What explains the variation between and within Europe’s political parties over how to respond to Russia’s international aggression and domestic illiberalism? We examine this question using a unique dataset of votes on 1140 resolutions and amendments that explicitly target Russia in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) between 2007 and 2021. We argue that Putin’s portrayal of Russia as a defender of traditional family values against liberal egalitarianism, especially against LGBT rights, contributes to divisions between and within Europe’s parties. Consistent with this argument, we find that women and parliamentarians who express support for LGBT rights have become less likely to support Russia compared to other members of their national parties. However, this applies mostly to female MPs within culturally liberal parties and only becomes apparent after Putin’s culturally conservative turn. In addition, parties with more women in leadership become less likely to support Russia. We identify these effects using national party fixed effects and by matching on observables. We discuss the implications for understanding European responses to Russia as well as the literature on gender, foreign policy, and legislative behavior.
Abou-ChadiT.BreyerM.GesslerT. (2021). The (re) politicisation of gender in Western Europe. European Journal of Politics and Gender, 4(2), 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1332/251510821x16177312096679
2.
Adler-NissenR.ZarakolA. (2021). Struggles for recognition: The liberal international order and the merger of its discontents. International Organization, 75(2), 611–634. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000454
3.
AratY. (2022). Democratic backsliding and the instrumentalization of women’s rights in Turkey. Politics and Gender, 18(4), 911–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X21000192
BailerS.BreunigC.GigerN.WüstA. M. (2022). The diminishing value of representing the disadvantaged: Between group representation and individual career paths. British Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123420000642
6.
BlumenauJ. (2021). The effects of female leadership on women’s voice in political debate. British Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 750–771. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123419000334
7.
BochenkovaA.BuonannoP.GallettaS. (2023). Fighting violence against women: The role of female political representation. Journal of Development Economics, 164, 103140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103140
8.
BrooksD. J.ValentinoB. A. (2011). A war of one’s own: Understanding the gender gap in support for war. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 270–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr005
9.
BusyginaI.KahnJ. (2020). Russia, the council of Europe, and “ruxit,” or why non-democratic illiberal regimes join international organizations. Problems of Post-Communism, 67(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2019.1660186
10.
CampbellR.ChildsS.LovenduskiJ. (2010). Do women need women representatives?British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123409990408
ClaytonA.O’BrienD. Z.PiscopoJ. M. (2023). Women grab back: Exclusion, policy threat, and women’s political ambition. American Political Science Review, 117(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422001344
13.
CohenD. K.KarimS. M. (2022). Does more equality for women mean less war? Rethinking sex and gender inequality and political violence. International Organization, 76(2), 414–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818321000333
14.
CouncilA. (2016). KREMLIN’S trojan horses. The Atlantic Council.
15.
DoctorowG. (2019). A Belgian perspective on international affairs. Autorhouse.
16.
DüpontN.KavasogluB.LührmannA.ReuterO. J. (2021). Party organizations around the globe. Introducing the varieties of party identity and organization dataset (V-party). SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3871668
17.
EdenborgE. (2018). Homophobia as geopolitics: ‘Traditional values’ and the negotiation of Russia’s place in the world. In MulhollandJ.MontagnaN.Sanders-McDonaghE. (Eds.), Gendering Nationalism. Springer International Publishing, pp. 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76699-7_4
18.
EdenborgE. (2023). Anti-gender politics as discourse coalitions: Russia’s domestic and international promotion of “traditional values”. Problems of Post-Communism, 70(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1987269
19.
EksiB.WoodE. A. (2019). Right-wing populism as gendered performance: Janus-faced masculinity in the leadership of Vladimir Putin and Recep T. Erdogan. Theory and Society, 48(5), 733–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09363-3
20.
Elad–StrengerJ.Ben–ShitritL.Hirsch–HoeflerS. (2024). Mainstreaming democratic backsliding: The role of gender stereotypes. European Journal of Political Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12667
21.
FarzaneganM. R.GholipourH. F. (2023). Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and votes in favor of Russia in the UN general assembly. International Interactions, 49(3), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2023.2179046
GensB. (2019). Germany’s Russia policy and geo-economics: Nord Stream 2, sanctions and the question of EU leadership towards Russia. Global Affairs, 5(4–5), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2019.1681013
25.
GolosovG. V. (2020). Useful, but not necessarily idiots: The ideological linkages among the putin-sympathizer parties in the European parliament. Problems of Post-Communism, 67(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2018.1530941
HargraveL.BlumenauJ. (2022). No longer conforming to stereotypes? Gender, political style and parliamentary debate in the UK. British Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 1584–1601. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123421000648
28.
HixS.NouryA.RolandG. (2005). Power to the parties: Cohesion and competition in the European parliament, 1979–2001. British Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 209–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123405000128
29.
HoogheL.MarksG. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1310279
30.
HoogheL.MarksG.BakkerR.JollyS.PolkJ.RovnyJ.SteenbergenM.VachudovaM. A. (2024). The Russian Threat and the consolidation of the west: How populism and EU-skepticism shape party support for Ukraine. European Union Politics, 25(3), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165241237136
31.
InglehartR.NorrisP. (2000). The developmental theory of the gender gap: Women’s and men’s voting behavior in global perspective. International Political Science Review, 21(4), 441–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512100214007
32.
JansesbergerV.RheinS. (2024). “Different perspectives on democracy as an explanation for the” populist radical right gender gap. Politics and Governance, 12, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.8579
33.
JohnsonJ. E.NovitskayaA.SperlingV.SundstromL. M. (2021). Mixed signals: What Putin says about gender equality. Post-Soviet Affairs, 37(6), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586x.2021.1971927
34.
JollyS.BakkerR.HoogheL.MarksG.PolkJ.RovnyJ.SteenbergenM.VachudovaM. A. (2022). Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2019. Electoral Studies, 75, 102420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102420
35.
JongM. d.GraafT. v. d.HaesebrouckT. (2022). A matter of preference: Taking sides on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 30(2), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2020.1858763
KochM. T.FultonS. A. (2011). In the defense of women: Gender, office holding, and national security policy in established democracies. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381610000824
38.
KriesiH. (1998). The transformation of cleavage politics the 1997 Stein Rokkan lecture. European Journal of Political Research, 33(2), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00379
39.
LeuprechtP. (1998). Innovations in the European system of human rights protection: Is enlargement compatible with reinforcement?Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 8, 313–337.
40.
LippsJ. (2021). Intertwined parliamentary arenas: Why parliamentarians attend international parliamentary institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 27(2), 501–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120946480
41.
LippsJ.JacobM. S. (2024). Undermining liberal international organizations from within: Evidence from the parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe. The Review of International Organizations, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09559-y
42.
LippsJ.VoetenE. (2025). Replication data for: Voting with Putin: Gender, LGBT rights, and tacit support for Russia among Europe’s parliamentarians. Version V1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RG1GYG
43.
LottesI. L.AlkulaT. (2011). An investigation of sexuality-related attitudinal patterns and characteristics related to those patterns for 32 European countries. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 8(2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-011-0038-1
44.
LührmannA.TannenbergM.LindbergS. (2018). Regimes of the world (RoW): Opening new avenues for the comparative study of political regimes. Politics and Governance, 6(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214
MalangT.OhligerV. (2023). Voting in the shadow of Russian aggression. Evidence from the parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe 2012–2016. Journal of Legislative Studies, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2023.2253413
47.
MassiasJ.-P. (2007). Russia and the Council of Europe: Ten years wasted?Institut Français des Relations Internationales.
48.
McDermottR. (2015). Sex and death: Gender differences in aggression and motivations for violence. International Organization, 69.3(3), 753–775. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818315000065
49.
MeijerH.BrooksS. G. (2021). Illusions of autonomy: Why Europe cannot provide for its security if the United States pulls back. International Security, 45.4(4), 7–43. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00405
50.
MoravcsikA. (2000). The origins of human rights regimes: Democratic delegation in postwar Europe. International Organization, 54(2), 217–252. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551163
51.
NaurinD.NaurinE.AlexanderA. (2019). Gender stereotyping and chivalry in international negotiations: A survey experiment in the council of the European union. International Organization, 73(2), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818319000043
52.
Nuñez-MietzF. G. (2019). Resisting human rights through securitization: Russia and Hungary against LGBT rights. Journal of Human Rights, 18(5), 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2019.1647100
53.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. (1995). Russia’s request for membership in the light of the situation in Chechnya: Resolution 1055. https://pace.coe.int/en/files/16466/html
Ralph-MorrowE. (2022). The right men: How masculinity explains the radical right gender gap. Political Studies, 70(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720936049
56.
ReiterD. (2015). The positivist study of gender and international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(7), 1301–1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002714560351
57.
SchimmelfennigF.WinzenT.LenzT.RocabertJ.CrasnicL.GherasimovC.LippsJ.MumfordD. (2020). The rise of international parliaments: Strategic legitimation in international organizations. Transformations in governance (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198864974.001.0001
58.
SchrammM.StarkA. (2020). Peacemakers or iron ladies? A cross-national study of gender and international conflict. Security Studies, 29(3), 515–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2020.1763450
59.
SchwartzJ. A.BlairC. W. (2020). Do women make more credible threats? Gender stereotypes, audience costs, and crisis bargaining. International Organization, 74(4), 872–895. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000223
60.
SharafutdinovaG. (2014). The Pussy Riot affair and Putin’s démarche from sovereign democracy to sovereign morality. Nationalities Papers, 42(4), 615–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2014.917075
61.
ShevtsovaM. (2023). Religion, nation, state, and anti-gender politics in Georgia and Ukraine. Problems of Post-Communism, 70(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2022.2085581
62.
SilvaP. M.SeldenZ. (2020). Economic interdependence and economic sanctions: A case study of European union sanctions on Russia. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 33(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1660857
63.
SnegovayaM. (2022). Fellow travelers or trojan horses? Similarities across pro-Russian parties’ electorates in Europe. Party Politics, 28(3), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068821995813
64.
SperlingV. (2014). Sex, politics, and Putin: Political legitimacy in Russia. Oxford University Press.
65.
SundstromL. M. I.SperlingV. (2020). Seeking better judgment: LGBT discrimination cases in Russia and at the European Court of human rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 24(6), 750–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1671826
66.
TicknerJ. A. (1992). Gender in international relations: Feminist perspectives on achieving global security. Columbia University Press.
67.
WäckerleJ.Castanho SilvaB. (2023). Distinctive voices: Political speech, rhetoric, and the substantive representation of women in European parliaments. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 48(4), 797–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12410
WeeksA. C.AllenP. (2023). Backlash against “identity politics”: Far right success and mainstream party attention to identity groups. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 11(5), 935–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2022.2065318
70.
WilkinsonC. (2014). Putting “traditional values” into practice: The rise and contestation of anti-homopropaganda laws in Russia. Journal of Human Rights, 13(3), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2014.919218
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
