Detecting Diverse Perspectives: Using Text Analytics to Reveal Sex Differences in Congressional Debate About Defense

Abstract

Scholars interested in substantive representation for women have primarily focused on whether women vote for and prioritize “women’s issue” legislation. It is now well established that female lawmakers do vote for and introduce bills on issues like reproductive rights, childcare, and women’s health at rates higher than men. With this finding widely accepted, scholars have more recently investigated levels of female involvement on a wider range of topics and find that women are just as active as men—sometimes even more active—on an array of policy topics other than “women’s issues.” Several studies show women are more active sponsors of defense-related bills than are their male colleagues. We provide a case study that investigates whether female lawmakers offer distinct perspectives on these topics. We use structural topic modeling to explore sex and party differences in floor speeches delivered in the House of Representatives. Our analysis of these floor speeches given in the 109th Congress reveals that women and men do focus their attention on distinct facets of defense issues—focusing on the implications of war for women, civilians, and communities—and that these differences are conditioned by party.