Symbolic representation since Pitkin has been conceived as the specific representation of a principal through a symbolic agent that suggests or evokes meanings about that principal. Since in symbolic representation there is no direct responsiveness between agent (e.g. the flag) and principal (e.g. the nation), can we still talk of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ symbolic representation as we do for substantive representation? The paper will explore this normative question by employing political discourse as symbolic agent and gender as the principal, and by analyzing two important functions that symbolic representation fulfills in political systems: identity construction and legitimacy. We thereby use a discursive approach to symbolic representation and rely on the example of gender. While political discourse is a particular kind of symbol because it has a meaning in itself, and not simply beyond itself, it suggests and evokes norms, meanings and values about gender relations that contribute to include, exclude, legitimize or not legitimize women and men. If subjects’ inclusion and legitimation within a political community are considered criteria for good symbolic representation, we could argue that only those political discourses that suggest meanings about gender that are inclusive and legitimating could be considered as good symbolic representation. Empirical data on the framing of gender equality policies in the European Union, Belgium, and Italy will exemplify the argument.