Is there a ‘woman advantage’? Gendered perceptions of candidate nominations in Finland

Abstract

Amid debates about the strategic benefits of nominating women, we investigate perceptions of a ‘woman advantage’ among successfully nominated candidates in Finland. We propose two competing mechanisms: one suggests men perceive a ‘woman advantage’ due to the rising representation of women in politics; and the other argues women are more likely to perceive such an advantage based on direct recruitment experiences. Drawing on the 2019 Finnish Comparative Candidate Survey and register data on women’s representation within parties, we find that most candidates believe being a woman offers at least some advantage. However, women are more likely than men to perceive this advantage, supporting the second mechanism. Among women, higher levels of women’s representation on party lists are linked to a reduced sense that being a woman is advantageous. Overall, our results suggest that nominated women candidates in Finland are more sensitive to the gendered context of candidate selection than men.

Keywords

Women’s descriptive representation nomination process Finland Comparative Candidate Survey

Introduction

Although women in many democracies are now as likely as men to win elected office (Golder et al., 2017; Schwarz and Coppock, 2022), nomination remains a critical gatekeeping stage where gendered barriers persist. Research consistently shows that women express lower levels of political ambition than equally qualified men and face higher standards for candidacy (Allen and Cutts, 2020; Coffé et al., 2022; Lawless, 2015; Paxton et al., 2025; Piscopo, 2019; Teele et al., 2018).

At the same time, there is growing evidence that party elites favour women when selecting candidates (Jankowski and Rehmert, 2024; Rehmert, 2022; Schwarz and Coppock, 2022), especially when women are underrepresented (Gatto and Radojevic, 2025). Parties and political systems committed to gender equality in political representation often ensure that their lists (in List-PR systems) are gender-balanced (e.g., Butler et al., 2021; Luhiste, 2015). From a rational choice perspective, party elite men support women’s candidacy not because they support women’s power, per se, but because they see the strategic value of women in power (Valdini, 2019; see also Clayton et al., 2019; Funk et al., 2021). Indeed, parties increasingly find that placing women on their lists can improve their electoral success (Golder et al., 2017; Ragauskas, 2021; Valdini, 2019), and increase positive voter attitudes about the political process and its legitimacy (Bridgewater and Nagel, 2020; Clayton et al., 2019; Funk et al., 2021). Voters generally want women on the ballot, regardless of political ideology (Wäckerle, 2023), making being a woman a potential advantage in the nomination process.

These developments raise a key, yet underexplored, question: how do political candidates perceive the role of gender in the nomination process? While prior research has emphasized the structural and cultural barriers women face when entering politics, parties’ (strategic) efforts to nominate women may lead candidates to perceive being a woman as an electoral or strategic asset. In other words, there may be a perception of a ‘woman advantage’ when being nominated for office. Yet this assumption remains largely untested, and it is unclear whether women and men share similar perceptions. Some men may perceive the rise in women’s descriptive representation in recent decades as a loss of status and power, potentially triggering threat or grievance (Valdini, 2019) and leading them to believe that being a woman is advantageous in candidate selection. Alternatively, perceptions may be shaped more by direct experiences in the recruitment process. Women may be more attuned to party signals promoting gender balance, perceiving that being a woman is a particularly sought-after characteristic and an advantage in the nomination process.

To better understand how candidates perceive a possible advantage of being a woman in nomination processes, we analyse unique data from a survey of nominated women and men political candidates, available only in Finland, as a special addendum to the 2019 Comparative Candidate Survey, combined with register data on women’s descriptive representation within Finnish political parties. Finland is recognized for its high descriptive representation of women, and the share of women among nominated candidates has increased substantially over time (Lefkofridi et al., 2019). The open-list PR electoral system used in Finland incentivizes parties to nominate diverse candidates and to aim for an equal balance of men and women on their lists (von Schoultz, 2018). We discuss the Finnish case further below.

In sum, then, the current study asks: (1) To what extent do nominated political candidates in Finland perceive being a woman as an advantage during their party’s nomination process?; and (2) To what extent do such perceptions vary by candidate gender and the share of women on their party’s list?

In brief, we find that nearly two-thirds of candidate-respondents in Finland – men and women – feel that being a woman provides at least some advantage, but women candidates are much more likely than men candidates to view being a woman as an advantage. The context of gender parity within the party matters significantly, but only among women respondents. The more women in a party, the less women candidates perceive a ‘woman advantage.’ Overall, our findings suggest that women candidates in Finland are more sensitive to the ‘party-parity-context’ in which nominations take place. We conclude by considering the implications of these findings and offer suggestions for further study.

Overall perceptions of a ‘woman advantage’

Achieving greater gender equality in numerical representation has been an ongoing goal for many democracies worldwide. To achieve this goal, parties often use affirmative action such as quotas, but even without mandatory gender parity, parties increasingly find that placing women on lists can increase electoral success and voter support (Clayton et al., 2019; Golder et al., 2017; Stockemer and Sundström, 2019; Wäckerle, 2023).

There are compelling reasons to expect party elites to respond to these cues and for political candidates to notice such efforts. Valdini (2019) argues that (men) party elites perform an ‘inclusion calculation’ – embracing strategic advantages associated with having women in power. Evidence indicates that parties with gender-balanced lists do have strong electoral advantages. First, studies find a pattern of gender-affinity voting, that is that women are more likely to vote for women and men for men (Golder et al., 2017; Helimäki et al., 2023; Lefkofridi et al., 2019). Second, voters disfavour all-men party lists and leaders, instead preferring gender equality on lists and women as party leaders (Bridgewater and Nagel, 2020; Clayton et al., 2019; Wäckerle, 2023). Looking specifically at the preferences of party elites in Germany and Austria, experiments indicate that women and men elites prefer women candidates (Jankowski and Rehmert, 2024; Rehmert, 2022). In this case, political candidates would be expected to notice such preferences and agree that being a woman is an advantage in the nomination process. Thus, we argue that candidates are aware of these pressures and, as a result, may perceive being a woman as advantageous.

H1: Most candidates will perceive that being a woman is an advantage in their party’s nomination process, as compared with stating that being a woman is not at all an advantage.

Gendered perceptions of a ‘woman advantage’

As political candidates compete for a place on their party’s list, women and men may differ in their perception of a ‘woman advantage.’ One line of reasoning suggests that women candidates are less likely than men to perceive being a woman as an advantage in the nominating process, since prior research shows that women face higher barriers and are typically required to be more qualified than similarly situated men (Allen and Cutts, 2020; Coffé et al., 2022; Lawless, 2015; Piscopo, 2019; Teele et al., 2018). As a result, women may perceive being a woman as more of a disadvantage than men.

At the same time, the strategic emphasis by party elites on the electoral advantages of nominating women may lead men candidates to view being a woman as an advantage. On average, research has shown that men are less supportive than women of gender quotas (Bolzendahl and Coffé, 2020; Coffé and Reiser, 2023), and from the perspective of men candidates, gaining a place on a list may be perceived as a zero-sum game, with women’s gains implying a reduction in the share of men and a loss of political power for men (Bjarnegård, 2013). Gatto and Radojevic (2025) find that men party selectors are substantially less likely to support women candidates when women approach representational parity. Some men candidates may focus on ‘grievance politics,’ driven by a sense of threat that their political power is being eroded. Valdini refers to this as the ‘threat cost’ or the ‘personal calculation of an elite regarding the likelihood that the inclusion of women will impact his access to power and his career trajectory’ (Valdini, 2019: 24). This fear of losing dominance can lead to a perception that being a woman is an advantageous position (Goldman, 2018; Green and Shorrocks, 2023). This research leads us to our second hypothesis:

H2a: Men candidates are more likely than women candidates to perceive that being a woman is an advantage in their party’s nominating process.

However, this hypothesis does not consider women candidates’ perceptions of potential biases in their favour by party elites, nor does it account for the importance that men candidates and party elites may attribute to gender equality. An alternative line of reasoning considers how women candidates assess the messages they receive from party elites. Some experimental research suggests that both men and women party elites prefer women candidates and are more likely to select them and place them at the top of the list (Jankowski and Rehmert, 2024; Rehmert, 2022). This complements the growing literature highlighting the strategic advantages of gender-balanced lists in achieving electoral success for a party. In this case, parties may invest more time and effort in seeking out potential women candidates and convincing them to be nominated. As the targets of such efforts, women may perceive being a woman as an advantage. Though men candidates may agree that being a woman is an advantage in general, they may not be as attuned to such messages. First, because they are not getting such messages directly, and second, because men may be reluctant to assign any advantage to women in a gender-unequal world. Notably, Finland and all Nordic nations are well-known for their public commitment to women’s equality, and social confirmation bias alone may dissuade men candidates from suggesting that being a woman is an ‘advantage.’ Along these lines, we offer an opposite hypothesis:

H2b: Women candidates are more likely than men candidates to perceive that being a woman is an advantage in their party’s nomination process.

Do numbers matter? Shifting perceptions as more women enter the field

An increased focus within parties on presenting a gender diverse list may increase the perception that being a woman is an advantage during the nomination process overall. However, as more women enter a list and are elected, being a woman no longer distinguishes a candidate, and there is no reason to believe that being a woman is an advantage. This mechanism is increasingly supported by research. For example, Sipinen et al. (2022) find that all politicians put less emphasis on the importance of women’s descriptive representation in municipalities where women are already strongly present in politics. Similarly, results from Jankowski and Rehmert (2024) show that party elites have a much stronger preference for women candidates when the overall supply of women is low. Finally, Gatto and Radojevic (2025) show, through survey experiments with party selectors in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, that women are preferentially chosen when they are underrepresented among aspirants − implying that selection advantages emerge contextually, as a function of representational imbalance. As the proportion of women candidates increases, the preference for selecting women and placing them high on the list disappears. Assuming that political candidates are aware of these contextual choices by party elites, our third hypothesis is:

H3: Candidates in parties with a comparably higher proportion of women on their candidate lists are less likely to perceive being a woman as an advantage in their party’s nomination process.

While our third hypothesis assumes that the proportion of women in a party affects perceptions equally among women and men, gender differences in perceptions of a ‘woman advantage’ (H2a vs. H2b) suggest that this effect may vary between men and women candidates. Specifically, we expect candidate gender to interact with the party’s gender composition, such that gendered perceptions of a ‘woman advantage’ become pronounced depending on this interaction.

However, theorizing such effects is difficult, given the paucity of research on candidates’ gender(ed) perceptions. Following the reasoning leading up to H2a and H2b, we offer alternative and exploratory hypotheses. The first is motivated by the research indicating that men politicians are sensitive to the level of women’s descriptive representation in politics; namely, as the share of women increases, men tend to withdraw their attention from ‘women’s interests’ (Höhmann, 2020; Kekkonen and Wängnerud, 2017) or reduce their support for women’s political candidacies (Gatto and Radojevic, 2025). If H2a is correct, the increased representation of women in a party could exacerbate a sense of grievance among men and provide ‘evidence’ that being a woman is an advantage. This would suggest that the perception that being a woman is an advantage will increase more strongly among men candidates than women candidates when the share of women in a party rises.

Alternatively, based on the expectation that women are more attuned to cues from party elites, a low proportion of women in a party may lead women candidates to perceive a recruitment advantage. In such contexts, parties may actively prioritize women candidates to address gender imbalances, prompting women to feel particularly sought after and potentially requiring less effort to secure nomination. Conversely, when a party already includes a substantial number of women, this perceived advantage may decline (Gatto and Radojevic, 2025). Women may then experience increased pressure to compete, as the party’s urgency to enhance women’s descriptive representation diminishes. We therefore propose two – competing and tentative – hypotheses:

H4a: The perception that being a woman is an advantage increases more among men candidates than among women candidates as the share of women in the party rises.

H4b: The perception that being a woman is an advantage decreases more among women candidates than among men candidates when the share of women in the party rises.

The case of Finland

Our study is situated in Finland, a country at the forefront in terms of women’s representation in the political arena. The level of gender equality in Finnish society at large is high (Kantola, 2019). Finland was one of the first countries in the world to introduce universal suffrage in 1906, and since the 1980s, women have turned out to vote in higher numbers than men (Pikkala, 2020). The share of women candidates in parliamentary and local elections has also increased steadily over time, reaching an all-time high of 47% in the 2019 parliamentary elections (Pikkala, 2020). In recent decades, women have held several prominent political positions, such as President (Tarja Halonen, 2000–2012), Prime Minister (Sanna Marin, 2019–2023), and most of the ministers in the 2019–2023 government were women, along with the leaders of all five parties constituting the coalition government. In Finland, where women’s parliamentary representation approaches parity and broader gender equality is well established, candidates may see little to no gender-based advantage. Still, evidence from Nordic countries suggests that gender continues to shape political engagement and candidacy, even in highly egalitarian settings (Helimäki et al., 2023; Pikkala, 2020).

In Finland, the share of women members of parliament and nominated candidates varies across parties, offering a unique opportunity to examine how party-level gender composition shapes candidate perception within a broader context of gender egalitarianism. The nomination of candidates by Finnish political parties is regulated by law and follows a decentralized process that is not bound to legal or statutory gender quotas. Candidates are selected by their parties’ local organizations in each district. In parliamentary elections, each party can nominate at least 14 candidates in each district, or as many as there are seats to distribute within the district. In the 2019 parliamentary elections, the largest district had 36 seats to allocate. The Finnish open-list proportional electoral system involves mandatory preferential voting (von Schoultz, 2018). The number of seats each party wins is based on the total number of preference votes cast for the nominated candidates of the party. Party lists typically do not have a specific ranking but list candidates alphabetically. The order in which candidates are elected is determined by the number of personal votes that candidates received.

With votes cast for individual candidates, the candidates themselves and their personal characteristics play a crucial role in voters’ decision-making process. Consequently, these factors are of significant concern to parties during the nomination stage. Most parties apply a ‘balanced list strategy,’ which involves nominating a wide selection of candidates to draw support from various social groups (Sipinen, 2021; von Schoultz, 2018). Typically, the central party headquarters issues recommendations to local districts and oversees their implementation. However, interviews with party elites reveal significant variation in how ‘gender equality’ is interpreted and enacted across parties (Sipinen and Koskimaa, 2020). These differing interpretations are reflected in the varying degrees to which parties achieve gender parity on their candidate lists.

In the 2019 elections, women constituted 42% of all nominated candidates. Among the established parties represented in the Finnish Eduskunta, the right-wing populist Finns Party had the lowest share of women candidates at 32%. This was 30 percentage points lower than the left-liberal Green Party, where women comprised 62% of the nominated candidates. Generally, left-leaning parties and liberal parties tend to have a higher proportion of women on their lists. In contrast, the centre, right-wing and conservative parties nominated significantly fewer women (Pikkala, 2020).

In sum, women have been well represented in Finnish politics for a long time and hold significant shares of political leadership positions. As a result, any gender-related findings in our study are not influenced by women’s status as political newcomers. Overall, women’s comparatively high representation makes Finland a least-likely case for gender inequalities in politics. It can, however, be argued that the widespread ambition among political parties to nominate gender-balanced lists renders Finland a most-likely case for observing a ‘women’s advantage.’ Irrespective of the analytical perspective adopted, Finland constitutes an outlier in comparative international terms, owing to its consistently high level of gender parity in politics − a pattern observable primarily within the Nordic region.

Data, measures and methods

We rely on a survey of nominated political candidates in the 2019 Finnish Candidate Study (von Schoultz and Kestilä-Kekkonen, 2019) conducted only in Finland as part of the Comparative Candidates Study (www.comparativecandidates.org). It was administered (both online and on paper) as a post-election survey following the 2019 Finnish parliamentary elections and targeted candidates who participated in the election. Our sample consists of candidates who were nominated and, therefore, can be considered as ‘successful’ in the sense that they made it to the list. This is important to note, as women and men who were not selected for the party list may have different perceptions of the nomination process than those who were nominated.

The candidate survey data are combined with register data on incumbency and electoral district of candidates (Ministry of Justice, 2019), as well as district-level information on women’s descriptive representation within Finnish parties (Official Statistics of Finland, 2019).

The original dataset of 770 respondents was collected between May and September 2019 (response rate of 31%). The data were weighted (based on descriptive statistics including mother tongue, age, gender, party, constituency and electoral success) to account for potential biases in the total sample of candidates. Respondents with missing information on any of the independent variables were removed, giving a final sample size of 703 respondents. All results presented below are for weighted data. In the appendix, Online Table A1 provides descriptive information for all independent variables, broken down by gender, and Online Table A2 presents full information on all variable wording and measurement in the analysis.

Dependent variable: Perception of a ‘woman advantage’

The outcome of interest is the perception that women have an advantage in the nomination process. Specifically, all respondents were asked: If you think about your party’s candidate nomination process, to what extent do you feel that being a woman was an advantage when candidates were nominated?¹ Response choices are: (a) not at all; (b) to some extent; (c) quite a lot; and (d) very much.

Key independent variables

Per our hypotheses, we focus on candidate gender (0 = men, 1 = women) and the proportion of women candidates within respondents’ parties in their districts. The latter data are publicly available (Statistics Finland: www.stat.fi).

Control variables

Our regression analyses include a series of control variables to understand the net effect of gender and the proportion of women candidates on the party list. The controls account for factors that influence politicians’ barriers in the nomination process, as well as their perceptions of and support for gender equality and women’s representation, which may also shape how they perceive gender dynamics and (dis)advantages in nominations (e.g. Coffé and Reiser, 2018; Höhmann, 2020, 2024; Kekkonen and Wängnerud, 2017). Age is a continuous variable. Level of education is measured as: (1) a university degree or (0) no university degree. Urbanicity of respondent residence ranges from 1 to 4, with a higher value referring to more urban (large town or city) living areas. Migrant status indicates whether the respondent had Finnish citizenship at birth, coded as (1) no and (0) yes. Marital status is a dichotomous variable, distinguishing respondents who are (1) married or widowed from (0) those in other categories. The final demographic characteristic is parental status, distinguishing respondents (0) with children under the age of 18 from those (0) without children.

To capture incumbency and other candidate-specific factors, we also include candidates’ perceptions about their likelihood of winning at the beginning of the campaign.² The variable ranges from (1) I thought I could not win to (5) I thought I could not lose. We control for whether the candidate is (1) an incumbent politician or (0) not. To account for potential ideological differences in gender assessments, we control for candidates’ self-placed ideology on an 11-point left−right scale (0 = very left to 10 = very right). In addition, we include a scale measuring respondents’ green, alternative, and libertarian/traditionalist, authoritarian, and nationalist (GAL/TAN) position based on seven questions, asking respondents to indicate the extent to which they agree with statements on immigration, the environment, same-sex marriage, women’s employment, crime and abortion (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.76) (see Online Table A2). Items were recoded where necessary so that higher values indicate a more TAN-oriented position. Finally, to consider that candidates are clustered within districts with varying political and competitive circumstances, we use fixed effects at the district level.

Methods and robustness checks

The data are analysed through descriptive methods and the multivariate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models. As a robustness check, we also estimated the models using an ordered logit specification (Online Table A3 in the appendix), and the main findings are the same. Although the four-point scale of our dependent variable is somewhat asymmetrical, with three categories indicating some degree of perceived advantage, this design allows respondents to express varying intensities of that perception. Our robustness check using a binary version of the dependent variable (Online Table A4 in the appendix) yields consistent results, suggesting that this measurement choice does not affect our substantive findings.

Finally, our outcome only asks candidates if they perceive that being a woman is an advantage, so we assess the robustness of our findings by analysing an additional question that asks candidates whether they felt disadvantaged in the nomination process due to their own gender. This item may capture underlying feelings of grievance. Responses are measured on a four-point scale (1 = ‘not at all’ to 4 = ‘very much’).

Results

Descriptive analysis

We begin by considering the overall expectation (H1) that candidates will feel that being a woman is an advantage.

Figure 1 indicates that the most popular response to the question of whether being a woman is an advantage in nominations is to say, ‘not at all.’ In a gender egalitarian nation such as Finland, this is perhaps not surprising. However, it is notable that most candidates nevertheless perceive that being a woman is an advantage to some extent. Among them, a plurality (34%) perceives it as only a slight advantage, while 29% view it as ‘quite a lot’ or ‘very much.’ These findings indicate that most respondents perceive being a woman is an advantage, supporting H1.

We also expected women and men to differ in their perceptions of the ‘woman advantage.’ We proposed two competing hypotheses: one positing that men candidates are more likely than women to view being a woman as advantageous (H2a); and the other suggesting the opposite (H2b). At the bivariate level, shown in Figure 2, we see no evidence for H2a, but strong evidence for H2b. Men candidates are almost twice as likely as women candidates to claim that being a woman is ‘not at all’ an advantage (45% and 25%, respectively), and women are consistently more likely than men to say that women have at least some advantage. The difference is statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level. On average, women candidates score 2.23 on the 1–4 scale, falling between ‘to some extent’ and ‘quite a lot,’ while men candidates score an average of 1.88, positioned between ‘not at all’ and ‘to some extent.’

Multivariate regression analyses

Next, we turn to the OLS multivariate regression results in Table 1. Here, we examine the impact of gender and the share of women candidates (model 1) and the interaction between gender and proportion of women (model 2). We find that, regardless of controls, women candidates are more likely than men candidates to perceive being a woman as an advantage in the nomination process. This provides further evidence against H2a and in support of H2b.

Table 1.

Ordinary least squares regression analyses of perceptions of a ‘woman advantage.’

	Model 1		Model 2
	β	Standard error (s.e.)	β	s.e.
Woman	0.41***	0.08	1.25***	0.27
Share women candidates	−0.78**	0.27	−0.10	0.33
Woman × share women candidates	—		−1.87**	0.55
Age	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00
Urban living	−0.00	0.04	−0.01	0.04
Migrant	0.17	0.19	0.13	0.19
Married/widowed	0.12	0.09	0.10	0.09
No children	0.10	0.08	0.09	0.08
University degree	−0.01	0.08	−0.01	0.08
Likelihood winning	0.17***	0.05	0.16***	0.05
Incumbent	−0.31	0.22	−0.31	0.21
Left/right position	0.04*	0.02	0.03*	0.02
Green, alternative, and libertarian/traditionalist, authoritarian, and nationalist position	−0.15*	0.06	−0.15*	0.06
Constant	1.84***	0.32	1.69***	0.32
R ²	0.11		0.13
n	703		703

***

p < 0.001; **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05; two-tailed tests.

Note: all models include fixed effects for the districts.

Model 1 in Table 1 also reveals that the share of women is significantly related to beliefs about women’s advantage. In H3, we hypothesized that the more women in a candidate’s party, the less candidates would perceive that being a woman is an advantage. This hypothesis is supported. Predicted values based on Model 1 show that the mean value on the perception that women have an advantage goes from 2.37 (0% women) to 1.98 (50% women) to 1.58 (100% women). These values represent true highs and lows in the Finnish party landscape (0%, n = 19 and 100%, n = 7).

Looking briefly at the control variables, only the likelihood of winning and the two ideological measures (left/right and GAL/TAN) have a significant impact on the perception that being a woman is an advantage in the nomination process. In particular, candidates who believe that they are likely to win the election are more likely to perceive that being a woman is an advantage during the nomination process as compared with candidates who believe that they have little chance of winning the election. Being on the right side of the left/right scale and the TAN side of the GAL/TAN spectrum also increases the likelihood of the perception that being a woman is an advantage during the nomination process.

Finally, Model 2 in Table 1 examines the competing hypotheses H4a and H4b, which assess whether the proportion of women on party lists influences men’s and women’s perceptions of a ‘woman advantage’ differently. H4a predicts that as the proportion of women in a party increases, men’s perceptions of a ‘woman advantage’ will increase more than women’s. Conversely, H4b predicts that women’s perceptions of a ‘woman advantage’ will decrease more sharply than men’s as the share of women increases.

The results reveal a statistically significant negative interaction between candidate gender and the proportion of women in the party in predicting perceptions of a ‘woman advantage.’ To illustrate this effect, predicted values from the interaction are presented in Figure 3. Figure 3 shows that men’s perceptions of a ‘woman advantage’ remain largely unchanged regardless of the proportion of women in their party, leading us to reject H4a. In contrast, women’s perceptions vary significantly: when women constitute 50% or less of the party, women candidates are considerably more likely than men candidates to perceive being a woman as advantageous. However, this perception decreases sharply once women’s representation exceeds 50%. These findings support H4b.

A ‘woman advantage’ or a ‘man disadvantage’?

Our competing hypotheses suggest differing mechanisms. For men, the expectation that they are more likely to perceive a ‘woman advantage’ is partly rooted in perceptions of grievance or threat (e.g., Valdini, 2019). For women, we suggest that their direct recruitment experiences – especially when the number of women in the party is low – heighten their awareness of gendered party dynamics, making them more likely to perceive a ‘woman advantage.’ Although the survey does not directly ask the opposite question − whether being a woman is a disadvantage − it does ask candidates whether their own gender is a disadvantage.

The question of whether candidates felt disadvantaged in the nomination process because of their own gender may capture underlying feelings of grievance, especially among men. Responses are measured on a four-point scale (1 = ‘not at all’ to 4 = ‘very much’). Men report a mean score of 1.24, compared to 1.15 for women. This difference narrowly reaches statistical significance at the conventional level (p = 0.05). As shown in Figure 4, most respondents – 83% of men and 88% of women – do not perceive their gender as a disadvantage. This suggests that most men do not view being a woman as advantageous, nor do they see their own gender – being a man – as a disadvantage.

Figure 5 (with the full model presented in Online Table A5, Model 1 in the appendix) illustrates the interaction between candidate gender and perceptions of one’s own gender being a disadvantage, in shaping perceptions of a ‘woman advantage.’ It shows how believing that one’s own gender is a disadvantage influences perceptions of a ‘woman advantage,’ and whether this relationship differs between men and women.

In line with a grievance-based interpretation of men’s views of a ‘woman advantage,’ the results show that men candidates who perceive their own gender (being a man) as a disadvantage in the nomination process are significantly more likely to say that being a woman is an advantage, compared with men who do not report a gender-based disadvantage. In other words, men’s perceptions that their own gender is disadvantaged appear to mirror their perception that being a woman is an advantage. This supports the notion of a perceived ‘displacement threat’ (Valdini, 2019). However, it is important to emphasize that most men candidates report no or very little ‘woman advantage’ (see Figure 2 above) or disadvantage to their own gender. At the extremes, though, some men clearly perceive both a ‘woman advantage’ and a disadvantage to being a man.

Among women, perceptions are more consistent: whether or not they personally feel disadvantaged because of their gender (as a woman) shows little association with their likelihood of perceiving a ‘woman advantage.’ This suggests that women’s recognition of a ‘woman advantage’ is relatively independent from how they assess the disadvantage of their own gender in the process.³ Even when women feel personally disadvantaged, they are still likely to view being a woman as advantageous in general – supporting our argument that women are more attuned to contextual and party-level signals.

Summary of results

Recent gains in women’s political and social power may have increased the perception that being a woman is an advantage when being selected as a candidate. This perception may be further reinforced by both informal and formal pressures on parties to diversify their candidate lists, as well as by evidence suggesting that parties benefit electorally from including more women on their lists.

Our results, based on the Finnish Candidate Study, support the expectation that candidates perceive a ‘woman advantage.’ On average, two-thirds of candidates agree that being a woman is an advantage at least to a certain extent (H1). However, this perception declines significantly as the proportion of women in a party increases (H3), suggesting that when women are well-represented, being a woman is no longer seen as a distinguishing characteristic. This pattern is primarily driven by women candidates (H4b), not men (H4a).

We also tested competing hypotheses about gender differences in perceptions of a ‘woman advantage.’ Contrary to the grievance and group threat hypothesis (H2a), which predicted that men would be more likely to perceive a ‘woman advantage,’ women candidates were significantly more likely to hold this view − supporting H2b. We interpret this as a reflection of women’s direct experiences in the recruitment process, wherein parties actively seek to enhance gender balance.

Our findings are supported by a robustness check with a related survey question on candidates’ perceptions of their own gender as a disadvantage. On average, both men and women reported no disadvantage associated with their gender. The small proportion of men candidates who perceive their own gender as a hindrance in the nomination process are, however, notably more inclined to assert that being a woman is advantageous. To put it differently, when men perceive being a man as a disadvantage, it aligns with their perception that being a woman is advantageous.

In sum, our findings suggest that among Finnish electoral candidates, the perception that being a woman is advantageous in the nomination process is widespread, particularly among women. Women candidates are significantly more likely than men to hold this perception. Moreover, as the proportion of women in a party increases, the perception of a ‘woman advantage’ declines – and the effect is driven, again, almost entirely by women. Men’s perceptions remain largely unaffected by party gender composition. These patterns suggest that women candidates are more attuned to gender dynamics within their parties and more responsive to shifts in gender representation.

Discussion and conclusion

Against a backdrop of persistent gender inequalities in politics and evolving efforts for change within parties, we aim to understand how women and men political candidates themselves perceive the role of being a woman in their own party’s nomination process. Understanding candidates’ perceptions is important, given that they are likely to influence expectations and behaviour regarding gender equality in opportunities, the nomination process, and the likelihood of selection.

Our findings indicate that Finnish women, not men, candidates perceive a ‘woman advantage.’ To understand this, we speculate based on previous research. First, previous research shows that women candidates are increasingly crucial to parties’ electoral success and may even be a requirement for a successful candidate list. As targets of these calls, women candidates may be more sensitive than men to the role of being a woman in the nomination process. This interpretation is reinforced by the finding that women candidates are the most likely to perceive being a woman as an advantage when the share of nominated women in their party is low. In a party’s quest for a balanced list, where parties have relatively few women, being a woman is an advantage (Gatto and Radojevic, 2025; Jankowski and Rehmert, 2024). It is important to note that the share of women on a party’s list is an outcome of the nomination process. Our data do not capture the underlying pool of aspirants, and we do not know whether parties with fewer women on their lists also attract fewer women to begin with, or whether women face higher barriers to being nominated in those parties.

Second, in our robustness check that included perceptions of one’s own gender as a disadvantage, women candidates still perceived a ‘woman advantage’ – even when they personally felt their gender was a disadvantage. This suggests that women candidates may, in the abstract, view being a woman as an advantage, even if this perception does not align with their own lived experience of (dis)advantage. Such perceptions may also have subtle implications for women’s self-perception and career trajectories. If women candidates attribute their success partly to gender rather than merit, this may foster feelings associated with ‘imposter syndrome,’ potentially influencing their political confidence, leadership ambitions, and long-term engagement in elected office.

Third, some research suggests that as women gain greater representation, men politicians become less interested and involved in gender-relevant issues (Höhmann, 2020; Kekkonen and Wängnerud, 2017). In a country such as Finland, where women hold nearly equal political power to men, men may not see that gender matters all that much. All of this suggests that Finnish women candidates are more politically gender-sensitive than men candidates.

The findings of our analysis warrant further investigation. Some may question the reliability of candidates’ responses, particularly regarding the potential influence of social desirability bias. While our models account for a range of confounding factors (e.g., political ideology and incumbency), fully addressing potential social desirability effects would require more targeted methodological approaches (e.g., Glynn, 2013). To help disentangle mechanisms, qualitative interviews with candidates would be ideal.

Although this study is linked to the Comparative Candidate Study, our main dependent variable is available only for Finland, limiting cross-national comparison. As a result, it remains unclear to what extent our findings generalize beyond Finland. Finland stands out for its early and sustained achievement of gender balance in parliament, with women’s representation exceeding 40% and reaching 47% in 2019 – conditions that differ markedly from those in most other countries.

At the same time, our finding that levels of underrepresentation shape perceptions of a woman-advantage align with a growing literature showing that party-selectors are more likely to favour women when they are underrepresented (e.g., Gatto and Radojevic, 2025; Jankowski and Rehmert, 2024). Importantly, such strategic preferences do not eliminate the substantial barriers women continue to face when running for office, including higher qualification standards, poor mentoring, political violence, lack of motherhood support, and so on (Allen and Cutts, 2020; Coffé et al., 2022; Lawless, 2015; Paxton et al., 2025; Piscopo, 2019; Teele et al., 2018). The fact that women perceive an advantage yet still run less frequently – even in Finland – highlights the persistence of structural and cultural barriers beyond the nomination stage.

Additional candidate surveys asking similar questions in other Western democracies are needed to determine whether these patterns hold across other countries. Some research suggests that the patterns could be quite different in less gender egalitarian or democratic contexts. For example, the inclusion of women candidates may be a rational calculation by (men) party elites to solidify political power without challenging patriarchal regime stability (Valdini, 2019). As Gatto and Radojevic (2025) show, selector preferences for women candidates depend heavily on perceptions of women’s underrepresentation, raising the possibility that these dynamics reflect a broader ‘underrepresented group advantage.’ Women may thus be promoted so that parties can benefit from public associations between women and honesty, democracy and trust (Funk et al., 2021; Valdini, 2019), while simultaneously legitimizing decisions that undermine women’s equality (Clayton et al., 2019).

Finally, future research could examine the perceptions of candidates who were not selected for their party’s list. Their views on the nomination process – and on potential advantages for certain groups – may differ from those of selected candidates. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how party nomination processes operate and are perceived, as well as whether certain barriers or advantages are experienced differently across these groups.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ips-10.1177_01925121261423061 – Supplemental material for Is there a ‘woman advantage’? Gendered perceptions of candidate nominations in Finland

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ips-10.1177_01925121261423061 for Is there a ‘woman advantage’? Gendered perceptions of candidate nominations in Finland by Hilde Coffé, Catherine Bolzendahl and Åsa von Schoultz in International Political Science Review

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-ips-10.1177_01925121261423061 – Supplemental material for Is there a ‘woman advantage’? Gendered perceptions of candidate nominations in Finland

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-ips-10.1177_01925121261423061 for Is there a ‘woman advantage’? Gendered perceptions of candidate nominations in Finland by Hilde Coffé, Catherine Bolzendahl and Åsa von Schoultz in International Political Science Review

Supplemental Material

sj-dta-3-ips-10.1177_01925121261423061 – Supplemental material for Is there a ‘woman advantage’? Gendered perceptions of candidate nominations in Finland

Supplemental material, sj-dta-3-ips-10.1177_01925121261423061 for Is there a ‘woman advantage’? Gendered perceptions of candidate nominations in Finland by Hilde Coffé, Catherine Bolzendahl and Åsa von Schoultz in International Political Science Review

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank participants at the Research Seminar of Uppsala University/Department of Government (October 2023) and the ‘How to Get More Women in Politics: Examining the Political Systems and Processes’ panel at the 2023 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting for helpful comments on previous versions of this paper.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hilde Coffé

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author biographies

Hilde Coffé is Professor of Politics at the University of Bath. Her main research interests include political behaviour, public opinion, political representation, and gender and politics.

Catherine Bolzendahl is Professor of Sociology and Director of the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University. Her research examines gendered political engagement, social policy, and public opinion on family and sexuality.

Åsa von Schoultz holds the Swedish chair in Political Science at the University of Helsinki. Her research revolves around political behaviour, intraparty competition, democratic preference, and gender and politics.

References

Allen

Peter

Cutts

David

(2020) Personality and the Gender Gap in Political Ambition. European Journal of Politics and Gender 3(1): 11–32.

Bjarnegård

Eline

(2013) Gender, Informal Institutions and Political Recruitment Explaining Male Dominance in Parliamentary Representation. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.

Bolzendahl

Catherine

Coffé

Hilde

(2020) Public Support for Increasing Women and Ethnic Minority MPs. Politics & Gender 16(3): 681–710.

Bridgewater

Jack

Nagel

Robert Ulrich

(2020) Is There Cross-National Evidence that Voters Prefer Men as Party Leaders? Electoral Studies 67(3): 102209.

Butler

Chris

Campbell

Rosie

Hudson

Jennifer

(2021) Political Recruitment Under Pressure, Again: MPs and candidates in the 2019 general election. In Ford

Robert

Bale

Tim

Jennings

Will

Surridge

Pala

(eds) The British General Election of 2019. Springer International Publishing, 387–420.

Clayton

Amanda

O’Brien

Diana Z

Piscopo

Jennifer M

(2019) All Male Panels? Representation and democratic legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science 63(1): 113–129.

Coffé

Hilde

Devroe

Robin

Vandeleene

Audrey

Wauters

Bram

(2022) Preferences and Perceptions About Politicians’ Goals and How They Impact Women and Men’s Political Ambition. European Journal of Politics and Gender 5(2): 191–210.

Coffé

Hilde

Reiser

Marion

(2018) Political Candidates’ Attitudes Towards Group Representation. The Journal of Legislative Studies 24(3): 272–297.

Coffé

Hilde

Reiser

Marion

(2023) How Perceptions and Information About Women’s Descriptive Representation Affect Support for Positive Action Measures. International Political Science Review 44(2): 139–156.

10.

Funk

Kendall D

Hinojosa

Magda

Piscopo

Jennifer M

(2021) Women to the Rescue: The gendered effects of public discontent on legislative nominations in Latin America. Party Politics 27(3): 465–477.

11.

Gatto

Malu AC

Radojevic

Marco

(2025) Choosing Women: Party elites’ preferences in the candidate selection process. British Journal of Political Science 55: e36.

12.

Glynn

Adam N

(2013) What Can We Learn with Statistical Truth Serum? Design and analysis of the list experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 77(S1): 159–172.

13.

Golder

Sona N

Stephenson

Laura B

Van der Straeten

Karine

Blais

André

Bol

Damien

Harfst

Philippe

Laslier

Jean-François

(2017) Votes for Women: Electoral systems and support for female candidates. Politics & Gender 13(1): 107–131.

14.

Goldman

Seth K

(2018) Fear of Gender Favoritism and Vote Choice During the 2008 Presidential Primaries. The Journal of Politics 80(3): 786–799.

15.

Green

Jane

Shorrocks

Rosalind

(2023) The Gender Backlash in the Vote for Brexit. Political Behavior 45(92): 347–371.

16.

Helimäki

Theodora

Sipinen

Josefina

Söderlund

Peter

von Schoultz

Åsa

(2023) Voting for a Woman: Ideology and gendered candidate choice in Finland. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 34(3): 448–465.

17.

Höhmann

Daniel

(2020) When Do Men Represent Women’s Interests in Parliament? How the presence of women in parliament affects the legislative behavior of male politicians. Swiss Political Science Review 26(1): 31–50.

18.

Höhmann

Daniel

(2024) For Women Only? Politicians’ attitudes towards men’s role in gender equality representation. West European Politics 48(4): 740–766.

19.

Jankowski

Michael

Rehmert

Jochen

(2024) Selecting and Ranking Female Candidates Under PR: Evidence from a two-stage conjoint experiment with party elites. European Journal of Political Research 64(3): 1016–1038.

20.

Kantola

Johanna

(2019) Women’s Organizations of Political Parties: Formal possibilities, informal challenges and discursive controversies. NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 27(1): 4–21.

21.

Kekkonen

Andrej

Wängnerud

Lena

(2017) Women’s Presence in Politics and Male Politicians Commitment to Gender Equality in Politics: Evidence from 290 Swedish local councils. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38(2): 199–220.

22.

Lawless

Jennifer L

(2015) Female Candidates and Legislators. Annual Review of Political Science 18(1): 349–366.

23.

Lefkofridi

Zoe

Giger

Nathalie

Holli

Anne Maria

(2019) When All Parties Nominate Women: The role of political gender stereotypes in voters’ choices. Politics & Gender 15(4): 1–27.

24.

Luhiste

Maarja

(2015) Party Gatekeepers’ Support for Viable Female Candidacy in PR-List Systems. Politics & Gender 11(1): 89–116.

25.

Ministry of Justice (2019) Information and result service. Available at: https://tulospalvelu.vaalit.fi/en/index.html.

26.

Official Statistics of Finland (2019) Parliamentary elections [e-publication]. ISSN=1799-6279. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Available at: http://stat.fi/til/evaa/index_en.html.

27.

Paxton

Pamela

Hughes

Melanie M

Barnes

Tiffany D

(2025) Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective (5th ed.). London: Rowman & Littlefield.

28.

Pikkala

Sari

(2020) Naiset eduskuntavaaleissa ja sukupuolen merkitys äänestämisessä [Women in Parliamentary Elections and the Importance of Gender in Voting]. In Borg

Sami

Kestilä-Kekkonen

Elina

Wass

Hanna

(eds) Politiikan ilmastonmuutos: Eduskuntavaalitutkimus 2019 [Climate change in politics: Parliamentary election research 2019]. Oikeusministeriön julkaisuja, Selvityksiä ja ohjeita 2020:5. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice, 80–102. [In Finnish.]

29.

Piscopo

Jennifer M

(2019) The Limits of Leaning In: Ambition, recruitment, and candidate training in comparative perspective. Politics, Groups, and Identities 7(4): 817–828.

30.

Ragauskas

Rimvydas

(2021) Party-Determined Viability and Gender Bias in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems. Politics & Gender 17(2): 250–276.

31.

Rehmert

Jochen

(2022) Party Elites’ Preferences in Candidates: Evidence from a conjoint experiment. Political Behavior 44(2): 1149–1173.

32.

Schwarz

Susanne

Coppock

Alexander

(2022) What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A meta-analysis of sixty-seven factorial survey experiments. The Journal of Politics 84(2): 655–668.

33.

Sipinen

Josefina

(2021) Recruitment of Immigrant-origin Candidates in Finnish Municipal Elections. Doctoral Dissertation, Tampere University, Tampere. Available at: https://trepo.tuni.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/125229/978-952-03-1910-6.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.

34.

Sipinen

Josefina

Koskimaa

Vesa

(2020) Ehdokkaiden taustaominaisuuksien merkitys ehdokasasettelussa [The Importance of Candidates’ Background Characteristics in Candidate Selection]. In Kestilä-Kekkonen

Elina

von Schoultz

Åsa

(eds) Ehdokkaat vaalikentillä: Eduskuntavaalit 2019 [Candidates in the Campaign Field: Parliamentary Elections 2019]. Oikeusministeriön julkaisuja, Selvityksiä ja ohjeita 2020:16. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice, 26–58. [In Finnish.]

35.

Sipinen

Josefina

von Schoultz

Åsa

Pekola-Sjöblom

Marianne

(2022) Kuntavaaliehdokkaiden suhtautuminen sukupuolten tasa-arvoon Onko naisten poliittisella edustuksella väliä? [Attitudes of Municipal Election Candidates Towards Gender Equality: Does women’s political representation matter?] Politiikka 64(4): 347–377. [In Finnish.]

36.

Stockemer

Daniel

Sundström

Axel

(2019) Do Young Female Candidates Face Double Barriers or an Outgroup Advantage? The case of the European Parliament. European Journal of Political Research 58(1): 373–384.

37.

Teele

Dawn Langan

Kalla

Joshua

Rosenbluth

Frances

(2018) The Ties that Double Bind: Social roles and women’s underrepresentation in politics. American Political Science Review 112(3): 525–541.

38.

Valdini

Melody E

(2019) The Inclusion Calculation: Why Men Appropriate Women’s Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

39.

von Schoultz

Åsa

(2018) Electoral Systems in Context: Finland. In Herron

Erik S

Pekkanen

Robert J

Shugart

Matthew S

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 601–626.

40.

von Schoultz

Åsa

Kestilä-Kekkonen

Elina

(2019) The Finnish Candidates Study. Unpublished dataset, Comparative Candidates Study project. Available at: www.comparativecandidates.org.

41.

Wäckerle

Jens

(2023) The End of the All-Male Party? Voter preferences for gender representation in political parties. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 33(4): 726–745.