









































This paper analyzes proposed state bills from the 2023 United States legislative session. It focused on bills affecting 
LGBTQ+ youth in the school setting and examines 46 bills relevant to this policy area. The bills are then categorized 
based on their relation to undermining protective factors in schools that may otherwise aid LGBTQ+ students. Finally, 
this paper ends by relating these bills to the state of LGBTQ+ youth mental health and argues that a correlation exists 
between the introduction of these bills and increased rates of depression and suicidality.

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  202393

State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing 
in U.S. Schools

by Sam Markley

Introduction
 This past year marks a sharp increase in legislation 
impacting LGBTQ+ individuals. Particularly, 
transgender people are the target of legislation 
seeking to regulate medical transition, gender-
affirming care, and where drag shows are performed 
in public. What is less discussed, however, is the 
explosion of state legislation targeting LGBTQ+ 
students in the school setting. These policies range 
from restricting ways that schools can contribute 
to a safe environment for transgender students, 
to mandating that school faculty inform parents 
if their student is transgender. This is particularly 
concerning due to the importance of a supportive 
school environment serving as a protective factor for 
LGBTQ+ individuals.1 Additionally, LGBTQ+ youth 
have been shown to be at higher risk for substance 
abuse, suicide, and mental health issues. This is 
largely due to the victimization, discrimination, 
and harassment that LGBTQ+ students face 
based on their identity.2 A striking correlation 
will be shown between state legislation targeting 
LGBTQ+ students and increases in suicidality and 
victimization among students at these schools. The 
key aspects of a supportive school environment 
will be described. Next, state legislation targeting 

1 Michelle M. Johns et al., “Strengthening Our Schools to 
Promote Resilience and Health Among LGBTQ Youth: 
Emerging Evidence and Research Priorities from The 
State of LGBTQ Youth Health and Wellbeing Symposium,” 
(2019), 4-7, https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2018.0109.
2 Michelle M. Johns et al., “Strengthening Our Schools,” 
1-2. 

LGBTQ+ students will be analyzed in relation to 
the factors of a supportive school environment that 
they undermine. After establishing this relationship, 
the state of LGBTQ+ youth suicidality, depression, 
and anxiety is discussed as well as its connection to 
current and proposed legislation.

Protective Factors
 One of the most important aspects of protective 
factors is their ability to build resilience in those 
who are subject to them. Building resilience for 
marginalized students is necessary for them to attain 
both academic achievement and maintain an overall 
sense of wellbeing despite external challenges. Due 
to the vulnerability of LGBTQ+ youth, it is necessary 
to foster protective factors that can serve to decrease 
the levels of victimization they face. Recent studies 
have highlighted that many LGBTQ+ youth are at 
risk of abusive home environments, with one-third 
of all LGBTQ+ youth saying that their home is not 
LGBTQ+ affirming.3 This is particularly concerning, 
as LGBTQ+ individuals are less likely to attempt 
suicide if they have an affirming space.4 Due to the 
amount of time students spend at school, these 
institutions provide several opportunities to support 
LGBTQ+ students in their academic success, help 
them grow and develop as individuals, and mitigate 
harms that they may experience elsewhere.

3 The Trevor Project, “Facts about LGBTQ Youth Suicide,” 
2021. 
4 Ibid. 



State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing in U.S. Schools

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  202394

Teachers as Role Models
 Teachers play a crucial role in fostering a safe 
and protective environment for LGBTQ+ students 
as they interact with each other daily. Research 
demonstrates that supportive school faculty can 
greatly improve the success of LGBTQ+ students 
as well as decrease the rates of victimization that 
these students experience at school.5 Several factors 
can explain this. The most prominent aspect is 
that teachers are the regulators of their classrooms. 
Teachers are able to tailor their curriculum to 
specific needs and police the use of derogatory 
language targeted at LGBTQ+ students. Testimonies 
of LGBTQ+ students describe how these supportive 
actions decrease victimization in schools. As one 
student attests, “My freshman year in high school 
is one I won’t forget. A peer in class started saying 
‘That’s nasty, gays are nasty.’ The teacher said to him, 
“That is not OK. Don’t do it again.” And he never 
bothered me after that day!”6 Peer-reviewed studies 
have backed this up as well, noting that teachers 
taking active measures against LGBTQ+ bullying 
and harassment lead to LGBTQ+ students reporting 
lower rates of victimization as well as higher rates 
of perceived safety and school connectedness.7 
A teacher’s ability to identify harassment, as well 
as their ability to effectively address it, presents a 
significant factor in protecting LGBTQ+ students. 
 Not only do teachers serve to actively address 
victimization in the moment, but LGBTQ+ teachers 
may passively serve as role models and present a safe 
space for LGBTQ+ students. Schools where LGBTQ+ 
educators are out about their identity present an 
increase in students’ feelings of safety, improve their 

5 Joseph G. Kosciw et al., “The Effect of Negative School 
Climate on Academic Outcomes for LGBT Youth and the 
Role of In-School Supports,” Journal of School Violence 12, 
no. 1 (January 2013): 47, https://doi.org/10.1080/1538822
0.2012.732546. 
6 Louise Abe Young, “LGBT Students Want Educators 
to Speak up for Them,” The Phi Delta Kappan 93, 
no. 2 (October 2011): 35–37, http://www.jstor.org/
stable/23048942.
7 Jun Sung Hong and James Garbarino, “Risk and 
Protective Factors for Homophobic Bullying in Schools: 
An Application of the Social-Ecological Framework,” 
Educational Psychology Review 25, no. 2 (2012): 275–76, 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43546789. 

academic achievement, and provide a safe faculty 
member for them to turn to.8 Of important note, 
LGBTQ+ students report in surveys that they don’t 
just feel safer in schools when “Queer role models” 
are present, but also when there are straight allies 
present as well.9 Therefore, teachers who don’t 
identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community still have 
a role to play in building an affirming environment. 
This goes beyond calling out bigotry, but also putting 
up supportive messaging to improve the school 
environment and to signal to LGBTQ+ students 
that they are a safe space. One teacher attested that 
“Just displaying one of Stonewall’s ‘Some people are 
Gay. Get Over It’ posters outside her office resulted 
in numerous students popping in to thank her, 
including one that said it had given him the courage to 
come out at home.”10 Teachers, therefore, are the first 
defense against bullying and harassment of LGBTQ+ 
students and serve as role models and safe spaces 
that decrease victimization, contribute to academic 
success, and foster a safe school environment.

Inclusive Curriculum
 Teachers are able to include supplemental 
lesson plans and readings in their curricula that 
state or local standards would otherwise exclude. 
Paul Reece-Miller, a gay teacher, writes that despite 
heteronormative educational standards, “there 
are many opportunities for teachers to include 
content that is representative of all members of 
society, including LGBTQ persons.”11 Research has 

8 Tiffany E. Wright and Nancy J. Smith, “A Safer Place? 
LGBT Educators, School Climate, and Implications 
for Administrators,” The Educational Forum 79, no. 4 
(September 2015): 402-3, https://doi.org/10.1080/001317
25.2015.1068901 
9 The Trevor Project, “2022 National Survey on LGBTQ 
Youth Mental health,” 2022, 24, https://www.thetrevor-
project.org/survey-2022/assets/static/trevor01_2022sur-
vey_final.pdf.
10 Lauren Weller, “The Importance of Visible LGBT+ 
Identities in School,” British Journal of School Nursing 
13, no. 10 (December 2018), https://doi.org/10.12968/
bjsn.2018.13.10.501.
11 Paul Chamness Reece-Miller, “Chapter 7: An Elephant 
in the Classroom: LGBTQ Students and the Silent 
Minority,” Counterpoints (2010): 74. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/42980600. 



State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing in U.S. Schools

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  202395

demonstrated that the presentation of LGBTQ+ 
issues, history, and identity in class curricula has 
positive effects on LGBTQ+ students. The inclusion 
of these subjects is not simply restricted to history 
classes but is rather multidisciplinary. History courses 
may teach about Stonewall, the Gay Liberation 
Movement, and the Lavender Scare. Psychology 
teachers may teach about gender identity. English 
teachers can include excerpts from books and poems 
that challenge heteronormativity and gender norms, 
such as The 57 Bus.12 And, importantly, health classes 
can include discussions of LGBTQ+ couples when 
discussing sex education. These conversations are 
particularly important, as LGBTQ+ individuals are 
more likely to be victims of sexual violence than 
their straight or cisgender counterparts.13 This 
worrying trend makes it all the more necessary to 
teach the importance of consent and how to identify 
abusive relationships and to teach it not just in the 
context of heterosexual couples, but other forms of 
relationships which are also open to abuse.
 Other than the explicit goal of providing 
an education that includes diverse identities, as 
well as protecting against sexual violence, an 
inclusive curriculum also improves the educational 
attainment of LGBTQ+ students. These benefits 
range from increased feelings of safety to lower rates 
of absenteeism.14 Due to less absenteeism among 
LGBTQ+ students, an inclusive curriculum fosters 
improved academic performance among students, as 
there is heightened engagement. Further, improved 
feelings of safety being correlated with inclusive 
curricula may be due to LGBTQ+ students feeling 
represented but may also be a result of other students 
engaging with the curricula and developing tolerant 
viewpoints. Through this, students who otherwise 
would not be exposed to this material develop a sense 
of empathy for their LGBTQ+ peers, and thus these 

12 Dashka Slater, The 57 Bus (New York: Farrar Straus 
Giroux, 2017). 
13 Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network, A Call to 
Action: LGBTQ Youth Need Inclusive Sex Education, n.d., 5, 
https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/A%20
Cal l%20to%20Act ion%20LGBTQ%20Youth%20
Need%20Inclusive%20Sex%20Education%20FINAL.pdf.
14 Michelle M. Johns et al., “Strengthening Our Schools,” 
4-6. 

peers are less alienated in their school environment. 
As a result, an inclusive curriculum may not just 
serve as a protective factor against bigotry but may 
also serve as a tool to eliminate bigotry in the school 
setting.

Gay-Straight Alliances
 Supportive student organizations have also 
proven key to providing a safe area for LGBTQ+ 
students and promoting an inclusive environment. 
The organizations most prominently analyzed 
are known as gay-straight alliances (GSAs). GSAs 
are defined as “youth-driven groups intended as 
a setting for LGBTQ+ and heterosexual youth to 
receive support, socialize, and engage in advocacy.”15 
These organizations hold meetings before or after 
school or during lunch hours. Four goals of GSAs are 
identified.16 The first is to serve as a place to provide 
counseling for students. At-risk LGBTQ+ youth 
who attend GSA meetings are exposed to support 
structures that can help connect them to mental 
health resources. This plays a key role in lowering 
the suicide rates of LGBTQ+ youth, especially if 
their other social environments, such as home, are 
not supportive and contribute to their poor mental 
health. The second goal of GSAs is that they serve 
as a safe space for members to socialize, share 
interests, and build community. The opportunity 
for LGBTQ+ students to connect with their fellow 
LGBTQ+ peers provides a sense of belonging in the 
school setting and reduces the sense of alienation 
and loneliness that would otherwise be experienced. 
Elliot Morehead, a high school student who leads a 
GSA chapter in South Dakota, states that “whether 
it’s through learning new things, playing games, or 
leaning on each other for support, I love that GSAs 
bring people together to grow, have fun, and impact 

15 Paul V. Poteat et al., “Contextualizing Gay-Straight 
Alliances: Student, Advisor, and Structural Factors 
Related to Positive Youth Development Among Members,” 
Child Development (2015), 177, http://www.jstor.org/
stable/24696121.
16 Sean Currie, Maralee Mayberry, and Tiffany Chenneville. 
“Destabilizing Anti-Gay Environments through Gay-
Straight Alliances: Possibilities and Limitations through 
Shifting Discourses,” The Clearing House 85, no. 2 (2012): 
56, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23212860.



State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing in U.S. Schools

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  202396

the lives of my fellow classmates.”17 As a result, GSAs 
are not only defensive against bigotry in schools, 
but also serve as a positive place to foster a sense 
of community and belonging among LGBTQ+ 
students. The third goal of GSAs is that they serve 
as the school’s source for promoting education on 
LGBTQ+ issues. GSA chapters are not constricted 
to their brief meetings but also play an active role 
in the school environment, where they hang up 
posters and promote events taking place on campus 
and in the community. Due to this, GSAs can serve 
as an opportunity to educate straight and cisgender 
students on LGBTQ+ identities and issues. Finally, 
these organizations can serve as a broader part of a 
school’s efforts to address stigmatization and bigotry. 
Importantly, due to the inclusion of both LGBTQ+ 
students and straight, cisgender students, GSAs serve 
not just as a way to shield students from harassment 
and victimization but also challenge homophobia 
and transphobia in the school environment by 
fostering understanding. 
 The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network 
has noted several benefits to the presence of active 
GSA chapters, including halving the rate at which 
LGBTQ+ students report feeling unsafe, experiencing 
sexual violence and harassment, and being injured at 
schools.18 GSA chapters serve to reduce the perceived 
hostility and victimization among LGBTQ+ students, 
and contribute to improving the safety of LGBTQ+ 
students from both bigotry and violence in romantic 
relationships. Other than the benefits already 
identified, school clubs often require a teacher 
coordinator to be present at meetings, meaning 
that GSAs may also serve to help connect LGBTQ+ 

17 Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network, “New 
Research Shows Positive Impact of Gender and Sexuality 
Alliance in Schools,” November 2021, https://www.glsen.
org/news/new-research-shows-positive-impact-gender-
and-sexuality-alliances-schools. 
18 Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network, “Gay-
Straight Alliances: Creating Safer Schools for LGBT 
Students and their Allies,” GLSEN Research Brief, (2007), 
1, https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/Gay-
Straight%20Alliances.pdf. 

students to a supportive teacher, whose importance 
has been previously discussed. Additionally, GSAs 
promote the development of life skills for students, 
as they will take on leadership roles to coordinate 
the organization’s activities and oversee meetings. 
Importantly, students without formal leadership roles 
have been shown to still take on responsibilities that 
would otherwise be designated to student leaders.19 
These responsibilities include being ambassadors for 
new students, purchasing food and supplies for the 
activity, and tabling at events. The implication is that 
even if students do not take on an official position in 
the organization, they may still develop leadership 
skills that contribute to their academic success and 
future careers.

State Legislation
 2022 marked a significant increase in state 
legislation targeting LGBTQ+ individuals. More 
than 300 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were introduced in state 
legislatures, with several becoming codified into 
law.20 These range from targeting medical transition, 
to preventing LGBTQ+ youth from competing in 
sports that don’t align with their biological sex. There 
is much less focus on bills that affect LGBTQ+ youth 
in a school setting. This paper picks up where the 
most recent literature leaves off and analyzes 46 state 
bills that have been introduced in the 2023 legislative 
session that impact LGBTQ+ youth. Importantly, 
these bills will be juxtaposed with the specific 
protective factors that they undermine.

Forced Outing
 The most prevalent bills are what are categorized 
as Forced Outing bills. These bills require school 
faculty to inform a student’s parents if they express 
a gender identity different than their biological sex. 
Several states have pushed for this policy explicitly, 
including Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Arizona, Georgia, 

19 Paul V. Poteat et al., “Contextualizing Gay Straight 
Alliances,” 187.
20 American Civil Liberties Union, “Annual Report 2022,” 
2022, 12, https://www.aclu.org/report/aclu-2022-annu-
al-report.



State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing in U.S. Schools

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  202397

and Kentucky.21 This process of forced outing puts 
LGBTQ+ students in immense danger, where they 
may potentially face abuse at their homes if they 
are outed. Other statutes phrase the requirement in 
broad terms, requiring that parents must be notified 
of information regarding a student if it relates to their 
mental, emotional, or physical wellbeing. The states 
that employ this wording consist of Washington, 
Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas.22 These broader 
versions have come to be known as Parental Bills 
of Rights, which are framed not as outing students, 
but rather as disclosing information necessary for 
parents to raise their kids responsibly. Nonetheless, 
the broad phrasing of mental, emotional, and 
physical wellbeing may result in a chilling effect on 
LGBTQ+ students. The vagueness of the bills may 
disincentivize them from discussing their gender 
and sexuality with teachers and counselors, due 
to fear that they may report this to their parents. 
Therefore, Forced Outing bills disconnect LGBTQ+ 

21 Education Matters, Indiana, S.B. 354, 123rd General As-
sembly. § 6 (Legiscan 2023); A Bill for an Act Relating to 
Actions Relative to Treatment or Intervention Regarding 
Discordance Between a Minor’s Sex and Gender Identity, 
Providing for Civil Penalties, Iowa, S.F. 129, 90th General 
Assembly. § 5 (Legiscan 2023); Prohibits the Discussion 
of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation by School Per-
sonnel, Missouri, S.B. 134. §1 (Legiscan 2023); Student 
Information; Parental Notification; Requirements, Ar-
izona, H.B. 2711, 56th Legislature. § 1 (Legiscan 2023); 
Professions and Businesses; Health Care Providers from 
Performing Specified Practices on Minors Relating to Al-
tering a Person’s Appearance Relating to Gender; Prohibit, 
Georgia, S.B. 141, 157th General Assembly. § 3 (Legiscan 
2023); An Act Relating to Education, Kentucky, H.B 173. 
§ 3 (Legiscan 2023).
22 Protecting the Childhood of Children, Washington, 
S.B. 5653, 68th Legislature. § 7 (Legiscan 2023); Relating 
to Parental Rights Regarding Students, Oregon, H.B. 2477, 
82nd Oregon General Assembly. § 1 (Legiscan 2023); An 
Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36 and 
Title 49, Relative to The “Families’ Rights and Responsi-
bilities Act”, Tennessee, S.B. 620, 113th General Assembly. 
§ 1 (Legiscan 2023); Relating to Parental Rights in Public 
Education and Prohibiting Instruction Regarding Sexual 
Orientation Or Gender Identity for Certain Public School 
Students, Texas, H.B. 1155, 88th Legislature. § 1 (Legiscan 
2023).

students from two of the previously identified 
protective factors: supportive teachers and GSAs. If 
these state laws discourage students from discussing 
their gender and sexuality with teachers, they 
likewise discourage students from discussing their 
gender and sexuality around teachers. This is due 
to the legal burden placed on teachers to report 
anything to parents that relates to their student’s 
gender identity, or in the broader case, their 
mental, emotional, and physical wellbeing. Teachers 
therefore would be required to report anything they 
overhear from students regarding these subjects, 
under threat of civil penalties. LGBTQ+ students, 
becoming aware of this fact and fearful of being 
outed, will be disincentivized from discussing their 
gender identity and sexuality, and from going to a 
teacher who would otherwise be supportive of them. 
This also may have a detrimental effect on GSAs. The 
nature of school clubs requires a faculty member to 
be present at meetings, which means that all GSA 
meetings will inevitably result in LGBTQ+ students 
being in proximity of a mandatory reporter. As a 
result, LGBTQ+ students may choose to not attend 
these meetings due to the threat of being outed. 
This prevents students from making full use of the 
GSA’s intended benefits, which include sharing 
experiences, building understanding, and forming a 
sense of community. Due to this, GSAs face severe 
challenges in Forced Outing states, whether the 
teacher is required to report LGBTQ+ students or 
simply perceived to be required to do so.

Forced Closeting
 Similar, but distinct from Forced Outing laws 
are Forced Closeting laws. These laws don’t target 
LGBTQ+ students but rather prohibit LGBTQ+ 
faculty from discussing their own sexuality with 
students unless given express permission by 
parents. States implementing these laws include 
Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida.23 It is important 
to note that many states which implement these 
laws also implement Forced Outing laws. These 
laws harm LGBTQ+ students due to their reduced 
ability to identify supportive teachers in the school. 

23 Parents and Children Protection Act of 2023, Georgia, 
S.B. 88, 157th General Assembly. § 2 (Legiscan 2023); An 
Act Relating to Education § 3; Child Protection in Public 
Schools, Florida, S. 1320. § 2 (Legiscan 2023). 



State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing in U.S. Schools

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  202398

Additionally, these laws pose the potential to harm 
LGBTQ+ students’ attendance and academic 
performance, as the presence of LGBTQ+ role 
models in a school setting has been demonstrated 
to decrease victimization and improve academic 
performance. As a result, while these policies don’t 
target LGBTQ+ students, they still pose risks to the 
mental wellbeing and success of LGBTQ+ students.

Pronoun and Name Usage
 Certain proposed laws may not explicitly require 
teachers to out LGBTQ+ students to their parents but 
rather create a dangerous dichotomy where teachers 
are forced to either misgender LGBTQ+ students or 
out these students to their parents. These bills require 
that teachers request permission from parents before 
referring to students with different pronouns from 
their biological sex, or a name different from their 
birth certificate. Of the categories identified in this 
paper, these bills are the most commonly forwarded, 
with nearly 10 states attempting to implement such 
bills.24 These bills create a lose-lose situation for 
LGBTQ+ youth. If LGBTQ+ students don’t want 

24 Pronouns; Biological Sex; School Policies, Arizona, 
S.B. 1001, 56th Legislature. § 1 (Legiscan 2023); Gender 
Fluidity, Indiana, H.B. 1346, 123rd General Assembly. § 
6 (Legiscan 2023); A Bill for an Act Relating to Children 
and Students[…], Iowa, H.S.B. 222, 90th General 
Assembly. § 16 (Legiscan 2023); Relating to Fundamental 
Parental Rights[…], North Dakota, S.B. 2260, 68th 
Legislative Assembly. § 2 (Legiscan 2023); An Act to 
Require Parental Approval for Public School[…], Maine, 
L.D 678, 131st Legislature. § 2 (Legiscan 2023); Generally 
Revise Parental Rights Laws, Montana, S.B. 337, 68th 
Legislature. § 1. (Legiscan 2023); Schools; Requiring 
Certain Notifications; Prohibiting Use of Certain Names 
and Pronouns Without Consent; Prohibiting Certain 
Instruction in Certain Grades. Effective Date. Emergency, 
Oklahoma, S.B. 30, 59th Legislature, § 1 (Legiscan 
2023); An Act to Amend Tennessee Code Annotated, 
Title 36 and Title 49, Relative to The "Families' Rights 
and Responsibilities Act", Tennessee, H.B. 1414, 113th 
General Assembly. § 1 (Legiscan 2023); An Act Requiring 
Public School Educators To Recognize Each Student By 
The Biological Gender Of Such Student, Connecticut, 
H.B. 6331. § 1 (Legiscan 2023).

their parents to be notified, they are forced into an 
environment where they are referred to with names 
and pronouns inconsistent with their gender identity. 
This process of misgendering fosters a hostile 
environment and increases the risk of depression 
and suicidality. Additionally, bills that reinforce 
misgendering also serve to embolden students 
who seek to bully LGBTQ+ students, providing no 
method of recourse for the student, and severely 
limiting the policing capacity of the teacher. This 
is particularly concerning when transgender youth 
have identified how important correct pronoun and 
name usage is to them. The Trevor Project reports 
proper pronoun and name usage are among the top 
three most common ways for transgender youth 
to feel supported.25 The other option presented in 
these bills, Forced Outing, is just as damaging to 
transgender students’ mental health and wellbeing. 

Curriculum Restrictions
 State legislation has also targeted the material 
which is present in schools. Instead of taking aim at 
the individuals in the school setting, whether it be 
staff or students, these policies are policies of literary 
erasure. They empower parents to review materials 
contained within school curricula, such as handouts 
and books. The action that parents are able to take 
once they discover books they disagree with varies 
based on each individual piece of legislation, although 
two results are most common. The first result is that 
parents will be able to remove their student from the 
classroom for the duration that the book is being used 
to teach. The second result is that it enables parents 
to report the use of the book to the school district 
and ban the use of the book in its entirety for all 
students. The intended goal is to prevent instruction 
on topics relating to gender or sexuality. This area of 
legislation, much like pronoun and name usage, has 
garnered popularity among state legislatures. States 
implementing these policies include North Dakota, 
New Hampshire, Indiana, Oregon, Kentucky, and 

25 The Trevor Project, “2022 National Survey on LGBTQ 
Youth Mental Health,” 23.



State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing in U.S. Schools

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023

many others.26 Several books have been banned 
as a result of this policy, and policies similar to it. 
The American Library Association reports that 7 
out of the top 13 most challenged books for 2022 
were challenged as a result of “LGBTQIA+ content,” 
racking up 511 individual challenges nationwide.27 
It is important to note that many of these states 
also enable parents to object to certain topics being 
discussed in a classroom. The most striking example 
of this is in New Hampshire, which prohibits the 
teaching of transgenderism unless it takes place in a 
psychology class for the purpose of explaining gender 
dysphoria.28 This process of restricting curriculum 
creates two dangers for LGBTQ+ students. The first 
is that it imposes several restrictions on history and 
government courses. These laws would effectively 
prohibit students from learning about the history of 
LGBTQ+ rights, which could serve to build empathy 
among straight students while at the same time 
encouraging engagement from LGBTQ+ students. 

26 Schools; School Libraries; Books; Prohibition, Arizona, 
S.B. 1700, 56th Legislature. § 2 (Legiscan 2023); Parental 
Rights in Education, Indiana, S.B. 413, 123rd General 
Assembly. § 4 (Legiscan 2023); A Bill for an Act Relating to 
Instruction Relating to Gender Identity […], Iowa, S.F. 83, 
90th General Assembly. § 1 (Legiscan 2023); Establishes 
Protections of Parental Rights […], Missouri, H.B. 634, 
§ 1 (Legiscan 2023); Prohibiting Gender Transition 
Procedures for Minors[…], New Hampshire, H.B. 619. 
§ 5 (Legiscan 2023); Relating to Fundamental Parental 
Rights[…], North Dakota, S.B. 2260, 68th Legislative 
Assembly. § 2 (Legiscan 2023); Relating to Parental Rights 
Regarding Students, § 3 (Legiscan 2023); Protecting the 
Childhood of Children, § 2 (Legiscan 2023); An Act 
Relating to Education, § 3 (Legiscan 2023); Provides that 
Public School Parent who Objects to Learning Material 
[…], New Jersey, A. 1418, 220th Legislature. § 1 (Legiscan 
2023); Schools; Requiring Written Consent to Participate 
in Certain Curriculum, Oklahoma, S.B. 866, 59th 
Legislature. § 1 (Legiscan 2023). 
27 American Library Association, “Top 13 Most 
Challenged Books of 2022,” n.d., https://www.ala.org/
advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10
28 Prohibiting Gender Transition Procedures for Minors, 
Relative to Sex and Gender in Public Schools, and Relative 
to the definition of Conversion Therapy, New Hampshire, 
H.B. 619. § 5 (Legiscan 2023) 

Additionally, the erasure of these issues from classes 
only serves to further the alienation of LGBTQ+ 
students from their heterosexual and cisgender 
peers. Centering certain identities as worthy of 
discussion and prohibiting other identities from 
being discussed only exacerbates this process.
 These bills are expansive in their coverage, not 
only enabling parents to review textbooks that 
would be in a teacher’s curriculum but also enabling 
parents to review books within a school library. 
Some bills require school districts to maintain a 
publicly available database of books they’ve banned 
and to provide a method by which parents can add 
to the list.29 Others enable parents to remove their 
child from the public school system entirely if they 
believe the material being taught is “harmful.”30 It is 
important to note that legislation specifies gender 
and sexuality as a harmful category, furthering the 
alienation of LGBTQ+ students. This process of 
erasure poses several risks to LGBTQ+ students. 
First, it destabilizes the connection that students 
have to inclusive curricula as a protective factor. Not 
only are parents able to restrict access to materials 
and discussions in class, but the very threat of 
parents being able to review material for harmful 
content places pressure on teachers. This pressure 
may have consequential effects, as teachers may opt 
to not include LGBTQ+ inclusive content due to fear 
of being ostracized by parents and the school district. 
This further contributes to the stigmatization of 
LGBTQ+ identities. Additionally, restricting books 
in libraries further disconnects LGBTQ+ students 
from representations of LGBTQ+ individuals in 
popular media. This disconnect proves dangerous, 
as LGBTQ+ youth have reported increased feelings 
of joy when they see representations of their identity 
in media, such as books.31 The erasure of LGBTQ+ 
identities in media results in a continuous process 
of alienation, where LGBTQ+ students are otherized 
and perceived as outside the normal boundaries of 
society.

29 Schools; School Libraries; Books; Prohibition, Arizona, 
S.B. 1700, 56th Legislature. § 2 (Legiscan 2023) 
30 Provides that Public School Parent who Objects to 
Learning Material[…], A. 1418, § 1. 
31 The Trevor Project, “2022 National Survey on LGBTQ 
Youth Mental Health,” 24. 

99



State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing in U.S. Schools

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023

GSA Scrutiny
 While not explicitly mentioned in state 
legislation, GSAs have not escaped state overreach. 
States have introduced legislation that enables 
parents to identify what clubs are offered on campus, 
to be provided the purpose of the club, and to restrict 
their child from attending the club. Interestingly, this 
genre of legislation is one of the least common bills. 
The only states identified as targeting school clubs 
are South Carolina and Montana.32 It is important to 
clarify, however, that this does not mean that GSA 
chapters remain unaffected in other states. One 
explanation for the lack of bills targeting GSA clubs 
is simply that other areas of legislation are effectively 
undermining the existence of these chapters on their 
own. The far-reaching effect of forced outing bills has 
previously been discussed. This effect on its own may 
be effectively reducing the presence of GSA chapters 
and may serve to explain the relative lack of bills that 
concern themselves with the clubs directly.

Lack of Training
 The benefits that both LGBTQ+ teachers and 
straight-ally teachers have in building a supportive 
environment have been previously discussed. 
However, limitations exist that pose barriers to the 
efficacy of teacher support. The most prominent 
limitation is the lack of training. While teachers can 
increase the wellbeing of LGBT+ students, from 
calling out harassment to putting up supportive 
messaging, teacher intervention is less effective if they 
have not participated in anti-bullying training.33 This 
is particularly true if the training does not include 
material specifically addressing homophobia and 
transphobia.34 This is because training centered on 
LGBTQ+ issues can highlight the vulnerability that 
these students face. Importantly, this training can 

32 Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act, South 
Carolina, H. 3485, 125th General Assembly. § 2 (Legiscan 
2023); Generally Revise Parental Rights Laws, Montana, 
S.B. 337, 68th Legislature. § 1 (Legiscan 2023). 
33 Jun Sung Hong, and James Garbarino, “Risk and 
Protective Factors,” 278.
34 Pollock, Sandra L. “Counselor Roles in Dealing With 
Bullies and Their LGBT Victims,” Middle School Journal 
38, no. 2 (November 2006): 34. http://www.jstor.org/sta-
ble/23024544. 

also help make teachers aware of unique methods or 
phrases that may be used to support these students 
that they would otherwise be unaware of. Due to 
this insight, the most effective anti-bullying and 
harassment methods require this inclusive training 
for teachers.
 State legislatures are taking aim at this critical 
training. Bills have been introduced that ban the 
training of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. This 
form of training centers on the different experiences 
that a diverse group of people will have based 
on their identity and encourages teachers to be 
cognizant of this fact and work towards inclusion 
in the classroom to enable the full participation of 
everyone involved.35 The importance of this form 
of training when addressing LGBTQ+ harassment 
is clear. Due to the unique forms of victimization 
that LGBTQ+ individuals experience, and how they 
navigate the boundaries between their perceived 
identity and their actual identity, it is necessary for 
teachers to understand this position, and be trained 
in ways to support and affirm these students. States, 
however, have introduced bills to ban Diversity, 
Equity, and Inclusion training. These states include 
Arizona, Indiana, and Kentucky.36 Many of these 
states explicitly target LGBTQ+ students, specifically 
banning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs 
that promote transgenderism. This highlights how 
these particular forms of bills are part of a broader 
wave of legislation aimed at restricting LGBTQ+ 
students and faculty. Due to these restrictions on 
training, teachers will not be able to effectively 
protect LGBTQ+ students as they would be able to 
otherwise. It should be noted that state legislation 
may still affect Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion 
training programs even if they are not banned 
outright. Restrictions on pronoun and name use 
prevent teachers from putting their training to use, 
and in fact, oftentimes will go against what faculty 
were taught to do during their training. 

35 Eastern Michigan University. Board of Regents Meeting 
Materials, (2017), 7.
36 Public Monies; Ideology Training; Prohibition, Arizona, 
S.B. 1694, 56th Legislature. § 1 (Legiscan 2023); Gender 
Fluidity, Indiana, H.B. 1346, 123rd General Assembly. § 1 
(Legiscan 2023); An Act Relating to Education, Kentucky, 
H.B. 173. § 3 (Legiscan 2023). 

100



State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing in U.S. Schools

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023

The State of LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health
 The rapid introduction of anti-LGBTQ+ state 
bills has resulted in a disastrous effect on LGBTQ+ 
youth. The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic 
ushered in a mental health crisis for LGBTQ+ 
youth.37 The ongoing debates on LGBTQ+ rights 
in state legislatures have only worsened this. The 
Trevor Project’s polling from January 2022 provides 
the most up-to-date information on these issues. Up 
to three-quarters of LGBTQ+ youth have reported 
following news reports impacting the transgender 
community.38 Of note, LGBTQ+ youth’s mental 
health is harmed even if a state does not pass the 
bill. Rather, the very introduction of the bill and 
subsequent debate surrounding it poses harmful 
impacts. 66% of LGBTQ+ youth report that their 
mental health was negatively affected by these 
debates.39 Importantly, the survey asked specific 
questions regarding the implementation of Forced 
Outing laws. The responses were not inspiring, with 
LGBTQ+ reporting feelings of nervousness, anger, 
stress, and fear as their top four emotions towards 
these bills.40 Notably, these survey questions were 
hypothetical. They were concerned with LGBTQ+ 
youth’s feelings of anxiety about these bills, whether 
or not they were actually implemented. This poses 
concerning questions for the current state of 
LGBTQ+ mental health, as more bills have been both 
proposed and passed in the last year. Additionally, 
it is important to note that this survey took place 
in September of 2021, which is before the surge of 
anti-LGBTQ+ legislation from the 2022 and 2023 
legislative years. The reported rates of anxiety and 
fear may be much higher today than previously due 
to the increasing volume and intensity of these laws 
as well as the increased political debate surrounding 
them.
 The latest statistics regarding LGBTQ+ youth 
depression and suicidality highlight the importance 
of this issue. The Trevor Project explains that 

37 Josh Weaver, “New Poll Illustrates the Impacts of Social 
and Political Issues on LGBTQ Youth,” The Trevor Project 
(2021).
38 The Trevor Project, “Issues Impacting LGBTQ Youth: 
Polling Analysis,” 2022, 3. 
39 Ibid., 6. 
40 Ibid., 11.

suicide is the second leading cause of death in 
LGBTQ+ individuals, ages 10-24.41 The importance 
of victimization, hostility, and alienation is noted, 
with LGBTQ+ youth attempting suicide at four 
times the rate as their other peers. The study goes 
on to highlight that this can be largely explained 
by the victimization and lack of affirming spaces, 
such as a safe school environment.42 Therefore, 
state legislation that results in unsupportive school 
environments may put LGBTQ+ youth at a higher 
risk of suicide than they already are, whether the 
legislation is passed or not. It is necessary, then, for 
school administration and faculty to work towards 
an inclusive environment before the implementation 
of these bills and identify ways that they can still 
promote supportive environments in the school 
setting after the passing of these bills.

Conclusion
 LGBTQ+ youth face unique risks of mental 
health issues and suicidality. The stark lack of 
parental support in the home environment 
necessitates that other supportive environments are 
fostered. While this paper highlights the numerous 
benefits that school-based support and affirmation 
can provide to these students, the immense rise in 
state legislation targeting these protective factors 
poses significant challenges to achieving this goal. 
The surge in legislation across the country poses 
dangers to the mental health, academic success, 
and sense of security of LGBTQ+ students whether 
the bills are passed or not. Given the particularly 
vulnerable state that these individuals are in after the 
COVID-19 pandemic, these bills put LGBTQ+ youth 
at a heightened risk for suicidality and victimization.
 

41 The Trevor Project, “Facts about LGBTQ Youth 
Suicide.” 
42 Ibid. 

101



State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing in U.S. Schools

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023

Bibliography
American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU 2022 Annual 

Report. 2022. https://www.aclu.org/report/aclu-
2022-annual-report.

American Library Association. “Top 13 Most 
Challenged Books of 2022.” n.d. https://www.
ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallenged-
books/top10.

Currie, Sean, Maralee Mayberry, and Tiffany 
Chenneville. “Destabilizing Anti-Gay 
Environment through Gay-Straight Alliances: 
Possibilities and Limitations through Shifting 
Discourses.” The Clearing House 85, no. 2 (2012): 
56-60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23212860.

Eastern Michigan University. Board of Regents 
Meeting Materials, December 15, 2017. Minutes. 
DigitalCommons@EMU, 2017. https://jstor.org/
stable/community.31856535.

Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network. A 
Call to Action: LGBTQ Youth Need Inclusive 
Sex Education. n.d. https://www.glsen.org/
sites/default/files/2020-06/A%20Call%20to%20
Action%20LGBTQ%20Youth%20Need%20
Inclusive%20Sex%20Education%20FINAL.pdf.

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. Gay-
Straight Alliances: Creating Safer Schools for 
LGBT Students and Their Allies. New York, 
2007. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/
files/2020-04/Gay-Straight%20Alliances.pdf. 

Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network. “New 
Research Shows Positive Impact of Gender and 
Sexuality Alliance in Schools.” November 2021. 
https://www.glsen.org/news/new-research-
shows-positive-impact-gender-and-sexuality-
alliances-schools.

Hong, Jun Sung, and James Garbino. “Risk and 
Protective Factors for Homophobic Bullying in 
Schools: An Application of the Social-Ecological 
Framework.” Educational Psychology Review 25, 
no. 2 (June 2012): 271-285. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/43546789.

Johns, Michelle M., V. Paul Poteat, Stacy S. Horn, 
and Joseph Kosciw. “Strengthening Our Schools 
to Promote Resilience and Health Among 
LGBTQ Youth: Emerging Evidence and Research 
Priorities from The State of LGBTQ Youth Health 
and Wellbeing Symposium.” LGBT Health 6, no. 
4 (May 2019): 145-155. https://doi.org/10.1089/
lgbt.2018.0109.

Kosciw, Joseph G., Neal A. Palmer, Ryan M. Kull, 
and Emily A. Greytak. “The Effect of Negative 
School Climate on Academic Outcomes for 
LGBT Youth and the Role of In-School Supports.” 
Journal of School Violence 12, no. 1 (December 
2012): 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.
2012.732546.

Poteat, V. Paul, Jerel P. Calzo, Craig D. DiGiovanni, 
Adrienne Mundy-Shephard, Jillian R. Scheer, 
Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Mary L. Gray, Arthur 
Lipkin, Jeff Perrotti, and Matthew P. Shaw. 
“Contextualizing Gay-Straight Alliances: 
Student, Advisor, and Structural Factors 
Related to Positive Youth Development Among 
Members.” Child Development 86, no. 1 (2015): 
176–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24696121.

Pollock, Sandra L. “Counselor Roles in Dealing with 
Bullies and Their LGBT Victims.” Middle School 
Journal 38, no. 2 (November 2006): 29-36. http://
www.jstor.org/stable/23024544.

Reece-Miller, Paul Chamness. “Chapter 7: An 
Elephant in the Classroom: LGBTQ Students and 
the Silent Minority.” Counterpoints 356 (2010): 
67–76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980600.

Slater, Dashka. The 57 Bus. New York: Farrar Straus 
Giroux, 2017.

The Trevor Project. 2022 National Survey on 
LGBTQ Youth Mental Health. 2022. https://www.
thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/assets/static/
trevor01_2022survey_final.pdf.

The Trevor Project. Facts about LGBTQ Youth 
Suicide. December 15th, 2021. https://www.
thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-
about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/.

102



State Legislation’s Impact on LGBTQ+ Student Wellbeing in U.S. Schools

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023

The Trevor Project. Issues Impacting LGBTQ Youth: 
Polling Analysis. Morning Consult, January 2022. 
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/wp-content/
uploads/2022/01/TrevorProject_Public1.pdf.

Weaver, Josh. “New Poll Illustrates the Impacts of 
Social and Political Issues on LGBTQ Youth.” 
The Trevor Project, 2022. https://www.
thetrevorproject.org/blog/new-poll-illustrates-
the-impacts-of-social-political-issues-on-lgbtq-
youth/.

Weller, Lauren. “The Importance of visible LGBT+ 
Identities in School.” British Journal of School 
Nursing 13, no. 10 (December 2018): 501-502. 
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjsn.2018.13.10.501. 

Wright, Tiffany E. “A Safer Place? LGBT Educators, 
School Climate, and Implications for 
Administrators.” The Educational Forum 79, no. 
4 (September 2015): 395-407. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00131725.2015.1068901.

Young, Abe Louise. “LGBT Students Want Educators 
to Speak Up for Them.” The Phi Delta Kappan 93, 
no. 2 (October 2011): 35-37. http://www.jstor.
org/stable/23048942.

103


