Why Has The US Never Elected a Woman President?

In 2025, the question isn’t why a woman could be president of the United States – it’s why, despite decades of qualification, support, and progress, it still hasn’t happened.

The US likes to imagine itself as a world leader in democracy and equality. Yet it lags far behind other developed nations when it comes to gender representation at the very top.

Over 60 countries have had at least one female head of government – among them Germany, the UK, New Zealand, Finland, and even Pakistan. The US has never come close.

And no, Kamala Harris isn’t an exception. She was vice president. She was also polling 10 – 15 points below Joe Biden during the 2020 Democratic primaries. Even as the second most powerful person in the country, her likability is still judged more harshly than her predecessor’s criminal indictments.

So why hasn't a woman cracked the ultimate glass ceiling in US politics?

The Masculinity of the Presidency

The American presidency has always been a masculine institution. From George Washington’s stoic paintings to Donald Trump’s reality-TV presence, the archetype of a ‘strong leader’ is deeply gendered and deeply entrenched.

Political psychologists have found that Americans unconsciously associate presidential leadership with stereotypical ‘masculine’ traits: strength, dominance, assertiveness, and decisiveness. Meanwhile, traits coded as feminine, like empathy, collaboration, or emotional intelligence, are seen as desirable in vice presidents or first ladies, but not in the Oval Office.

This doesn't mean voters consciously reject women. Instead, they struggle to comprehend a female candidate with their internalised expectations of what power looks like. A 2016 study published in Political Psychology found that many voters hold an implicit ‘masculine ideal’ of the presidency, so even when women demonstrate competence, it doesn’t always translate to support.

Hillary Clinton: Too Strong, Yet Still Not Enough

Clinton’s 2016 run exposed the full paradox of female presidential candidacy in America. She had more political experience than any modern nominee – serving as First Lady, US Senator and Secretary of State. She won nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump. And she still lost.

Her candidacy was both ground-breaking and revealing. Clinton was seen as too cold, too calculating, too ambitious – yet also too emotional, too dishonest, and somehow not ‘presidential’ enough. She was caricatured as both hypermasculine and overly feminine depending on the week.

A Harvard study found that women candidates receive more scrutiny on likability, authenticity and appearance, while men are judged more on leadership and policy. Clinton faced double standards from both voters and media. Her emails were treated as a national crisis; Trump’s racist and sexist remarks, meanwhile, were brushed off as ‘authentic.’

Even former FBI Director James Comey, whose last-minute email probe likely tipped the election, admitted she was held to a higher standard because of the ‘historical weight’ of being the first woman nominee.

Kamala Harris and the Problem of Being First

Kamala Harris’s vice presidency was historic. But her own presidential campaign collapsed in 2019 before a single vote was cast. Media coverage painted her as overly harsh when she prosecuted and too soft when she didn’t. She was either not ‘Black enough,’ not ‘Indian enough,’ or ‘too ambitious.’

Harris’s approval ratings have consistently lagged behind Biden’s, despite carrying much of the administration’s messaging work.

In a 2023 Gallup poll, more Americans viewed her unfavourably than favourably, even though most couldn’t name a policy she’d mishandled.

Gender and racial biases intersect here. Studies show that Black women face harsher judgments in leadership due to being perceived as both assertive and ‘unlikeable’. Harris, like Clinton, was often seen through a lens of suspicion – unapologetic ambition in men is leadership, but in women, it’s arrogance.

Religion and the Role of Traditional Values

The US is one of the few developed countries where religion plays an outsized role in politics. In 2023, 60% of Republicans said the country would be better off if it were more Christian. This matters because many evangelical and traditionalist voters hold deeply gendered views about leadership.

In conservative Christian values, men are seen as heads of households and leaders of church and nation. Female authority can be viewed as unnatural or even immoral. That translates into real political behaviour: white evangelical Protestants (over 70% of whom vote Republican) are among the least likely to support female presidential candidates.

This cultural undercurrent subtly shapes voting patterns, especially in key swing states where the evangelical vote can tip the scale.

Party Politics and Primary Pain

The U.S. two-party system also works against female candidates.

The Republican Party has embraced a hyper-masculine, populist identity. Female leaders like Nikki Haley or Liz Cheney are often pushed to the margins or punished for diverging from the party’s beliefs.

Democrats are more diverse and more likely to nominate women, but they’re also haunted by electability fears. After Clinton’s loss, many Democratic voters shied away from nominating another woman in 2020, fearing she’d lose to Trump again.

Even progressive voters internalise the belief that America isn’t ready. A 2020 Pew study showed that while most Americans say a woman could be president, a majority still think others wouldn’t vote for her.

 

The Electoral College and Geography of Bias

Unlike most democracies, US presidents aren’t elected by popular vote. They’re chosen via the Electoral College, which disproportionately weights rural, white, and conservative states. A vote in Wyoming carries more weight than a vote in California.

These swing states (Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, Florida) tend to lean culturally conservative. They’re also where gender biases are more pronounced. A 2019 study from the Brookings Institution found that states with high evangelical populations and lower gender equality metrics are less likely to vote for female candidates.

So even if a woman wins the national vote, like Clinton did in 2016, she can still lose the presidency.

Why Other Democracies Have Done Better

Globally, women have led some of the world’s largest democracies: Angela Merkel (Germany), Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand), Indira Gandhi (India), and Margaret Thatcher (UK). So what makes the US different?

Most of those nations have parliamentary systems, where party leaders are elected internally and then become prime minister. Voters don’t directly choose the head of government in a personality-driven, winner-takes-all showdown like they do in the U.S.

This reduces the pressure on personal likability and gendered charisma. It also allows parties to elevate competent women without forcing them to win over an entire electorate shaped by centuries of patriarchal norms.

What It Will Take

The US will elect a female president, but not without discomfort.

She will be overqualified, overly scrutinised and forced to walk a tightrope her male peers never had to.

We need voters to confront their biases and parties to nominate women without fear. We need media to ask better questions and stop rewarding brash masculinity over nuanced leadership.

Because the problem isn’t that women aren’t electable. It’s that the system isn’t designed to elect them.

References

Brookings Institution. (2024). How gender gaps could tip the presidential race in 2024.

Deckman, M. (2016). Tea Party Women: Mama Grizzlies, Grassroots Leaders, and the Changing Face of the American Right. NYU Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders. Harvard Business Review Press.

Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 923–936. 

 Pew Research Center. (2023). Public Religion Research Institute: American Values Survey.

Rosette, A. S., & Livingston, R. (2012). Failure is not an option for Black women: Effects of organizational performance on leaders with single vs. dual-subordinate identities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1162–1167.

Zurcher, A. (2016, November 6). Hillary Clinton emails - what’s it all about? BBC News.