








































The Women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly


COMMONWEALTH, Volume 18, Issue 2 (2016). © 2016 The Pennsylvania Political Science Association.  
ISSN 2469-7672 (online). http://dx.doi.org/10.15367/cjppp.v18i2.122. All rights reserved.

The Women of the Pennsylvania  
General Assembly

Explaining Women’s Representation  

in Pennsylvania State Politics

KATHLEEN M. ROGERS
Rutgers University

The Pennsylvania General Assembly is ranked 40th among the 50 state legis-
latures for its proportion of female legislators. Women constitute 18.6% of the 
bicameral legislature, including nine of 50 senators and 38 of 203 representa-
tives. Various characteristics of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, includ-
ing its professionalization, appear to provide numerous challenges to women’s 
entry. As such, the presence of 47 women in the legislature is noteworthy. This 
exploratory case study examines the experiences of women in the Pennsylvania 
General Assembly, presenting a qualitative analysis of several interviews with 
female legislators. The findings indicate that these women were encouraged to 
run for their current seats primarily by having the support of their families and 
political parties, by the availability of open seats, and by developing confidence 
in their qualifications through a politicized upbringing.

Somebody once said that it’s not that women see things differently; 
they see different things. My life experiences as a mother, a daugh-
ter, as a sister are different than most men I know . . . So I’m going 
to have a different life experience that I bring to the table. —Lynn

Women constitute 51.1% of the population in Pennsylvania (U.S. 
Census Bureau 2015), but only 18.6% of Pennsylvania’s state leg-
islature (CAWP 2016a). While the proportion of women in the 



104 Kathleen M. RogeRs

Pennsylvania General Assembly has been increasing fairly steadily over time, 
more—though less steady—progress has been made in the states that bor-
der Pennsylvania (CAWP 2016b). In fact, Pennsylvania’s low percentage of 
female legislators is an anomaly within the Northeast region of the United 
States, which has historically performed quite well, comparatively, in terms of 
women’s descriptive representation (Norrander and Wilcox 2005). The only 
states with lower percentages of women in their legislatures are Tennessee, 
Kentucky, Utah, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Caro-
lina, Mississippi, and Wyoming (CAWP 2016b; see Appendix B for full state 
rankings).

Many scholars have found that certain institutional factors are associ-
ated with fewer female state legislators. These include the professionalization 
of the legislature (Norrander and Wilcox 2005), the absence of term limits 
(Thompson and Moncrief 1993), the recruitment practices of political parties 
(Carroll 1994; Crowder- Meyer 2013; Elder 2012; Sanbonmatsu 2002), the cost 
of running a campaign (Norrander and Wilcox 2005), and whether officials 
are elected to single-m ember or multimember districts (Hogan 2001; Welch, 
et al. 1985). As a full- time, highly professionalized legislature that lacks term 
limits and elects officials to single- member districts (NCSL 2016; Schmedlen 
2001), the Pennsylvania General Assembly possesses a number of elements 
that are known to disadvantage potential female candidates.

The most recent research on women’s representation in legislative pol-
itics in the United States has shifted focus to the psychological challenges 
that potential female candidates face. As early as 1977, Darcy and Schramm 
found that “candidate sex has little or no effect on election outcomes” (9), and 
women perform just as well as men when it comes to campaign fund-r aising 
(Jenkins 2007; Schlozman and Uhlaner 1986). Such results suggest that there 
is little difference between male and female candidates; instead, the problem 
is that women are not emerging as candidates to begin with. Richard Fox and 
Jennifer Lawless contend, “The gender gap in political ambition results from 
long- standing patterns of traditional socialization that persist in U.S. culture” 
(Fox and Lawless 2010b, 8). Such socialization typically reinforces women’s 
traditional family roles as wives and mothers, teaching them that they belong 
in the home, rather than in politics. Furthermore, the behavior of political 
actors and institutions often reflects the circumstances and concerns of men, 
who are the dominant group in legislative politics. As a result of their inter-
nalization of these messages and realities, women’s levels of political ambition 
are dampened by a “gendered psyche,” characterized by a lack of confidence, 
aggressiveness, and self- promotion (Fox and Lawless 2010b).



The Women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly  105

If low levels of women’s descriptive representation are primarily a result 
of individual women’s lack of confidence in their own abilities to run for and 
serve in legislative politics, then it is critical for researchers to take a close 
look at particular women’s decision- making calculi, to understand which 
concerns and considerations are most salient for women in a specific politi-
cal environment. Because of the great variation in the cultures of states and 
in the institutional structure of the state legislatures, it is worth studying 
women’s representation in Pennsylvania independently. Moreover, given the 
importance of psychological factors for cultivating or dampening women’s 
political ambition, an analysis of Pennsylvania’s political institutions is not 
sufficient to understand the problem of women’s descriptive representation 
in its full complexity. A qualitative analysis of open- ended interviews with 
female legislators is particularly suited to the job, in order to tease out the 
explicit and implicit considerations, concerns, and motivations such women 
had when running and while serving in legislative office. By focusing on 
the intricacies of the individual and identifying patterns within the larger 
group, we may be able to reach a better understanding of Pennsylvania’s poor 
record for women’s representation and what might need to change in order 
to solve it.

This exploratory case study of the women in the Pennsylvania General 
Assembly aims to shed greater light on the motivations, opportunities, obsta-
cles, and rewards of being a woman in Pennsylvania politics by appealing to 
the experts: the women who have successfully run for and been elected to the 
state’s legislature despite the odds. I briefly examine demographic informa-
tion for both male and female legislators and a few unique features of Penn-
sylvania’s legislature and political context, followed by a qualitative analysis 
of interviews with several women legislators in Pennsylvania. The findings 
indicate that supportive families, mentors, and political parties, as well as 
the availability of open seats helped the women of the Pennsylvania General 
Assembly to develop the confidence they needed to run for legislative office, 
despite the particular challenges posed by Pennsylvania’s political context.

Women’s Representation in Pennsylvania

As of 2016, Pennsylvania is ranked 40th among the 50 states for its share 
of female state legislators, currently at 18.6%, including nine of 50 senators 
(18%) and 38 of 203 representatives (18.7%) (CAWP 2016a). The percentage 
of women in the Pennsylvania General Assembly has increased fairly steadily 
over time (see Figure 1).



106 Kathleen M. RogeRs

When one looks at the Pennsylvania General Assembly in isolation, it 
appears that the descriptive representation of women in the legislature is a 
success story, with fairly steady growth over time. However, a comparison of 
Pennsylvania with its border states reveals that Pennsylvania’s progress actu-
ally trails behind the progress of those states—with the exception of West 
Virginia, which has previously seen higher percentages of women in its leg-
islature despite its recent decline (see Figure 2). Pennsylvania’s border states 
have consistently ranked above Pennsylvania for the percentage of women in 
their state legislatures, with sharper increases over time, even in combination 
with larger decreases in the proportion of women in their legislatures.

The case of the Pennsylvania General Assembly is particularly interesting 
because it is the largest full- time state legislature, and it is highly professional-
ized (NCSL 2016). Highly professionalized legislatures require 80% or more 
of a full- time job and offer salaries that legislators can live on without relying 
on an alternative source of income. These legislatures usually have larger dis-
tricts, longer sessions, and more staff than less professionalized volunteer or 
part- time legislatures (NCSL 2016).

Women can be discouraged from pursuing positions in full- time legisla-
tures because of their disproportionate responsibilities as homemakers and 
primary caregivers for their families (Mariani 2008; Norrander and Wil-
cox 2005). Fox and Lawless (2014) found that the women in their study of 

Figure 1. Percentage of Women in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, 1975–2016.  
(Center for American Women and Politics, “State Fact Sheet—Pennsylvania.” Available at  
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/state_fact_sheets/pa.)

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/state_fact_sheets/pa


The Women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly  107

potential candidates who had spouses or partners were six times more likely 
to be responsible for most household tasks than similarly situated men and 10 
times more likely to be the primary caregivers for their children (400). As a 
result, when women do serve in full- time—and even part- time—legislatures, 
they are more likely than their male counterparts to be unmarried and/or 
childless (Mariani 2008). Female legislators also tend to be older than their 
male counterparts because many women wait until their children are older to 
run for office (Mariani 2008; Werner 1968). A consequence of this shortened 
political lifespan is that women have less time to move up the political pipeline 
to run for higher levels of office.

A quick look at demographic differences among the men and women 
in the Pennsylvania General Assembly suggests that, for women, caregiv-
ing responsibilities associated with having a family and full- time legislative 
responsibilities may be less compatible than such responsibilities are for men. 
Table 1 highlights some of these differences.

While a majority of women in the Pennsylvania General Assembly were 
married (62.2 %) in 2014, even more of the men in the legislature were married 
(81.7 %). The average age among the women in the legislature was 57, and the 
average age when they were first elected was 49. In contrast, the average age 
among the men was 52, and the average age when they were first elected was 
41 (Project Vote Smart 2014). As such, the men have, on average, five to eight 

Figure 2. Percentage of Female State Legislators in Pennsylvania and Border States,  
1975–2016. (Center for American Women and Politics, “Women in State Legislatures 2016.” 
Available at http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/state-by-state.)    



108 Kathleen M. RogeRs

years more than the women to establish themselves and take on chairman-
ships, which are determined by seniority in Pennsylvania. Female legislators 
in Pennsylvania were more likely than the men to have children in 2014—a 
departure from existing literature—with 84.4% of female legislators having 
children and 78.8% of male legislators having children (Project Vote Smart 
2014). These numbers include adult children, however, and, given the age dif-
ference between the men and women, the men may be more likely to have 
younger children while serving in the legislature.

There are more Democratic women than Republican women in elected 
offices across the United States, and Republican women are even less likely 
than Democratic women to run for office in highly professionalized leg-
islatures (Elder 2012; Sanbonmatsu 2002). Yet, there is a greater share of 
Republican women than Democratic women in the largest full-t ime, highly 

table 1. Demographics of Women and Men in the Pennsylvania general assembly, 
2014

Women of the Pa 
general assembly

Men of the Pa 
general assembly

the Pa general 
assembly

Democrats 46.7% (21) 46.2% (96) 46.2% (117)

Republicans 53.3% (24) 53.8% (112) 53.8% (136)

Senate 17.8% (8) 20.2% (42) 80.2% (50)

House 82.2% (37) 79.8% (166) 19.8% (203)

White 80.0% (36) 92.8% (193) 90.5% (229)

Black 17.8% (8) 5.8% (12) 7.9% (20)

Asian 2.2% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.4% (1)

Hispanic 0.0% (0) 1.0% (2) 0.8% (2)

Other 0.0% (0) 0.5% (1) 0.4% (1)

Married 62.2% (28) 81.7% (170) 78.3% (198)

Not Married 37.7% (17) 18.3% (38) 21.7% (55)

Have Children 84.4% (38) 78.8% (164) 79.8% (202)

Don’t Have Children 15.6% (7) 21.2% (44) 20.2% (51)

Ran against Incumbent 17.8% (8) 21.2% (44) 20.6% (52)

Ran for Open Seat 82.2% (37) 78.8% (164) 79.4% (201)

Average Age 57.4 52.2 53.1

Years in Current Office 8.9 10.8 10.5

Percentage of Assembly 17.8% (45) 82.2% (208) 100% (253)

Note: Data in this table were compiled from an online search of the official website for the Pennsyl-
vania General Assembly, official party caucus and campaign websites for each legislator, and Project 
Vote Smart.



The Women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly  109

professionalized legislature, with 28 Republican women (59.6%) and 19 Dem-
ocratic women (40.4%) in the Pennsylvania General Assembly (CAWP 2016a). 
Democratic women may be less likely to consider running for office in Penn-
sylvania than they would be in other states as a result of the absence of term 
limits and Pennsylvania’s relatively low female labor force participation, for 
which the state was ranked 39th among the 50 states (Elder 2012; IWPR 2011). 
Republican women, on the other hand, may be more likely to consider run-
ning for office in Pennsylvania as a result of the Republican party’s efforts to 
cultivate female leaders, including the establishment of the Anne B. Anstine 
Excellence in Public Service Series, which is an annual training program 
designed to prepare Republican women to be effective leaders (Asher 2014). 
At least three of the Republican women who currently serve in the legislature 
have graduated from this program. Additionally, in an individualistic political 
culture that requires party support for a successful candidacy (Elazar 1984), 
this extra effort by the Republican party to recruit and train women may 
be an important contributor to the greater number of Republican women in 
Pennsylvania’s legislature.

In general, Pennsylvania women are not likely to serve in political office. 
No women have served as U.S. senators from Pennsylvania, and only seven 
have been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives (CAWP 2016a). Seven 
women have served in statewide executive offices, and Pennsylvania has 
never had a female governor (CAWP 2016a). Pennsylvania women are also 
less politically active than women in other states, with the state ranking 42nd 
for women’s voter registration and 38th for women’s voter turnout (IWPR 
2004).

While these statistics paint a bleak picture of the status of women in Penn-
sylvania politics, there are 47 women in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. 
Examining the considerations and experiences of these women may allow us 
to understand how they came to run for office and win their current seats, 
providing insight into the mechanisms that might encourage or discourage 
other women from running for office in Pennsylvania.

Research Design

The qualitative data for this study were collected between March and May 
2014. To recruit interview participants, I made phone calls to the Harrisburg 
and district offices for each female legislator. Five face-t o- face interviews 
were conducted at the state capitol in Harrisburg during one full- day visit 
in April 2014. Two additional legislators participated in partial interviews on 
the House f loor, during which I did not run through my entire interview 



110 Kathleen M. RogeRs

questionnaire, but gleaned enough information to warrant inclusion in my 
results. To encourage participation, the interviews were confidential, and 
all names have been changed to protect participants’ identities. To achieve 
greater participation, a link to an online survey was emailed to all women 
in the Pennsylvania General Assembly once in March and a second time, 
immediately after my visit to Harrisburg. Six of my seven interview partici-
pants completed the survey, in addition to nine other women, for a total of 16 
study participants out of the 45 women who then served in the legislature (see 
Appendix B for a comparison of the demographics of the study participants to 
those of the 45 women who served in the legislature in 2014).

I was fortunate to have met one of the Republican female legislators in the 
Pennsylvania General Assembly at a campaign training program for women 
prior to my data collection process. This legislator and one of her staffers were 
instrumental in encouraging other women in the legislature to participate. 
Even with this help, however, it was difficult to recruit participants because 
many of the women in the legislature have a general policy that they do not 
participate in any research studies. The disproportionate representation of 
Republican women in my interview sample is likely due to the fact that the leg-
islator who helped me recruit more participants was a Republican. This may 
have also had an effect on the racial makeup of my sample, as all of the Repub-
lican women in the legislature are white. Furthermore, participants may have 
volunteered because of a special interest in the topic under study, which may 
have skewed their responses. In consequence, the results of this study do not 
represent the full diversity of experiences of the women in the Pennsylvania 
General Assembly due to limited participation. Despite these limitations, this 
study offers a valuable look into the considerations and experiences of several 
women who have broken into Pennsylvania’s male- dominated legislature.

Findings

Being a woman in a profession that is coded as male can introduce a number 
of conflicts among various gendered expectations. All but two survey respon-
dents cited stereotypically feminine qualities as their greatest strengths as a 
public official. These included their relatability, approachability, ability to 
communicate and work with others, and their ability to compromise. Many, 
however, also named stereotypically feminine weaknesses, including a lack of 
interest in taking credit for one’s achievements, taking on too much and try-
ing to do everything for everyone, and juggling work and family roles. Such 
responses draw attention to the inherent contradiction of being a woman in 
political office: one must negotiate expectations from the party, the voters, 



The Women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly  111

and one’s own colleagues to be “man enough” in some instances, but “woman 
enough” in others.

Qualitative interview data reveals several facets of legislative life that are 
particularly salient for the women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly: 
party recruitment and support, juggling work and family expectations, the 
incumbency advantage, and the importance of having confidence in one’s 
own qualifications.

Party Recruitment and Support

Men are more likely to be self- starter candidates, primarily due to their higher 
levels of confidence in their qualifications for public office. In contrast, women 
tend to underestimate their qualifications and, as a result, will often not even 
consider a candidacy until they are explicitly asked to run (Fox and Law-
less 2010a, 2010b, 2012, 2013; Rozell 2008). Additionally, all types of political 
gatekeepers, including party leaders, elected officials, and political activists, 
tend to recruit far more men than women. Since being recruited is often an 
individual’s first step toward considering a candidacy, the consequence is that 
more men than women consider running for office and demonstrate political 
ambition (Fox and Lawless 2004, 2005, 2010a, 2010b, 2012, 2013).

A few interview participants spoke at length about party discrimination 
against women. For example, Lynn explained:

I think the voters are okay with women, but the party officials are 
more comfortable with people who look like them, and they’re 
men . . . Party officials at all levels are less likely to support women. 
And both sides, you know, some people think that Republicans are 
conservative, but the Democrats are just as nasty to their women 
elected officials .  .  . And so my experience with the Republicans is 
that they don’t recruit women, they don’t look for women, you know, 
you have to sort of bully your way into the table, and then once you’re 
there, okay, fine, they treat you fine.

Some have suggested that women’s organizations can counteract the dis-
criminatory recruitment practices of parties (Carroll and Dittmar 2012; Fox 
and Lawless 2010b; Rozell 2008; Schmedlen 2001). A couple of interview par-
ticipants mentioned women’s organizations, but the comments were not posi-
tive. Dianne explained her greatest disappointment as follows: “When I went 
to women’s organizations for support, the first thing they would ask is ‘what 
is your opinion on abortion?’ . . . And, as soon as I said pro- life, that was it. I 



112 Kathleen M. RogeRs

got no help.” Because party support is so important in individualistic politi-
cal cultures and because women’s organizations tend not to support Repub-
lican women, the efforts of women’s organizations may not be very effective 
in Pennsylvania. It is up to the parties to actively encourage women through 
recruitment, training, resources, and support.

A few of Terry’s friends once suggested that she consider running for the 
State House, and her immediate response was, “You’re crazy! I’m not quali-
fied! . . . What do I know about politics and raising money for a campaign 
and all the mechanics of it?” But then, four days before the filing deadline, 
the incumbent Democrat in a nearby district called her and said, “The House 
Democratic Campaign Committee wants you to run. We know you have no 
experience, but we’ll teach you everything you need to know, and if you work 
hard and can help raise your own money, we’ll give you all the support that we 
can.” Looking back, she recalls, “I never did decide that I wanted to run. It was 
sort of decided for me . . . but having said that . . . I’d always been interested 
in public policy. . . . So, I think that helped me be more open to the idea when 
I was convinced that I would receive enough help and support to actually not 
make a fool of myself.” Terry received many suggestions to run from friends, 
but she did not feel qualified or prepared to run for office in Pennsylvania 
until she knew that she would have access to the resources and support of her 
party.

Work and Family Balance

In her interview, Carrie explained that she feels a great deal of guilt being 
away from her children while she is in Harrisburg. She stressed that she is very 
lucky to live relatively close to the capital, allowing her to travel home for a late 
dinner on session days. She admitted that if she lived much farther away, she 
would have to reconsider whether she could work in Harrisburg. Carrie also 
pointed out that men do not face the same degree of discomfort while being 
away from their children: “It’s a tremendous sacrifice for your family. Where, 
the men that I work with, like, they’re wonderful fathers, and they’re won-
derful husbands, but I don’t think that they have that guilt that is associated 
with it.” Another woman, Joan, expressed similar sentiments, saying, “There 
is some pressure to be a mom and . . . we put pressure on ourselves to be every-
thing to everyone . . . It’s challenging sometimes to be away from your home 
for three days . . . We still have homes to maintain and husbands and kids and 
life.” She also explained that she has been criticized for pursuing a political 
career with young children. She said, “There were . . . generally older women 
[who said], ‘What about your little children? You need to be their mom.’”



The Women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly  113

Joan was not the only woman who faced criticism; Dianne received similar 
questions from women: “Why are you not staying home with your children?” 
In no interview did any of the women question the notion that women should 
be responsible for the bulk of childcare; they merely discussed the challenges 
associated with juggling their family and legislative responsibilities. Even 
when Carrie pointed out that the men in the legislature do not experience the 
same degree of guilt while being away from their children, she characterized 
them as “wonderful” fathers and husbands.

It seems that there are different understandings of motherhood and 
fatherhood at play. A male legislator can be away from his children for three 
full days a week and maintain his reputation as a “wonderful” father; a female 
legislator, however, is scolded for doing the same. “What about your little chil-
dren? You need to be their mom” implies that a woman is not being a mom 
while she is working in the public sphere. Men are not similarly stripped of 
their fatherhood while traversing the private and public spheres. Such char-
acterization reinforces strict gender roles, with men working in politics and 
women staying home and raising children.

Multiple women discussed the importance of their families’ support, 
which has made their demanding schedules and responsibilities more man-
ageable. Carrie, in particular, expressed gratitude for her father and god-
mother because they have to “pick up the slack” and get her kids to school 
while she is away in Harrisburg. Conflicts between familial and legislative 
responsibilities did not ultimately deter the women in the Pennsylvania 
General Assembly from running for office, but they frequently deter other 
women from considering a political career, especially if they live farther away, 
are unable to rely on their families to take on their household and childcare 
responsibilities, or cannot afford daycare. Such stressors may be particularly 
strong deterrents for women of color and/or women from lower socioeco-
nomic classes. These challenges can become even more discouraging in com-
bination with other factors, such as the unavailability of an open seat to run 
for.

Running for Open Seats

Incumbents are reelected to their offices more often than not (Welch, et al. 
1985), so it makes sense for any candidate to wait to run for office until a seat 
becomes vacated. Although Carrie was actually one of the few women who 
ran and won against an incumbent, during her interview, she addressed the 
risk of running at the “wrong time” against a “really beloved person,” explain-
ing that the chances of winning would be very slim.



114 Kathleen M. RogeRs

A couple of interview participants explained that working in the Pennsyl-
vania General Assembly is an attractive job for men because it pays well. Terry 
explained that men see the legislature as a great opportunity to make money 
and move up the ladder in business or politics, but women are deterred by the 
“dirtiness of it.” Lynn agreed that men are often attracted by the legislature’s 
high salary and excellent benefits, and she added that political parties are 
extremely important in Pennsylvania, especially in terms of standing a chance 
against an incumbent: “Here in Pennsylvania, we don’t have a lot of turn-
over—more than we used to, but we don’t have a whole lot, and so the party 
helps you get one of those slots. If the party is not helping women, women are 
not going to be there . . . So the incumbent is going to win, and the incumbent 
happens to be a male in most places.”

Most women that I spoke with did not consider running for office at all 
until a seat had already opened up and someone had suggested that they run 
for it. Joan had not been considering a candidacy until her predecessor asked 
if she would be interested in running for his seat: “He called and said, ‘are you 
ready to go?’ And I thought he was taking me to lunch. And he said, ‘I’m not 
running . . . I want you to know. Are you interested?’ And I thought about [it 
for] two minutes and said, ‘absolutely, I’m interested and would love to’.”

Liz had never considered running for office, even though she had always 
been very active in local politics. Additionally, she had never thought about 
how few women serve in public office until she overheard a conversation 
among co- workers about the issue. Since then, it has become very important 
to her. Still, she did not run until a seat opened up in the Pennsylvania General 
Assembly and someone asked her to run for it.

The professionalization of the Pennsylvania General Assembly draws in 
more competition from men who are attracted by the high salary, and the 
absence of term limits results in incumbents staying in office for longer, pro-
ducing fewer open seats for political outsiders. As of 2014, only eight of the 45 
women (17.8 %) had won their seats by running against an incumbent, while 
82.2% had run for seats that were vacated by retiring incumbents, incumbents 
running for higher offices, or, in the case of one woman, by the death of her 
husband, who was the incumbent. In contrast, 21.2% of men had run against 
incumbents, and 78.8% had run for open seats (The Pennsylvania General 
Assembly 2015). Women are somewhat less likely than men to challenge an 
incumbent, perhaps because of a lack of confidence in their qualifications 
(Fox and Lawless 2010a, 2010b, 2012, 2013), even though there is no signifi-
cant difference in the performance of female and male candidates (Darcy and 
Schramm 1977; Jenkins 2007; Schlozman and Uhlaner 1986).



The Women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly  115

Developing Confidence and Political Ambition

In their interviews, Lynn and Terry expressed frustration about women’s lack 
of confidence and ambition:

You kind of want to believe that your State Rep and your State Senator 
and your Congressman and your United States Senator are all smarter 
than you are . . . You want to believe the Governor is smarter than 
you are. You want to believe that the President’s smarter than you are. 
Guess what, they are not. You know, so women need to have confi-
dence in their own ability to handle these jobs. They can handle it. 
They can handle it. They can do it. So women need to be encouraged 
to step up as opposed to being drafted. —Lynn

It’s an attitude, I think, that women have that they are lesser, and they 
are not. They are not. In fact, I would suggest that, you know, any 
woman who’s been a wife, a mother, a homemaker, a business person, 
is every bit as qualified as any man who runs, but I’m not sure they 
perceive it that way. —Terry

The trope of the “ambitious office seeker” (Aldrich 2011) assumes a typi-
cally male orientation toward candidate emergence, given men’s relatively 
independent and autonomous decision- making context, unconstrained by 
caregiving roles and expectations. As a result of traditional gender socializa-
tion, women often do not consider the possibility of running for office until 
they are explicitly recruited (Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Fox and Lawless 
2010a, 2010b). The gender gap in political ambition is important to acknowl-
edge; but to conclude that women simply do not have enough of it is to obscure 
the realities of women’s lives and gendered expectations.

Susan Carroll and Kira Sanbonmatsu (2013) have challenged Fox and 
Lawless’s assumption that women emerge as candidates through the same 
pipeline and decision- making process as men, arguing, instead, that women 
tend to make a “relationally embedded decision,” influenced more by their 
relationships with other people than by their individual ambition.

While virtually all women I spoke with needed to be recruited to run, they 
all ultimately believed that they were qualified for their positions, setting them-
selves apart from other women who did not decide to run. Many gained this 
confidence as a result of a “politicized upbringing,” which is characterized by 
frequent discussions of politics at home, running for office as a student, com-
munity involvement, and parental encouragement (Fox and Lawless 2005, 2014).



116 Kathleen M. RogeRs

Carrie originally wanted to be a psychologist, but, around age 15, she took 
a sociology class and an American government class, which heavily influ-
enced her decision to pursue a political career. Annice explained that she had 
been very active in her community from a young age, and although she had 
never aspired to run for office, her leadership in her community helped her to 
build a network that became very useful when a seat opened up and multiple 
people asked her to run for it.

When asked who their political role models were, seven survey respon-
dents named women, including Hillary Clinton, Eleanor Roosevelt, Made-
leine Albright, former state senator Jeanette Reibman, City Councilmember 
Betty Eiceman, and Margaret Thatcher. A few also listed their own mothers, 
who had worked and been politically active while raising children. When it 
came to mentors, however, 10, or 66.7% of respondents noted that their most 
significant mentor had been male, and 11, or 73.3% responded that these 
mentors were “very important” to their political career. These results sug-
gest that many women in the Pennsylvania General Assembly were able to 
imagine themselves as leaders as a result of growing up and seeing various 
politically active female role models, and they were perhaps better able to 
integrate themselves into a masculine political environment with the help of 
key male mentors.

Discussion and Conclusion

There is a need to have women and minorities in public office, 
as we represent a portion of society that did not always have the 
ability to even vote. —Carrie

While the female legislators that I interviewed had a variety of motivations 
for running for office, as well as different paths that led them to politics, a few 
patterns emerged from their experiences. Most women were discouraged by 
many of the same factors that frequently prevent most women from consider-
ing a candidacy or running for office, such as conflicts between legislative 
and familial responsibilities. They were able to overcome such challenges as a 
result of their own unique circumstances and experiences. While time spent 
away from their families often evoked feelings of guilt, living close to Har-
risburg, having a supportive family, and/or waiting to run for office until 
their children grew older helped to alleviate many of their concerns, allowing 
the women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to run for office when an 
opportunity presented itself.



The Women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly  117

Most interview respondents explained that “timing” is key in politics, 
and it is important to be prepared to take opportunities if and when they 
come along. This philosophy led many women to run for open seats after 
an incumbent had stepped down and someone had suggested that they run. 
Unfortunately, seats do not open up often because the Pennsylvania General 
Assembly, a highly professionalized legislature, offers attractive benefits that 
often lead male incumbents to desire longer tenures in office. Additionally, 
the absence of term limits in Pennsylvania allows incumbents to stay as long 
as they and their constituents would like. If a woman hopes to run for any 
seat in Pennsylvania, whether it is an open seat or whether it is occupied by 
an incumbent, it is almost always necessary that she has her party’s support.

Most participants were recruited to run for office, and they often found 
their party’s support to be very important. Women’s organizations, on the 
other hand, did not prove to be very helpful. A politicized upbringing and the 
efforts of mentors allowed the women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly 
to gain experiences and skills that made them confident enough to consider a 
candidacy. Additionally, while most of the women are not interested in run-
ning for higher offices, many suggested that they would be open to taking 
another opportunity if the timing was right.

In addition to learning about the motivations, opportunities, obstacles, 
and rewards of being a woman in Pennsylvania state politics, these findings 
may offer additional insight into the future of women in Pennsylvania politics 
and, perhaps, women in politics more broadly. Joan suggested that women 
will eventually reach parity with men in Pennsylvania politics if we are 
patient. Based on the progress of women’s inclusion in the Pennsylvania Gen-
eral Assembly thus far, it is certainly possible that women will continue to be 
elected at a slow, but steady rate. This may happen as more male incumbents 
retire or leave office for other reasons. Lynn, however, believes that women 
need to be more active in pursuing political careers:

I think studies have shown that women need to be asked to run, but, 
remember, the men don’t need to be asked to run . . . We’re never going 
to reach parity in Pennsylvania unless women step up, you know, and 
say, “I want to run.” Because if women are waiting to be asked, the 
election is going to be dead, done, and gone without them getting it. 
And then you have an incumbent who’s going to be reelected.

To remedy this, women are going to need to be empowered by their fami-
lies and by their parties, recognizing women’s relational decision- making 



118 Kathleen M. RogeRs

context. Inclusion and support of women by the political parties are going to 
be especially important since Pennsylvania’s individualistic political culture 
necessitates party support in order to succeed politically (Elazar 1984).

Most importantly, a qualitative analysis of interviews with women legisla-
tors in Pennsylvania suggests that their experiences are exceptional; they have 
come up against many of the same psychological challenges as many other 
potential female candidates in Pennsylvania, but they were able to imagine 
themselves as candidates and run for office because of the convergence of 
certain fortunate circumstances. The women of the Pennsylvania General 
Assembly benefited from the support of various actors, including their fami-
lies, mentors, and parties, as well as from the availability of open seats and 
timely suggestions to run, circumstances that do not apply to all women. Fur-
ther qualitative research, including interviews with women who ran and lost 
in Pennsylvania or women who considered running, but ultimately decided 
not to run, could provide important comparisons to the interview findings 
reported here, helping to further narrow down those considerations that most 
prevent women from running for office in Pennsylvania.

APPENDIX A. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. At what point did you know you wanted to run for elective office 
(in general)?

2. Did you have any political mentors or role models who inspired you 
to run for office? If so, what kind of support, advice, encourage-
ment, or inspiration did they give you when you were making the 
decision to run for office?

3. How has being a woman mattered, if at all, to your experiences with 
politics?

4. Do you think your experiences have been different from those of 
similarly qualified men? If yes, how?

5. If you were to advise a young woman about running for your cur-
rent office, what sort of steps or strategies would you advise her to 
take to prepare herself as a credible candidate?

6. What do you see yourself doing after you leave your current office?
7. Given that there are so few women in elective office in Pennsyl-

vania, as well as within the United States as a whole, what do you 
think has made you so successful?

8. Why do you think there are so few women in elective office in 
the United States and in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, in 
particular?



The Women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly  119

Supplemental Survey Questions

(The survey was administered in SurveyMonkey. Additional close- ended 
questions were asked, but not reported in this note.)

1. What would you say is your major personal asset or strength as a 
public official?

2. What would you say is your major weakness or challenge as a public 
official?

3. Prior to running for office, who would you say was your political 
role model? Be as specific as possible in your answer.

4. How important have mentors been to your political career?
• I did not have a mentor.
• Not at all important
• Somewhat important
• Very important

5. Was/Is your most significant mentor male or female? 
• I did not have a mentor.
• Male
• Female



APPENDIX B

table B.1. Comparison of study Participants to all Women in the Pennsylvania 
general assembly, 2014

Women of the 
Pa general 
assembly

all study 
Participants

survey 
Participants

Interview 
Participants

Democrats 46.7% (21) 50.0% (8) 53.3% (8) 28.6% (2)

Republicans 53.3% (24) 50.0% (8) 46.7% (7) 71.4% (5)

Senate 17.8% (8) 12.5% (2) 13.3% (2) 0.0% (0)

House 82.2% (37) 87.5% (14) 86.7% (13) 100.0% (7)

White 80.0% (36) 87.5% (14) 86.7% (13) 100.0% (7)

Black 17.8% (8) 6.3% (1) 6.7% (1) 0.0% (0)

Asian 2.2% (1) 6.3% (1) 6.7% (1) 0.0% (0)

Married 62.2% (28) 75.0% (12) 73.3% (11) 71.4% (5)

Not Married 37.7% (17) 25.0% (4) 26.7% (4) 28.6% (2)

Have Children 84.4% (38) 93.8% (15) 93.3% (14) 100.0% (7)

Don’t Have 
Children

15.6% (7) 6.3% (1) 6.7% (1) 0.0% (0)

Ran against 
Incumbent

17.8% (8) 18.8% (3) 20.0% (3) 42.9% (3)

Ran for Open 
Seat

82.2% (37) 81.3% (13) 80.0% (12) 57.1% (4)

Average Age 57.4 58.6 58.1 57.3

Years in Current 
Office

8.9 9.1 8.9 10

Percentage 
of Women in 
Assembly

100.0% (45) 35.6% (16) 33.3% (15) 15.6% (7)

Note: Data in this table were compiled from an online search of the official website for the Pennsyl-
vania General Assembly, official party caucus and campaign websites for each legislator, and Project 
Vote Smart.



table B.2. Descriptive Representation of Women in the state legislatures, 2016

state Rank % Women state Rank % Women

Colorado 1 42.0% Missouri 26 24.9%

Vermont 2 41.1% Georgia 27 24.6%

Arizona 3 35.6% Delaware* 28 24.2%

Washington 4 34.0% Kansas* 28 24.2%

Minnesota 5 33.3% North Carolina 30 22.9%

Illinois 6 32.8% Iowa 31 22.7%

Maryland 7 31.9% Nebraska 32 22.4%

Nevada 8 31.7% South Dakota 33 21.0%

Montana 9 31.3% Michigan 34 20.9%

Oregon 10 31.1% Indiana 35 20.7%

Alaska* 11 30.0% Arkansas 36 20.0%

New Jersey* 11 30.0% Texas 37 19.9%

Maine 13 29.6% Virginia 38 19.3%

Hawaii 14 28.9% North Dakota 39 19.1%

New Hampshire 15 28.8% Pennsylvania 40 18.6%

Connecticut 16 28.3% Tennessee 41 16.7%

Idaho 17 27.6% Kentucky 42 15.9%

Rhode Island 18 27.4% Utah 43 15.4%

New Mexico 19 26.8% West Virginia 44 14.9%

New York 20 26.3% Louisiana 45 14.6%

California* 21 25.8% Alabama 46 14.3%

Ohio* 21 25.8% Oklahoma* 47 14.1%

Wisconsin* 21 25.8% South Carolina* 47 14.1%

Florida* 24 25.0% Mississippi 49 13.8%

Massachusetts* 24 25.0% Wyoming 50 13.3%

Source: Center for American Women and Politics, “Women in State Legislatures 2016,” available at 
 http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/state- state. by-

*States share the same rank if their proportions of women legislators are exactly equal or round off to 
be equal (AK, NJ; CA, OH, WI; FL, MA; DE, KS; OK, SC).



122 Kathleen M. RogeRs

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alexander, Amy C. 2012. “Change in Women’s Descriptive Representation and the Belief 

in Women’s Ability to Govern: A Virtuous Cycle.” Politics and Gender 8: 437–464.
Asher, Robert A. 2014. “About the Series.” Anne B. Anstine Excellence in Public Service 

Series. Available at www.anstineseries.org/about- the- series/. Accessed April 30, 2014.
Carroll, Susan J. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics. Bloomington: Indiana 

University Press.
Carroll, Susan J., and Kelly Dittmar. 2013. “Preparedness Meets Opportunity: A Case 

Study of Women’s Representation in the New Jersey Legislature.” In Breaking Male 
Dominance in Old Democracies, ed. Drude Dahlerup and Monique Leyenaar. New 
York: Oxford University Press.

Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Path-
ways to the State Legislature. New York: Oxford University Press.

Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). 2016a. “State Fact Sheet—Pennsylva-
nia.” Available at www.cawp.rutgers.edu/state_fact_sheets/pa. Accessed April 6, 2016.

———. 2016b. “Women in State Legislatures 2016.” Available at www.cawp.rutgers.edu/
state-by-state. Accessed April 6, 2016. 

Crowder-M eyer, Melody. 2013. “Gendered Recruitment without Trying: How Local Party 
Recruiters Affect Women’s Representation.” Politics and Gender 9: 390–413.

Darcy, Robert, and Sarah Slavin Schramm. 1977. “When Women Run against Men.” Pub-
lic Opinion Quarterly 41: 1–12.

Elazar, Daniel J. 1984. American Federalism: A View from the States, Third Edition. New 
York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Elder, Laurel. 2012. “The Partisan Gap among Women State Legislators.” Journal of 
Women, Politics, and Policy 33: 65–85.

Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2004. “Entering the Arena? Gender and the Deci-
sion to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science 48: 264–280.

———. 2005. “To Run or Not to Run for Office: Explaining Nascent Political Ambition.” 
American Journal of Political Science 49: 642–659.

———. 2010a. “If Only They’d Ask: Gender, Recruitment, and Political Ambition.” Journal 
of Politics 72: 310–326.

———. 2010b. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: 
Cambridge University Press.

———. 2012. “Men Rule: The Continued Under-R epresentation of Women in U.S. Poli-
tics.” Women and Politics Institute.

———. 2013. “Girls Just Wanna Not Run: The Gender Gap in Young Americans’ Political 
Ambition.” Women and Politics Institute.

———. 2014. “Reconciling Family Roles with Political Ambition: The New Normal for 
Women in 21st Century U.S. Politics.” Journal of Politics 76 (2): 398–414.

Hogan, Robert E. 2001. “The Influence of State and District Conditions on the Representa-
tion of Women in U.S. State Legislatures.” American Politics Research 29 (4): 4–24.

Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR). 2004. “The Status of Women in Pennsylva-
nia, 2004: Highlights.” “Status on Women in the States” Initiative. Available at www 
.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-status-of-women-in-pennsylvania-2004-highlights. 
Accessed March 25, 2014.

  

       

http://www.anstineseries.org/about-the-series/
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/state_fact_sheets/pa
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/state-by-state
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/state-by-state


The Women of the Pennsylvania General Assembly  123

———. 2011. “State by State Rankings and Data on Indicators of Social and Economic Sta-
tus.” “Status on Women in the States” Initiative. Available at www.iwpr.org/initiatives/ 
states/state-by-state-rankings-data-2011. Accessed March 25, 2014.

Jenkins, Shannon. 2007. “A Woman’s Work Is Never Done? Fund- Raising Perception 
and Effort among Female State Legislative Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly 
60 (2): 230–239.

Mariani, Mack D. 2008. “A Gendered Pipeline? The Advancement of State Legislators to 
Congress in Five States.” Politics and Gender 4 (2): 285–308. 

National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). 2016. “Full and Part- Time Legislatures.” 
Available at www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/full-and-part-time 
-legislatures.aspx. Accessed April 25, 2016.

Norrander, Barbara, and Clyde Wilcox. 2005. “Change and Continuity in the Geography 
of Women State Legislators.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, Future, ed. 
Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly. 2015. Available at www.legis.state.pa.us/. Accessed 
December 2013–May 2015.

Project Vote Smart. 2014. Available at http://votesmart.org. Accessed December 2013–May 
2015.

Rozell, Mark J. 2008. “Helping Women Run and Win.” Women and Politics 21 (3): 101–116.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Political Parties and the Recruitment of Women to State Leg-

islatures.” Journal of Politics 64 (3): 791–809.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Carole Jean Uhlaner. 1986. “Candidate Gender and Con-

gressional Campaign Receipts.” Journal of Politics 48: 30–50.
Schmedlen, Jeanne H. 2001. History of Women in the Pennsylvania House of Representa-

tives 1923–2001. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
Thompson, Joel A., and Gary F. Moncrief. 1993. “The Implications of Term Limits for 

Women and Minorities: Some Evidence from the States.” Social Science Quarterly 
74 (2): 300–309.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. “Female Persons, Percent, July 1, 2015.” QuickFacts: Pennsylva-
nia. Available at www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html. Accessed April 
6, 2016.

Welch, Susan, Margery M. Ambrosius, Janet Clark, and Robert Darcy. 1985. “The Effect of 
Candidate Gender on Electoral Outcomes in State Legislative Races.” Western Politi-
cal Quarterly 38 (3): 464–475.

Werner, Emmy E. 1968. “Women in the State Legislatures.” Western Political Quarterly 
21 (1): 40–50.

Kathleen M. Rogers is a doctoral student in political science at Rutgers University, where 
she is studying women and politics and American politics. She is a graduate of Muhlen-
berg College. 

     

       
 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/
http://votesmart.org
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html

	Structure Bookmarks
	Women’s Representation in Pennsylvania
	Research Design
	Findings
	Discussion and Conclusion




