Exploring the Link Between MPs' Reputation and Gender Bias in Parliamentary Debates

This paper examines how Members of Parliament's (MPs) reputations influence their access to the parliamentary floor, emphasizing the interplay between gender bias and perceptions of expertise. While reputation is crucial for leadership roles, committee assignments, and influence in policy debates, its gendered construction and valuation within parliaments remain underexplored. We argue that access to debates is shaped not only by MPs' qualifications, such as seniority or expertise, but also by subjective perceptions influenced by cultural norms, stereotypes, and institutional biases. Drawing on feminist institutionalism, we show how parliaments operate as gendered institutions that systematically disadvantage women MPs, especially in policy areas deemed "high politics". Gender stereotypes confine women to debates on "social" or "gendered" issues, even when they possess comparable or superior expertise to male counterparts. To test these claims, we analyze oral questions posed by MPs in Spain’s Congreso de los Diputados and the Catalan Parliament (1996–2023). Using novel datasets that include MPs' academic and professional backgrounds, seniority, and committee memberships, we measure expertise and link it to participation across policy domains. Our findings reveal significant gendered patterns: women MPs without recognized expertise are more likely to debate "women’s issues," while men dominate high-stakes debates regardless of expertise. Variations across political systems and parties further highlight the mitigating effect of proactive gender equality policies, such as those in Catalonia. These findings underscore the need for institutional reforms to address gender biases in parliamentary access.