Research on women legislators in the U.S. states has made significant progress toward understanding how women legislators affect public policies. We still lack, however, a clear picture of how variation in legislative structure affects such policy making. Through control of the legislative process and ideological structure, political parties can enhance or constrain women legislators’ efforts. Institutional configurations such as women’s caucuses and women’s power in committee leadership also affect the types of policies women legislators create. By examining these legislative variations, researchers and practitioners can understand more thoroughly the legislative conditions under which women’s representation of women’s issues is most effective.
AldrichJohnRohdeDavid. 2001. The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection. In Congress reconsidered, eds. DoddL.OppenheimerB., 269–92. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
2.
BeckwithKarenCowell-MeyersKimberly. 2007. Sheer numbers: Critical representation thresholds and women’s political representation. Perspectives on Politics5:553–65.
3.
BerkmanMichaelO’ConnorRobert. 1993. Do women legislators matter? Female legislators and state abortion policy. American Politics Research21:102–24.
4.
BerryWilliamRingquistEvanFordingRichardHansenRussell. 1998. Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-1993. American Journal of Political Science42:327–48.
5.
BrattonKathleen. 2002. The effect of legislative diversity on Agenda setting. American Politics Research30:115–42.
6.
BrownNadia. 2013. Employing intersectionality: The impact of generation on black women Maryland state legislators views on anti-domestic violence legislation. The Journal of Race and Policy9:47–70.
CarrollSusan. 2002. Representing women: Congress women’s perceptions of their representational roles. In Women transforming Congress, ed. RosenthalCindy Simon, 50–68. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
9.
ChildsSarahKrookMona Lena. 2006. Should feminists give up on critical mass? A contingent ‘yes.’Politics & Gender2:522–30.
10.
ClarkJennifer HayesOsbornTracyWinburnJonathanWrightGerald. 2009. Representation in U.S. legislatures: The acquisition and analysis of U.S. state legislative roll call data. State Politics and Policy Quarterly9:356–70.
11.
ClucasRichard. 2007. Legislative professionalism and the power of state house leaders. State Politics and Policy Quarterly7:1–19.
12.
Cowell-MeyersKimberlyLangbeinLaura. 2009. Linking women’s descriptive and substantive representation in the United States. Politics & Gender5:491–518.
13.
CoxGaryMcCubbinsMathew. 1993. Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DodsonDebra. 2006. The impact of women in congress. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
EpsteinMichaelNiemiRichardPowellLynda. 2005. Do women and men state legislators differ? In Women and elective office: Past, present and future, 2nd ed., eds. Thomas and Wilcox, 94–109. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
EriksonRobertWrightGerald C.McIverJohn P.. 1993. Statehouse democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FrederickBrian. 2009. Are female house members still more liberal in a polarized era? The conditional nature of the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation. Congress and the Presidency36:181–202.
18.
GertzogIrwin. 2004. Women and power on capitol hill: Reconstructing the congressional women’s caucus. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
19.
GilliganCarol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
HeathRoseannaSchwindt-BayerLeslieTaylor-RobinsonMichelle. 2005. Women on the sidelines: Women’s representation on committees in Latin American legislatures. American Journal of Political Science49:420–436.
21.
HoganRobert. 2008. Sex and the statehouse: The effects of gender on roll call voting. Social Science Quarterly89:955–68.
Interparliamentary Union2014“Women in National Parliaments.” Inter-Parliamentary Union. http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm. (Accessed April 20, 2014).
24.
KanthakKristinKrauseGeorge. 2012. The diversity paradox: Political parties, legislatures, and the organization foundations of representation in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
KathleneLyn. 1994. Power and influence in state legislative policy-making: The interaction of gender and position in committee hearing debates. American Political Science Review88:560–576.
MansbridgeJane. 1999. Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’. Journal of Politics61:628–57.
28.
MasketSeth. 2008. No middle ground: How informal party organizations control nominations and polarize legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
29.
Mitchell MahoneyAnna. 2013. Politics of presence: A study of women’s legislative caucuses. Doctoral diss., Rutgers University, NJ.
30.
MooneyChristopher. 2013. Explaining legislative leadership influence: Simple collective action or conditional explanations. Political Research Quarterly66:559–71.
31.
OsbornTracy. 2012. How women represent women: Political parties, gender, and representation in the state legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
PetrocikJohn. 1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40:825–50.
33.
PhillipsAnne. 1995. The Politics of presence. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
PoggioneSarah. 2004. Exploring gender differences in state legislators’ policy preferences. Political Research Quarterly57:305–14.
35.
ReingoldBeth. 2000. Representing women: Sex, gender and legislative behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
36.
ReingoldBethSwersMichele. 2011. An endogenous approach to women’s interests: When interests are interesting in and of themselves. Politics and Gender7:429–35.
37.
RosenthalCindy Simon. 1998. When women lead. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
Saint-GermainMichelle. 1989. Does their difference make a difference? The impact of women on public policy in the Arizona legislature. Social Science Quarterly70:956–68.
39.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2002. Democrats, republicans, and the politics of women’s place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
40.
ShorBorisBerryChristopherMcCartyNolan. 2010. A bridge to somewhere: Mapping state and congressional ideology on a cross-institutional common space. Legislative Studies Quarterly35:417–48.
41.
ShorBorisMcCartyNolan. 2011. The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review105:530–551.
42.
SquirePeverill. 2007. Measuring state legislative professionalism: The squire index revisited. State Politics and Policy Quarterly7:211–27.
43.
SquirePeverillHammKeith. 2005. 101 chambers: Congress, state legislatures, and the future of legislative studies. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
SwersMichele. 2002. The difference women make: The policy impact of women in congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46.
SwersMicheleLarsenCarin. 2005. Women in congress: Do they act as advocates for women’s issues? In Women and elective office: Past, present and future, 2nd ed., eds. S. ThomasWilcoxC., 110–28. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
ThomasSue. 1994. How women legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.
48.
TolbertCarolineSteuernagelGertrude. 2001. Women lawmakers, state mandates, and women’s health. Women and Politics22:1–39.
49.
WelchSusan. 1985. Are women more liberal than men in the US congress?Legislative Studies Quarterly10:125–34.
50.
WolbrechtChristina. 2000. The politics of women’s rights: Parties, positions and change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
