My dissertation, which I am currently adapting into a larger book project, examines the value of motherhood appeals for congressional candidates and explores the question as to whether motherhood is a universal beneficial appeal for candidates. I examine how Black, Latina, and white candidates with young children invoke their motherhood while running for U.S. Congressional seats between 2018 and 2022. The overarching question driving this research is: How does motherhood of dependent-aged children intersect with racial and ethnic identities to shape political opportunities for women candidates?

Using a mixed-methods approach, I conduct in-depth case studies of six non-incumbent mother congressional candidates who ran between 2018 and 2022, analyzing campaign materials through a typology of motherhood appeals, and I conduct an experimental survey of voter perceptions. Findings reveal that candidates’ motherhood appeals are neither monolithic nor universally received. Candidates strategically adapt motherhood rhetoric, transforming existing frames like "Mama Grizzly" into broader protector narratives while also introducing novel appeals like Integrated Motherhood and Strict Mom. These appeals intersect with candidates’ race, ethnicity, and ideology, reflecting distinct strategies to connect maternal identity to political goals. Case studies highlight how external factors—such as campaign competitiveness and opponent dynamics—moderate the use of motherhood appeals.

Experimental findings demonstrate that voter perceptions of mother candidates vary significantly depending on appeal type, racial identity, and partisan alignment. Results indicate that the Strict Mom appeal is consistently associated with higher voter support, especially Republicans while Maternal Grief appeal generally reduced support across party, particularly for Black candidates. This research complicates assumptions about candidates’ use of motherhood appeals and their strategic use, revealing them as tailored appeals aimed to negotiate racial and gendered stereotypes, align with cultural values, and resonate with diverse voter groups.

Currently, I am extending the analysis and conducting interviews with campaign strategists and candidates in Fall 2025 to enrich my analysis of how candidates navigate motherhood as a campaign strategy.

In collaboration with Grace Deason (Wisconsin-LaCrosse) our project asks to what extent do voters differentiate between trait stereotype content of identity groups: mother politicians, female politicians, father politicians, male politicians?

Existing research demonstrates that stereotypes and heuristics play a critical role in how voters evaluate candidates, particularly in low-information environments. While much work documents gender bias in evaluations, far less is known about how parental identity cues shape voter perceptions. Social psychology has demonstrated that gender and parenthood stereotypes generates greater identity conflict for women than men, particularly as they attempt to reconcile the roles of “worker” and “mother.” This conflict stems from the tight cognitive link between the category’s woman and mother.  In politics, female politicians face a “double bind”: perceived as a distinct subtype of women who lack the warmth associated with feminine traits yet while failing to gain the perceived strength or competence attributed to masculine traits. Still, many candidates strategically rely on motherhood in campaigns, invoking core feminine traits and some studies find that voters express greater support for candidates who are mothers or fathers compared to those without children. Role congruity theory further suggests that prejudice emerges when group traits conflict with those perceived as necessary for success in a role. Understanding the degree of overlap between stereotypes of female politicians and mother politicians can reveal when motherhood heightens or reduces perceived incongruity with political leadership, helping explain why mothers may face distinct forms of opportunities than childfree women in certain electoral contexts. As Bryant and Hellwege (2019) note, the policy agendas and issue priorities often labeled as “women’s issues” are in fact more characteristic of mother representatives, suggesting a potential conflation of these identities. This invites the question of whether the stereotype content associated with female politicians and mother politicians is as cognitively intertwined in voters’ minds as the categories woman and mother are found to be in social psychology literature. Our study which is currently underway, asks whether this conflation extends to stereotype content of politicians, whether voters similarly blur the traits they associate with women and mothers in political contexts and whether parallel or divergent patterns emerge between male and father politicians as perceptions of parenthood roles converge.

Recent research shows gendered patterns in the way that parents working as legislators present themselves to the public. Thomas and Lambert (2017) find that moms working in the House of Commons are less likely than dads to share information about their families (especially children) in promotional materials and websites. Irving (2019) finds that there are gendered patterns in the way that women leaders present themselves on Twitter, including the issues they address and the traits they display in their tweets. With the increasing web presence of legislators (including reliance upon social media to communicate with constituents) we suspect that MPs think carefully about the types of references they make to family, including their own and family issues in general. We seek to assess whether there are gendered patterns in the extent to which MPs talk about family online. We assess the Twitter feeds of all MPs in the House of Commons over three electoral cycles: 2015, 2019 and 2021. We analyze how they present their parenthood 6 months before to 6 months after each election to better understand how legislators self-present to the public before, during, and after the election campaign. Our research suggests political careers are unique for moms and dads, with different constraints and concerns.