Emphasizing culture-war issues increases a political party’s chances of electoral victory

What's this about?

People disagree about whether culture-war topics help a party win more elections. These topics include abortion, newcomers, and gender rules.

What supporters say

• Culture-war topics can push voters who care deeply to show up and vote.
• Abortion fights can change turnout, party teams, and sometimes election results.
• A party can gain when voters see it as the clearest defender of their views.
• A random test found that culture-war views can affect some voters’ choices.

What critics say

• One topic does not help every party in every place or election.
• A party only gains if it brings in more supporters than it wakes up opponents.
• Talking more about an issue may not help if voters trust another party more.
• We cannot say that more culture-war talk leads to wins again and again.

The bottom line

Culture-war topics can matter, mainly when voters care a lot and see a clear choice. But the facts do not show that stressing these topics always gives a party a better chance to win.

Political parties often turn to abortion, immigration, gender and other divisive social questions to energize voters. But the evidence does not show that giving these “culture-war” issues more attention reliably raises a party’s odds of winning.

The case for

Cultural issues can be powerful because they motivate voters who care deeply about them. Research on abortion politics and abortion ballot measures shows that the issue can activate committed groups, affect turnout, reshape political alliances and, in some cases, change election results. If a party’s message brings more sympathetic voters to the polls than opponents, that turnout advantage can improve its position. Mobilization is most likely to matter when an issue is highly visible and voters see a clear stake in the outcome. 1

A party can also benefit when it has a strong reputation on a cultural issue. Studies of immigration-driven political change and the success of radical-right parties suggest that cultural grievances and immigration attitudes can boost support for parties identified with those views. The key is not simply discussing an issue, but whether voters see a party as the credible and distinctive champion of their position. Research on party brands similarly finds that an issue’s electoral value depends on voters’ prior beliefs about which party can best represent them. 2

There is also direct evidence that culture-war positions can influence vote choice. A randomized experiment asking voters to choose among party positions found that such positions matter for at least some people (see Figure 1). In the longer term, cultural conflicts may make voters rely more heavily on partisan identity and national party labels. Evidence from U.S. state parties shows that cultural conflict and polarization have grown in party agendas, while surveys find these issues are important to substantial, strongly partisan parts of the electorate (see Figures 2 and 3). 3

The case against

The central problem is that cultural conflict can energize a party’s opponents just as effectively as its supporters. Abortion politics offers a clear example. The issue can shape elections, but analysis of the 2022 U.S. midterms suggests abortion rights helped the side seen as resisting an extreme position among persuadable voters. In other words, making an issue more prominent does not automatically reward the party that chooses to emphasize it. 4

Immigration research points to a similar uncertainty. Cultural conflict can produce backlash, but it can also prompt inclusionary responses and mobilize voters against the party taking a hard line. That means the same strategy may win support from one group while losing it among another. A louder message does not guarantee a larger coalition.

Parties also win elections on more than cultural issues. Economic conditions, voters’ other priorities and the need to hold together a broad coalition can all limit the value of sharper cultural positioning. Research on radical-right voting finds that cultural concerns are intertwined with the economy, while other evidence shows that voters weigh several issue areas at once. Comparative studies of polarization suggest that strongly divisive positions can alienate moderates where victory depends on broad support. 5

Much of the available research shows that cultural issues are important, or that parties strategically choose to talk about them. That is not the same as proving that additional emphasis causes electoral victory. Long-term studies of party agendas, voter surveys and campaign statements establish salience and association, but often cannot isolate what would have happened if a party had emphasized the issue less.

The bottom line

The evidence supports a narrower conclusion: emphasizing culture-war issues can help, hurt or make little difference, depending on the issue, the voters involved, the party’s credibility and the wider electoral setting. Cultural issues clearly can affect turnout and vote choice, and parties with recognized ownership of an issue may gain from stressing it.

But there is no reliable, universal electoral premium for culture-war emphasis. Effects vary across abortion, immigration and other issues; they also vary by region, institutions and the competing messages offered by rivals. Even gains in turnout or vote share may not translate into winning office. 6

Confidence is high that cultural issues influence political behavior. Confidence is lower that simply increasing a party’s emphasis on them will, all else equal, improve its chances of victory. The strongest unanswered question is whether any gains survive counter-mobilization, economic concerns and the risk of losing moderate voters.