female legislators face in a predominantly male institution, motivates congresswomen of both parties to speak at greater rates than congressmen. Analyzing over ten thousand floor speeches during the 103rd and 109th Congresses, the authors find strong support for their hypothesis, demonstrating that congresswomen’s participation in legislative debate increases their visibility and enhances women’s substantive representation.
BoxerBarbara. 1993. Strangers in the Senate. Washington, DC: National Press Books.
2.
BurdenBarry C.2007. Personal roots of representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
BurrellBarbara C.1994. A woman’s place is in the house: Campaigning for Congress in the feminist era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4.
CampbellDavid E.WolbrechtChristina. 2006. See Jane run: Women politicians as role models for adolescents. Journal of Politics68:233–47.
5.
CarrollSusan J.1994. Women as candidates in American politics. 2nd ed.Bloomington: Indiana University Press
6.
CarrollSusan J.2002. Representing women: Congresswomen’s perceptions of their representational roles. In Women transforming Congress, ed. RosenthalCindy Simon, 50–68. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
CranfordJohn. 2006. Key votes 2005: Power plays and polarization. CQ Weekly Online, January9, 108–9.
9.
DodsonDebra L.1998. Representing women’s interests in the U.S. House of Representatives. In Women and elective office, ed. ThomasSueWilcoxClyde, 130–149. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
DodsonDebra L.2006. The impact of women in Congress. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
DreierDavid. 1999. One minute speeches. Parliamentary outreach program. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules Majority Office106 (16). http://rules.house.gov/POP/pop106_16.htm.
12.
Duerst-LahtiGeorgia. 2002. Knowing Congress as a gendered institution: Manliness and the implications of women in Congress. In Women transforming Congress, ed. RosenthalCindy Simon, 20–49. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
13.
EaglyAlice H.KarauSteven J.2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review109:573–98.
14.
FoerstelKarenFoerstelHerbert. 1996. Climbing the hill: Gender conflict in Congress. Westport, CT: Praeger.
15.
FowlerLinda L.McClureRobert. 1989. Political ambition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
FultonSarahMaestasCherieMaiselL. SandyStoneWalter J.2006. The sense of a woman: Gender and congressional ambition. Political Research Quarterly59:235–48.
17.
GambleKatrina L.2007. Black political representation: An examination of legislative activity within U.S. House committees. Legislative Studies Quarterly32:421–48.
18.
GelbJoycePalleyMarian Lief. 1996. Women and public policies: Reassessing gender politics. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
19.
GerrityJessica C.OsbornTracyMendezJeanette Morehouse. 2007. Women and representation: A different view of the district?Politics and Gender3:179–200.
20.
HallRichard. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
HawkesworthMary. 2003. Congressional enactments of race–gender: Toward a theory of raced–gendered institutions. American Political Science Review97:529–50.
22.
HuddyLeonieTerkildsenNayda. 1993. Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science37:119–47.
23.
JenkinsShannon. 2007. Woman’s work is never done? Fund-raising perception and effort among female state legislative candidates. Political Research Quarterly60:230–39.
24.
KathleneLyn. 1994. Power and influence in state legislative policymaking: The interaction of gender and position in committee hearing debates. American Political Science Review88:560–76.
25.
LawlessJennifer L.2004. Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the post-September 11th era. Political Research Quarterly57:479–90.
26.
LawlessJennifer L.FoxRichard. 2005. It takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
LongJ. Scott. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
LongJ. ScottFreeseJeremy. 2006. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
29.
MaltzmanForrestSigelmanLee. 1996. The politics of talk: Unconstrained floor time in the U.S. House of Representatives. Journal of Politics58:819–30.
MansbridgeJane J.1999. Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.”Journal of Politics61:628–57.
32.
Margolies-MezvinskyMarjorie. 1994. A woman’s place: The freshmen women who changed the face of Congress. New York: Crown.
33.
MayhewDavid. 1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.
McDermottMonika L.1997. Voting cues in low-information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary US elections. American Journal of Political Science41:270–83.
35.
MolinariSusan. 1998. Representative mom: Balancing budgets, bill and baby in the U.S. Congress. New York: Doubleday.
36.
MorrisJonathan S.2001. Reexamining the politics of talk: Partisan rhetoric in the 104th House. Legislative Studies Quarterly26:101–21.
NortonNoelle H.1999. Uncovering the dimensionality of gender voting in Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly24:65–86.
39.
OsbornTracyMendezJeanette Morehouse. 2010. Speaking as women: Women and floor speeches in the Senate. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy31:1–21.
40.
PalmerBarbaraSimonDennis. 2006. Breaking the political glass ceiling: Women and congressional elections. New York: Routledge.
41.
PearsonKathrynMcGheeEric. 2009. Why women should win more often than men: Reassessing gender bias in U.S. House elections. Manuscript, University of Minnesota.
42.
PitkinHanna. 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
43.
PooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
RoccaMichael S.2007. Nonlegislative debate in the U.S. House of Representatives. American Politics Research35:489–505.
45.
RosenthalCindy Simon. 1998. When women lead: Integrative leadership in state legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
RosenthalCindy Simon, ed. 2002. Women transforming Congress. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
47.
RosenthalCindy Simon. 2008. Climbing higher: Opportunities and obstacles within the party system. In Legislative women: Getting elected, getting ahead, ed. ReingoldBeth, 197–220. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
48.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2002a. Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science46:20–34.
49.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2002b. Political parties and the recruitment of women to state legislatures. Journal of Politics64: 791–809.
50.
SchroederPat. 1998. 24 years of house work . . . and the place is still a mess: My life in politics. Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel.
51.
ShoganColleen. 2002. Speaking out: An analysis of Democratic and Republican woman-invoked rhetoric in the 105th Congress. Women & Politics23:129–46.
52.
SwersMichele L.1998. Are women more likely to vote for women’s issues bills than their male colleagues?Legislative Studies Quarterly23:435–48.
53.
SwersMichele L.2002. The difference women make: The policy impact of women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
WalshKatherine Cramer. 2002. Enlarging representation: Women bringing marginalized perspectives to floor debate in the House of Representatives. In Women transforming Congress, ed. RosenthalCindy Simon, 370–98. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
