The impact of party competition on <scp>LGBTI</scp>+ rights: Evidence from Spanish autonomous regions (1990–2022)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Political competition accelerates the enactment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, and intersexual rights (LGBTI+) due to the dynamic, rational behavior of mainstream parties across the political aisle to adapt to the sociopolitical environment. We argue that LGBTI+ social movements capitalize on median voter shifts combined with the rising pressure of ideologically close challenger parties to enact legislation. To examine this argument, we employ quantitative event history analysis with a unique dataset with measures for social movement, institutional, political, and sociocultural dimensions across 33 years in Spanish subnational arenas. We find that rising leftist and liberal contenders challenging dominant center‐left and center‐right parties, respectively, widen the opportunity political structure of LGBTI+ organizations. Ultimately, rising political fragmentation in a multiparty, multidimensional party system turns both left and right mainstream parties into allies of LGBTI+ organizations, which propose new legislation, due to political platforms seeking to preserve and enhance their electoral base. Related Articles Burnett, Craig M., and Aaron S. King. 2015. “The Personal Politics of Same‐Sex Marriage.” Politics & Policy 43(4): 586–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12126 . Lewis, Gregory B., Marc A. Rogers, and Kenneth Sherrill. 2011. “Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Voters in the 2000 US Presidential Election.” Politics & Policy 39(5): 655–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2011.00315.x . Skipworth, Sue Ann, Andrew Garner, and Bryan J. Dettrey. 2010. “Limitations of the Contact Hypothesis: Heterogeneity in the Contact Effect on Attitudes toward Gay Rights.” Politics & Policy 38(5): 887–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2010.00262.x .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".