Must-read
A Review of the Economics of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Badgett, Carpenter, Lee, and Sansone (Journal of Economic Literature, 2024)
LGBTQ Economics by Badgett, Carpenter, and Sansone (Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2021)
The Economics of Lesbian and Gay Families by Black, Sanders, Taylor (Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2007)
The reports from the National Academies on LGBTQI+ well-being (NASEM, 2020) and on measuring sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation (NASEM, 2023)
Maynard's Notes: the LGBTQ newsletter of the American Economic Association. See also newsletter from the ECQE
The Williams Institute regularly produces several LGBT-related policy reports and research working papers
Everything started from here
Badgett (ILR Review, 1995) is the first econ paper to analyze wage differentials by sexual orientation
Klawitter (Feminist Economics, 1998) speculated about possible reasons behind the lack of economic research on LGBT issues
Klawitter and Flatt (JPAM, 1998) on the effect of anti-discrimination policies on earnings and household income for gays and lesbians
Two books by Lee Badgett: Money, Myths, and Change (UChicago Press, 2001) and When Gay People Get Married (NYU Press, 2010)
Size of the LGBT population
Ipsos conducted a survey in 27 countries in 2021
According to Gallup, 4.5% of adults in the U.S. identified as LGBT in 2017. 8.2% among Millennials
Increase to 5.6% in 2020 (Gallup): 15.9% among Generation Z, 9.1% among Millennials
Increase to 7.1% in 2021 (Gallup): 20.8% among Generation Z, 10.5% among Millennials
Increase to 7.2% in 2022 (Gallup): 19.7% among Generation Z, 11.2% among Millennials
Increase to 7.6% in 2023 (Gallup): 22.3% among Generation Z, 9.8% among Millennials
Increase to 9.3% in 2024 (Gallup): 23.1% among Generation Z, 14.2% among Millenials
Official statistics have been released in the UK (2021 Census), Canada (2021 Census), Australia (ABS 2022), and New Zealand (2023 Census)
Older estimates:
Society at a Glance (OECD, 2019) collects several LGBT indicators in developed countries.
Stephens-Davidowitz (NYT, 2013) uses different Internet data sources to estimate that around 5% of American men are gay
Fisher et al. (Demography, 2018) estimate that around 0.48% of all US joint tax filers in 2015 were same-sex couples
According to Flores et al. (Williams Institute, 2022), approximately 0.5% of adults in the United States (1.3 million individuals) identify as transgender
Spizzirri et al. (Scientific Reports, 2021): almost 2% of individuals identify as transgender or non-binary in Brazil
Mishel (JOS, 2020): 20% of women and 10% of men aged 15–45 would comprise the LGB community if it were defined to include those who report gay/lesbian or bisexual identity, any same-sex attraction, or same-sex sex
Additional estimates from Ireland in Ceatha et al. (PRPR, 2023), from Austria in Teufl et al. (PGPH, 2025), from the US in Chandra and Nugent (Handbook, 2025)
Hu and Denier (Demography, 2023) look at how sexual orientation changes over the lifecycle in the UK: 6.6% of respondents changed their reported sexual orientation between 2013 and 2019. And it is not only young people who change their self-reported sexual orientation, so no evidence that it stabilizes in adulthood.
See also Hansen et al. (LGBT Health, 2024) documenting changes in both sexual orientation and gender identity over the life course.
See Silva (S&S, 2025) for a deep discussion on sexual identities, including heterosexuals report same-sex attraction and secondary identities such as bear or butch
See Carroll (Handbook, 2025) for an introduction to the demography of asexuality and aromanticism
See also summary by Koehler and Menzies (Handbook, 2023)
Genetics and other causes of sexual orientations
Preliminary studies in the '90s using small samples
Hamer et al. (Science, 1993): high rates of same-sex orientation in the maternal uncles and male cousins of homosexual men. They also isolated a relationship with the Xq28 region on the X chromosome
Hu et al (Nature, 1995) found a similar linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males (but not in females)
Rahman (N&BR, 2005): fraternal birth order effect on male sexual orientation
Långström et al. (ASB, 2010) use twins in Sweden. Genetic effects explained 34-39% of same-sex sexual behavior in men, 18-19% in women
Ganna et al. (Science, 2019): genetics could eventually account for an upper limit of 8 to 25% of same-sex sexual behavior of the population. However, they only manage to explain 1%. Summary by Mills (Science, 2019)
Ablaza et al. (JSR, 2022) re-examine the fraternal birth-order effect (supported) and the female-fecundity effect (not supported) using admin data from the Netherlands. See related comments and replies (Blanchard, JSR 2022; Semenyna et al., JSR 2022; Kabátek et al., JSR 2022)
Kabátek and Blanchard (ASB, 2024): older brothers increased the odds of homosexuality in both men and women in the UK, and older sisters increased the odds in men. Neither older brothers or older sisters affected the odds of bisexuality or asexuality in men or in women
Labor market
Meta-analysis by Klawitter (Industrial Relations, 2015): most studies show that gay men earn less and lesbians earn more than their heterosexual counterparts. See also Ozeren (Procedia, 2014), Drydakis (IZA WoL, 2019; JPopulEcon, 2021; Elgar, 2023), Waite et al. (PLOS ONE, 2019), Weichselbaumer (Handbook, 2022), Martínez (LATAM, 2025), Engin et al. (Handbook, 2025)
Most analyses on wage differentials are based on observational studies
First studies and related papers: Badgett (ILR Review, 1995; Feminist Economics, 1995); Allegretto and Arthur (ILR Review, 2001); Clain and Leppel (Applied Economics, 2001); Berg and Lien (CoEP, 2002); Black et al. (ILR Review, 2003); Blandford (ILR Review 2003); Plug and Berkhout (JPopulEcon, 2004); Arabsheibani et al. (IJM, 2004; Economica, 2005); Elmslie and Tebaldi (Applied Economics, 2006; JLaborRes, 2007); Jepsen (Industrial Relations, 2007); Heineck (AEL, 2009); Baumle and Poston (Social Forces, 2011); Sabia et al. (SEJ, 2017); Wang et al. (BJIR, 2018) Hansen et al. (JDemEcon, 2021); Medina (RSE, 2023)
Carpenter (CoEP, 2004; Labour Economics, 2007) and Sabia (ILR Review, 2014) confirm the penalty for gay men using health data
Carpenter (ILR Review, 2005): no effect of a gay or lesbian sexual orientation on earnings. Penalty for bisexuals
Antecol et al. (ILR Review 2008): any wage advantage for gays or lesbians can be explained by higher human capital accumulation
Carpenter (CJE, 2008): results for Canada similar to those in the U.S.
Daneshvary et al. (JLaborRes, 2008): nearly non-existent wage premium for lesbians when comparing women with high levels of education
Zavodny (REHO, 2008): cohabiting gay men do not earn significantly more than other gay men or more than unmarried heterosexual men. Se also Martell and Nash (JLaborRes, 2020) and Fortes de Lena and Boertien (JoMF, 2025) for more on the marriage premium
Daneshvary et al. (Industrial Relations, 2009): wages of never‐married lesbians are higher than wages of previously married lesbians
Ahmed and Hammarstedt (JPopulEcon, 2010) confirm the wage gap for gay men using admin data
Drydakis (Applied Economics, 2012): wage penalty for gay and bisexual men in Greece
Laurent et al. (JLaborRes, 2012): wage penalty for gay, but not for lesbians, in France. Laurent et al. (JLaborRes, 2017) also look at unemployment and participation rates
Ahmed et al. (REHO, 2013): earning disadvantage for gays and earning advantage for lesbians observed in monthly admin data
Antecol and Steinberger (Economic Inquiry, 2013) emphasize the importance of distinguishing between primary and secondary earners in lesbian couples. Controlling for children significantly reduces the earning and working hour gaps between married women and secondary lesbian earners
Simlarly, Ahmed et al. (BJIR, 2011) note the importance of comparing both individual and household incomes
Martell (Eastern Econ J, 2013) develops a model where where gay workers accept lower wages in exchange for being able to reveal their sexual orientation within a tolerant firm
Hammarstedt et al. (Feminist Economics, 2015): prejudice against homosexuals negatively affects labor market outcomes for gays and lesbians
La Nauze (ELRR, 2015) finds wage penalties for gay men and wage premiums for lesbian women in Australia. Compare to Preston et al. (IJM, 2020)
Sabia (Industrial Relations, 2015) compares siblings with different sexual orientation, as well as individuals who came out recently/years before
Humpert (IJM, 2016) finds income penalties for gay men and premiums for lesbian women in Germany
Mize (ASR, 2016): bisexual individuals face wage penalties not explained by human capital differences or occupational characteristics
Carpenter and Eppink (SEJ, 2017) find for the first time an earning premium for gay men. Consistent with positive time trend highlighted in Cushing-Daniels (CoEP, 2009); Clarke and Sevak (Economics Letters, 2013). See instead Waite (SSR, 2015) for Canada
See Badgett et al. (JEP, 2021); Jepsen and Jepsen (Labour Economics, 2021) for a general discussion on wage gaps in the US over time
Martell and Hansen (RSE, 2017) emphasize the differenze between sexual orientation and sexual behavior proxies
Aksoy et al (ILR Review, 2018) replicate the lesbian advantage and gay male penalty in couples-based comparisons but show that these effects are absent in similarly specified models of non-partnered workers. They also find evidence of a penalty for bisexual workers
Curley (Feminist Economics, 2018): self-identification as LGB and/or same-sex sexual behavior correlated with lower income. Statistically significant negative income differential for men who report having had a same-sex partner at some point, but identify as straight/heterosexual
Dilmaghani (JLaborRes, 2018): positive lesbian wage premium in Canada, but lower household income. No gay wage gap.
Brown et al. (Feminist Economics, 2019): lower participation rate for gay men, higher one for lesbian women in Chile and Uruguay. See also Mantovani et al. (IJM, 2023) for Brazil
del Río and Alonso-Villar (IndustrialRelations, 2019): intersection of race, gender and sexual orientation in occupational achievements and earnings. See also del Río and Alonso-Villar (WoL, 2025)
Mok (JHomosexuality, 2024) explore wage gaps by sexual orientation, race, and migration status. For white and US-born women, lesbian women earn the most, followed by heterosexual women, then bisexual women; however, for non-white women, bisexual women earn the most and lesbian women earn the least
Burn (ILR Review, 2020): an increase in the share of individuals in a state who are prejudiced toward homosexuals is correlated with a decrease in the wages of gay men. The prejudice of managers - not of customers or co-workers - is responsible for this correlation
Bridges and Mann (WES, 2019): wage premium for gay cohabitees and lesbians in Britain compared to their heterosexual counterparts, legally partnered gay men should earn more given their observable characteristics
Burn and Martell (BJIR, 2022): sexual orientation labor market differentials are not affected by controlling for differences in masculinity and femininity
González and Sönmez (JFamiyIusses, 2022) find a wage penalty for men in same-sex couples in Spain, but no differences for women in same-sex couples after controlling for human capital characteristics
Mumford et al. (IZA, 2021) analyze the LGB wage gap in England National Health Service and the impact of workplace disclosure
Alexeev (IJM, 2022) surprisingly finds no wage gap for gay men in Russia, casting doubts on the methodology and data commonly used in the literature
Oreffice and Sansone (PLOS ONE, 2022): Individuals in same-sex couples less likely to drive to work than individuals in different-sex couples. These disparities may be due to LGB individuals valuing the environment more than straight individuals
Levendis and Lowen (JFEI, 2022): wage gap between lesbians and heterosexual women shrank or inverted in those states which legalized adoption by same-sex couples
Folch (SSRN, 2022) confirms wage gaps in the US for sexual and gender minorities using longitudinal data. Closeted college graduates have worse outcomes
Sarzosa (JEBO, 2023) builds a structural model to allow schooling, employment, and income to be endogenously determined. Evidence of selection into employment: the average sexual-minority worker is more skilled than their heterosexual counterpart
Oreffice and Sansone (Labour Economics, 2023) found that women in same-sex couples commute longer to their workplace than women in different-sex couples: this is consistent with gender-conforming social norms inducing women in different-sex couples to accept less-rewarding jobs closer to home
Carpenter et al. (Economics Letters, 2024): lower earnings for men in same-sex couples and higher earnings for women in same-sex couples in New Zealand
Oi (JHomosexuality, 2023) compares education and earning levels for individuals who experienced same-sex sexuality in adolescence versus adulthood
Banan et al. (WP, 2023) compare socio-economic outcomes in adulthood between gender-conforming and gender-noncomforming children.
Tampellini (JDE, 2024) finds wage premiums for lesbian women and no wage differences for gay men or bisexual individuals in Brazil. Graves and Trond (Labour Economics, 2024) document instead wage penalties for gay men. See also Braga and Heintz (WP, 2025)
Denier et al. (RSSM, 2024) compare earnings trajectories of individuals in same-sex and different-sex couples over time and over the life cycle using longitudinal administrative data from Canada
Yang et al. (Demographic Research, 2025) highlights challenges and opportunities involved with using administrative data in Canada, proposing adjustment strategies to mitigate underreporting, misclassification, and measurement errors in identifying same-sex couples
Review for Canada by Denier and Waite (Handbook, 0252)
Bogusz and Gromadzki (SSRN, 2024) analyze employment data on same-sex couples using surveys from countries where same-sex marriage is legal. See also Hassani-Nezhad et al. (ILO, 2024)
Muñoz et al. (IDB, 2024) document socio-economic disparities between same-sex and different-sex couples using census data from several countries in Latin America
Muñoz et al. (IDB, 2024): pronounced levels of self-reported discrimination and workplace rejection experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals in Mexico
Gutierrez and Rubli (JEBO, 2025) expand on this by noting that LGBTQ+ individuals in Mexico are over-represented in sectors with lower stigma
Carpenter et al. (JERP, 2024): employment and income penalties for heterosexual men who report same-sex attraction. No similar penalties for heterosexual women who report same-sex attraction
Coron (EDI, 2025) estimate lesbian premium and gay wage penalties in 25 European countries, and test how these gaps are linked to homophobic attitudes at national levels
Occupational sorting
Ahmed et al. (Economic Bulletin, 2011) find occupational sorting in Sweden
Plug et al. (JoLE, 2014): gay and lesbian workers sort into tolerant occupation
Cerf (IndustrialRelations, 2016): partnered gay men choose jobs with lower income and higher amenities. Test predictions with data from Canada.
Martell (CoEP, 2018): higher wage penalty for gay men in occupations with low level of worker independence
del Río and Alonso-Villar (REHO, 2019) investigate the importance of the occupational sorting of individuals in same-sex couples in explaining the economic position of lesbian women and gay men
Hughes (ScienceAdvances, 2018), Carpenter and Sansone (PLOS ONE, 2020), Cech and Waidzunas (ScienceAdvances, 2021; W&O, 2022), Hughes and Kothari (JHomosexuality, 2021) discuss representation of sexual minorities in STEM. See also Cech (ScienceAdvances, 2022), Wilton Park (Report, 2023), Reidy et al. (SS&M, 2023)
Carrasco and Nuevo-Chiquero (IZA, 2024): women in same-sex couples are more likely to be employed in occupations characterized by more abstract and manual tasks, and fewer routine components
Correspondence and other experiments
Literature reviews by Neumark (JEL, 2018); Flage (IJM, 2019); Lippens et al. (EuroEcoRev, 2023; IZA, 2025)
Weichselbaumer (Labour Economics, 2003): lower call-back rates for lesbians in Austria
Drydakis (Labour Economics, 2009) and Drydakis (Feminist Economics, 2011) in Greece
Drydakis (REHO, 2022) replicates the previous field experiments and finds higher levels of discrimination during economic recessions, plus looks separately at taste-based and statistical discrimination
Tilcsik (AJS, 2011) in the US. No difference in callback rates in areas with anti-discrimination laws and significantly fewer callbacks on LGB resumes in areas without similar laws
Ahmed et al. (SEJ, 2013) in Sweden
Bailey et al. (JHomosexuality, 2013): no difference in call-back rates in 4 U.S. cities
Drydakis (IJM, 2014): bias against gays and lesbians in Cyprus. He shows that discrimination is a matter of preference, not limited information
Baert (IRJ, 2014): relative to lesbian women, young heterosexual women are penalized for getting children more frequently and taking on, on average, more at-home-caring tasks
Weichselbaumer (Industrial Relations, 2015) compares discrimination against single and married lesbians in Germany
Patacchini et al. (JPopulEcon, 2015) in Italy. Penalty for gays, but not for lesbians
Baert (JHomosexuality, 2018) links hiring discrimination against gay men to risk-aversion among employers
Buser et al. (JEBO, 2018): gay men compete less than straight men, while lesbians compete as much as straight women. Differences in competitive preferences can partially explain the gay earnings penalty but not the lesbian premium
Gorsuch (ILR Review, 2019): men and women in online lab experiments asked to evaluate resumes with or without LGBT activities, and using feminine/masculine adjectives. Penalty for men using LGBT activities, non-LGBT women using masculine adjectives
Acquisti and Fong (MS, 2020) create profiles for job candidates on popular social networks and submit job applications on their behalf to over 4,000 employers. They find evidence of employers searching online for the candidates, but find no difference in callback rates for gay candidates
Mejia and Parker (MS, 2021): ride-sharing drivers in Washington DC were more likely to cancel a job if the passenger’s profile photo had a rainbow flag
Kline et al. (QJE, 2022): no significant penalty in correspondence experiment among large US employers for membership in a LGBTQ club or for listing gender-neutral pronouns next to an applicant’s name
On the other hand, Eames (SSRN, 2024) finds a much larger penalty for disclosing "they/them" pronouns that is even larger in more conservative counties. Results are inconclusive as to whether presumed cisgender applicants who disclose pronouns are discriminated against.
See also Eames (AEA P&P, 2025) for the intersection of sex and nonbinary gender identity on discrimination in correspondence experiments
Sterkens et al. (JPopE, 2025) use vignette experiments with real recruiters. Minority of employers responsible for most of the hiring discrimination. Lesbian women perceived as more pleasant to work with, opposite for gay men
Pickett et al. (Socius, 2024) use conjoint experiments to show partisan discrimination in hiring against non-binary individuals and distate for non-binart neighbors
Dilmaghani and Robinson (RSE, 2022): correspondence experiment among blue-collar jobs in Canada. Penalty for queer men, not for women
Mourelatos (JBEE, 2023): employer's positive (negative) mood may decrease (increase) discrimination levels
Zanoni et al. (Labour Economics, 2024): fictitious job applications evaluated by human resource analysts in Ecuador. Positive discrimination for female lesbian candidates, negative discrimination for male gay candidates
Zindel and de Vries (PLoS ONE, 2024): the role of an LGBTQ-friendly work climate is comparable with income in driving respondents’ decisions in a discrete choice experiment
Listo et al. (ArXiv, 2025): individuals in Chile misreport their level of comfort with gay workers and underestimate broader societal support for gay employees and co-workers
Smerdon et al. (PNAS, 2025): discrimination against posts by gay men in an Australian gig economy platform if the tasks involved working in close proximity with the poster
Effects of anti-discrimination laws
Hatzenbuehler et al. (AJPH, 2009): higher levels of psychological disorders among gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals living in states without laws extending protections against hate crimes and employment discrimination based on sexual orientation
Leppel (Economica, 2009) analyzes the impact of anti-discrimination laws on employment levels of same-sex couples
Klawitter (JPAM, 2011): the strongest evidence of effects for anti-discrimination policies is for weeks of employment and for gay men who are in the private sector, white, and in the upper half of the earnings distribution. Not much for lesbians
Martell (JLaborRes, 2013): employment non-discrimination acts decrease the wage gap for gay men
Gao and Zhang (Management Science, 2016): U.S. state-level employment nondiscrimination acts spur firm innovation
Levy and Levy (SSR, 2017): Hate crime and employment non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation reduce hate crime incidence
Burn (JLaborRes, 2018): enacting an employment non-discrimination act is associated with increased wages of gay men and decreased employment of lesbian women
Baumle et al. (JHomosexuality, 2020) describe data on charges for sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination filed at the EEOC
Conti et al. (SMJ, 2021): employment non-discrimination acts reduced the quantity of entrepreneurship but increased its quality
Deal (Economics Letters, 2022): the 2020 US Supreme Court decision banning employment discrimination improved attitudes towards LGBT people. See also Deal (AEA P&P, 2023) for additional heterogeneity
Aksoy et al. (AEA P&P, 2023): Only 71% of Americans think that sexual orientation is legally protected from employment discrimination. And sexual minorities are as uninformed as heterosexual individuals
Graves and Trond (Labour Economics, 2024): reductions in employment, but higher income and hourly earnings for those still working among lesbian women after the passage of an employment non-discrimination act in Brazil
Liu et al. (JAMA Psychiatry, 2025) employed sexual minority adults residing in states that gained employment nondiscrimination protection after the 2020 US Supreme Court decision experienced an improvement in mental health compared with those in states that already had protections in place
Review of LGBTQI+ workplace anti-discrimination laws around the world by Weistroffer et al. (SRSP, 2025)
Other labor market, discrimination, and business papers
The Economic Case for LGBT Equality (BeaconPress, 2020) by Lee Badgett provides a nice review of the literature on the cost of LGBT discrimination in terms of economic, education, health and business productivity losses
Incidence of self-employment by sexual orientation
Leppel (SME, 2016); Jepsen and Jepsen (REHO, 2017) for the US
Waite and Denier (CaRS, 2016) for Canada. See also Pajovic et al. (CaRS, 2023)
Ahmed and Hammarstedt (JHomosexuality, 2021): university students were less positive to a restaurant opening on campus if the owners were lesbians, were less interested in an available job with gay owners, and had higher reservation wages with lesbian owners
Backman et al (SME, 2024): sexual minority men in Sweden less likely to be entrepreneurs, sexual minority women more likely. Firms founded by sexual minority women fail more quickly, no significant survival difference for sexual minority men
Carpenter et al. (JHR, 2025): sexual minority individuals in Sweden are significantly more likely than otherwise similar heterosexual individuals to hold multiple jobs
Business and finance
Shanaev et al. (RIBF, 2023) analyze stock performance of firms led by LGBT CEOs
Brahma et al. (IRFA, 2023) review the LGBTQ business and finance literature
Hossain et al. (JBusEthics, 2020): positive relationship between the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index and firm innovation or performance. See also Do et al. (JEBO, 2022) and the HRC report. But see null result for Brazil in da Silva and Dalmacio (RC&F, 2025)
Ahmed and Hammarstedt (JHomosexuality, 2022): students were less positive to a restaurant opening on campus if the owners were lesbians, and they were less interested in an available job if the owners were gay
Other
Berg and Lien (REHO, 2009): gays and lesbians report lying more often in cyberspace than heterosexuals
Gneezy et al. (NBER, 2012) conducted an audit study in car dealerships with same-sex couples vs friends finding evidence of statistical discrimination from White salesmen and taste-based discrimination from racial minority dealers
Aksoy et al. (JEBO, 2019) on the "gay glass ceiling". Column on VoxEU. Similar research in UK academia by Frank (Economica, 2006). See also de Vries and Steinmetz (WES, 2023)
Esteban et al. (EuroEcoRev, 2019): religious individuals reduce their labor supply in response to an increase of personal liberties in society (including LGBT rights)
Cech and Rothwell (ILR Review, 2020) look at subtle forms of workplace discrimination. The emphasize intersectionality with race and gender
Lauriano and Coacci (AMJ, 2021) discuss the relationship between disclosure at work and on social network sites
Hoffman and Velasco (IMR, 2024): immigrants in same-sex couples come from richer, more democratic countries. They tend to be more highly educated, work in more prestigious occupations, and have higher income
Brox and Di Francesco (SSRN, 2024): negative impact of coming out for a playable character in a popular online video game. See also Parshakov et al. (JBE, 2023)
Health, life satisfaction, and health insurance
See review by Barbee (Handbook, 2025)
Health
Boehmer (AJPH, 2002) emphasized the lack of medical research on sexual and gender minorities: LGBT issues were addressed by 0.1% of all Medline articles
Carpenter (Gender Issues, 2003): gay men less likely to be obese relative to their heterosexual counterparts, lesbians more likely to be obese
Dilmaghani and Tabvuma (SSRN, 2025) look at the relationship between overweight and wages by sexual orientation
Bostwick et al. (AJPH, 2010): high levels of mood and anxiety disorders among sexual minority groups.
Conron et al. (AJPH, 2010) examine self-reported health (and domestic violence) by sexual orientation. See also Gorman et al. (Demography, 2015)
Francis and Mialon (JHE, 2010): tolerance is negatively associated with HIV rates
Haas et al. (JHomosexuality, 2010) discuss sucide among LGBT individuals
Boehmer et al. (Cancer, 2011) look at the relationship between cancer and sexual orientation. See also Rosario et al. (AJPH, 2014)
Coulter et al. (AJPH, 2014): excluding projects about HIV/AIDS and other sexual health matters, only 0.1% of all NIH-funded studies concerned LGBT health
Reczek et al. (JoMF, 2014): it is cohabitation status - not same‐sex status - that is associated with elevated alcohol rates
Hatzenbuehler et al. (SocScie&Med, 2014): shorter life expectancy of 12 years for sexual minorities living in high-prejudice communities. But Regnerus (SocScie&Med, 2017) fails to replicate their results
Sabin et al. (AJPH, 2015): implicit preferences for heterosexual people versus lesbian and gay people are pervasive among heterosexual health care providers
Reczek et al. (SSResearch, 2017) look at the relationship between health, sexual orientation, and union status. See also Solazzo et al. (Demography, 2020)
Carpenter and Sansone (JHE, 2021): cigarette-tax increases reduced smoking among men in same-sex households. These effects were significantly larger than for men in different-sex households
Chou et al. (NBER, 2025): e-cigarette taxes reduce vaping among heterosexual teens but not among queer youth, likely due to their dependence on e-cigarettes to cope with unique stress-related psychological challenges
Holloway et al. (PLOS ONE, 2020) document PrEP familiarity, attitudes, and use over time among gay and bisexual men in the US
Liu and Reczek (Demography, 2021): health disadvantages of GLB individuals have increased across birth cohorts
Urwin et al. (HealthEconomics, 2021) exploit a UK longitudinal survey asking sexual orientation twice to investigate variations in sexual minority health estimates
Lennon (E&HB, 2022): PrEP increased the cost of providing medical insurance for employers, leading to a reduction in earnings and full-time employment among sexual minority men
Dillender (AER, 2023) discuss the impact of the Ryan White CARE Act to combact HIV/AIDS
Mann (BEJEAP, 2023): PrEP availability led to around 15–20 % fewer new HIV infections in 40 European countries
Nettuno et al. (PLoS ONE, 2024) report health disparities by sexual orientation in Chile
Berlingieri and Kovaci (JPopE, 2025) report health disparitied by sexual orientation in Europe
Happiness and mental health
Evidence of discrimination/minority stress and health outcomes in the LGBT community have been documented by Meyer (JHSB, 1995); Mays and Cochran (AJPH, 2001); Huebner et al. (AJPH, 2004); Carpenter (REHO, 2008). See also Drydakis (IZA, 2022) and meta-analysis by Wittgens et al. (AcPS, 2022)
Meyer et al. (PLOS ONE, 2021): younger cohort coming out much earlier than older cohorts in the US (see Caprinali and Vitaly DemRes, 2025 for Europe). But no signs that the improved social environment attenuated exposure to minority stressors. Psychological distress and suicide behavior also were not improved
See also Mann et al. (AmePre, 2024) for age profiles of suicide attempt among sexual minority adolescents
VanBergen et al. (FaRe, 2025) report higher suicide risk among bisexual and queer individuals than other sexual minorities
Leppel (Industrial Relations, 2014) and Drydakis (Industrial Relations, 2015): lower level of job satisfaction among gays and lesbians. Compare to Bayrakdar and King (WES, 2021). See also Wang et al. (BJIR, 2022)
Leppel and Clain (Eastern Econ J, 2015): lower job satisfaction for married gays and lesbians than married heterosexual men and women
Aldén et al. (JLaborRes, 2020): gay men in Sweden are more satisfied with their job than heterosexual men, lesbians appear less satisfied with their job. Gays and lesbians find their job more mentally straining than heterosexuals
Powdthavee and Wooden (JEBO, 2015): lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals are significantly less satisfied with their lives
Chen and van Ours (Demography, 2018): increases in well-being among same-sex couples from cohabitation and marriage.
Similar to Wight et al. (AJPH, 2013).
Dilmaghani (REHO, 2019) finds a larger cohabitation gap in Canada for gay men but not for lesbians
Fewer benefits found in Sabia et al. (E&HB, 2018).
Hsieh and Liu (Demography, 2019): married bisexuals, especially in different-gender unions, exhibit poorer health than unmarried bisexuals
Mann et al. (Economics Letters, 2019): lesbians tend to be happier than their heterosexual counterparts in the UK. Bisexuals are the least satisfied.
Assink et al. (JHomosexuality, 2021) look at mental health levels among sexual minority parents
Fischer and Kalmijn (JFP, 2020) compare the relationship of individuals in same-sex and different-sex couples with their parents in the Netherlands, as well as when they moved out of their parents' house.
More research on well-being: Stacey et al. (Demography, 2022)
Meyerhoefer et al. (JHE, 2025): increase in suicide attempts and fatalities due to anti-LGBT laws in Poland
Morales (PRPR, 2024) links mental health disparities and food insecurity
Lin et al. (JHSB, 2025): sexual minority respondents experience higher levels of social isolation than heterosexual respondents
Martell (SEJ, 2025): LGBT people more likely to experience symptoms of depression and higher incidences of economic hardship, but these higher rates of hardship do little to explain the differential likelihoods of experiencing depression
Conversion therapy
Salway et a. (PLOS ONE, 2021) document conversion therapy practices in Canada
Campbell et al. (JHealthE, 2023): exposure to conversion therapy substantially increases the likelihood a transgender adolescent will attempt suicide and run away
Harrell (WP, 2023): conversion therapy bans lead to reductions in deaths by suicide and improvements in self-reported mental health. See also Overhage et al. (HRS, 2025)
Health insurance
Buchmueller and Carpenter (AJPH, 2010): men and women in same-sex couples are less likely to have health insurance than individuals in different-sex relationships. See also Ash and Badgett (CEP, 2008)
Buchmueller and Carpenter (JPAM, 2012): increases in health insurance coverage for lesbians, but not gays, following the extension of employer-sponsored insurance to same-sex partners in California
Gonzales and Blewett (AJPH, 2014): men and women in same-sex relationships are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance than their married counterparts in opposite-sex relationships
Gonzales and Ortiz (AJPH, 2015) examined disparities in health insurance coverage for racial/ethnic minorities in same-sex relationships
Gonzales et al. (HSR, 2020) document US trends in health insurance coverage for sexual minorities between 2013 and 2018
Carpenter et al. (Demography, 2021): increases in health insurance coverage among sexual minority young adults following the Affordable Care Act dependent coverage mandate
Gavulic and Gonzales (MCRR, 2021): men in same-sex couples more likely to spend more on health care, especially on prescription (antiviral) medications; women in same-sex couples more likely to experience financial burden due to health care expenditures
Mann et al. (HSR, 2023): health insurance coverage increased among sexual minorities following the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion
Education
Education levels
Russell et al. (JAdolescence, 2001) describe school outcomes among sexual minority youth
Carpenter (EconEduRev, 2009): gay males have higher college GPA and perceive their academic work as more important than heterosexual students
Pearson et al (JHomosexuality, 2017) describe college completion rates among sexual minorities
Burn and Martell (EducationEconomics, 2020) analyze differences in human capital accumulation by sexual orientation
Sansone (EconEduRev, 2019): LGBT students in the U.S. are less likely to graduate from high school and attend college, have lower educational expectations, a lower sense of school belonging, and are more likely to have been affected by discrimination
Mittleman (ASR, 2022): distinguishes between educational advantage for gay boys and disadvantage for lesbian girls
Beattie et al. (Sociology Compass, 2021) review the social science literature on LGBQ+ college students' academic outcomes
Kasprowski et al. (European Societies, 2025): both LGB men and women have higher educational attainment in Germany, especially among LGB people with disadvantaged social origin. Consistent with "queer habitus” hypothesis: having an LGB identity can lead to weaker family-of-origin ties and disrupt people's class habitus
Bullying, mental health, and discrimination
Bontempo and D'Augelli (JAdoHealth, 2002) look at the relation between sexual orientation, at-school victimization, and health risk behaviors
Almeida et al. (JYA, 2009): high level of emotional distress among LGBT youth. Similarly, Oswalt et al. (JHomosexuality, 2011) find higher levels of mental health issues and a more frequent impact on academics because of these issues among LBG students
Drydakis (IJM, 2014) looks at bullying in school and labor market outcomes in adulthood
Diaz-Serrano and Meix-Llop (EconEduRev, 2016): gay couples had a significantly lower call-back probability than heterosexual couples when sending pre-registration emails to schools. No difference for lesbian couples
Similarly, schools in Colombia are less likely to respond to a request sent by a same-sex couple with respect to one sent by a different-sex one (Cantet et al., Labour Economics 2024)
See also Unesco 2016 report on homophobic and transphobic violence in school
Humphries et al. (JAdoHealth, 2021): LGB students had higher rates of both suicide attempts and experiencing bullying.
Rees et al. (JPAM, 2022): anti-bullying laws reduce depression, suicidal intentions, and suicide rates, especially among LGB students. See also Liang et al. (JAMA, 2023)
Mumma (EdWP, 2022) looks at how many libraries in US public schools have LGBTQ+ books, and whether the share is lower in conservative areas
See also Burghardt (JHomosexuality, 2024) for how same-sex couples are depicted in children's books
Frisancho et al. (JERP, 2025) discuss the relationship between sexual orientation, gender identity, and school victimization and conflict
Marcotte and Hansen (JPAM, 2024): bullying victimization of LGBTQ youth can partially explain the recent rise in suicide rates among young people in the US
Maupin and McCannon (SHE, 2024): higher response rate for emails to admission counselors which included preferred pronouns (regardless of the type of pronoun used)
Mittleman (SSMMH, 2025): LGBTQ+ youth are almost as likely to be abused by an adult in their home as they are to be bullied by a peer at their school. Both are linked to higher suicide risk
Carcillo et al. (IZA, 2025) evaluate school-based interventions aimed at reducing LGBTphobia in France
Student evaluations and academia
Russ et al. (CE, 2002) and De Sousa et al. (ECC, 2017): students consistently rated the "heterosexual" speaker more positively than the "gay" speaker after the same speaker mentioned in passing the name of his same/different-sex partner
Ewing et al. (JSP, 2003): after strong lectures, participants rated gay male and lesbian lecturers more negatively than they did lecturers whose sexual orientation was unspecified. After weak lectures, participants rated gay male and lesbian lecturers more positively
Anderson and Kanner (JASP, 2011): lesbian and gay professors who teach a course on human sexuality viewed as more biased than heterosexual professors teaching the same course with the same syllabus.
Nelson et al. (PLOS ONE, 2022): scientists who did not disclose LGBTQA identities in professional settings authored fewer peer-reviewed publications
Others
Aksoy et al. (NBER, 2024): gender minorities are less confident in math and science and provide less favorable self-evaluations than men. These confidence and self-evaluation measures are highly predictive of future academic performance.
Bellows et al. (ER, 2025): 3.3%-3.5% of LGBTQ+ individuals are teachers in the US; 4.4%-4.9% of non-LGBTQ+ individuals are teachers
Housing and household wealth
Housing market
Black et al (JUEC, 2002): gay men sort into high-amenity locations because of their lower fertility rates. See also Vossen et al. (Regional Studies, 2019)
Leppel (Feminist Economics, 2007), Jepsen and Jepsen (RSUE, 2009) compare home-ownership rates among same-sex and opposite-sex couples. See also Jepsen and Jepsen (REHO, 2025)
Negrusa and Oreffice (REHO, 2011): lesbian couples pay higher annual mortgages relative to house value than do heterosexual or gay couples
Christafore and Leguizamon (UAR, 2018): areas with more same-sex coupled households have a higher predicted probability of gentrifying
Sun and Gao (PNAS, 2019): same-sex applicants are more likely to be denied a mortgage in the US, and they are charged higher fees/interest. See also Dillbary and Edwards (UCLR, 2019) and Moon et al. (AnnEpidem, 2025)
Kent and Scott (AEA P&P, 2024): transgender and bisexual people have the lowest homeownership rates
Goodnature et al. (JREFE, 2025) provide evidence that same-sex couples are linked to gentrification
Rental market
Ahmed et al. (JHousE, 2008; Economica, 2009) find discrimination in the Swedish housing market for gays (but not for lesbians) by sending fictitious applications to vacant apartments
Jones (JHomosexuality, 2009) find discrimination against fictitious same-sex couples in hotel reservations
Murchie and Pang (RSUE, 2018): gay couples receive preferential treatment from landlords when applying on Craiglist for rentals
Ahuja and Lyons (OEP, 2019) show evidence of discrimination on Airbnb for male same-sex couples.
Kakar et al. (JHousingE, 2018) do not find instead any significant impact of the host's sexual orientation on Airbnb rental listing price
Gouveia et al. (JHousingE, 2020) find discrimination against male same-sex couples in Portugal's rental market. This discriminatory effect is decreasing in the religiosity of a parish.
Hellyer (JHousingE, 2021): landlords do not respond at substantially different rates to inquiries on from same-sex or opposite-sex couples in rural or urban rental markets, nor do response rates differ between states with anti-discrimination ordinances and those without
Flage (Economic Bulletin, 2021) provides a meta-analysis on sexual orientation discrimination in the rental housing market
Abbate et al. (Labour Economics, 2024) conduct a correspondence experiment in the rental market in Latin America. Evidence of statistical discrimination against couples with a transgender individual. No evidence of discrimination against gay male couples.
See also Fritzson and Jansson (JHE, 2025) for a correspondence experiment in Sweden: transgender applicants receive fewer positive respondes than cisgender female applicants, but more than cisgender male applicants
Tomlin (Economics Letters, 2024): disclosing preferred pronouns significantly reduced response rates from landlords for both cisgender and transgender individuals looking for a rental apartment
Haggar (JERP, 2025): households headed by transgender individuals experience higher rent burden
Income and wealth
Klawitter (REHO, 2008): opposite-sex married couples are more likely to hold money jointly than same-sex (unmarried) couples
Schneebaum et al. (Feminist Economics, 2019) estimate poverty rates for same-sex couples
See also Badgett (PRPR, 2018): bisexual women and men are significantly more likely to be poor, regardless of relationship status
Cho (AEL, 2022): households with a male or a female sexual minority adult are more likely to be food insecure
Martell and Roncolato (PRPR, 2023) discuss economic vulnerability among sexual minorities during the Covid-19 pandemic. See also Deal et al. (JPopE, 2024)
Alonso-Villar and del Río (JEI, 2023) measure both absolute and relative poverty, and discuss different poverty indicators
Alonso-Villar and del Río (REHO, 2025): male same-sex couples benefit from gender advantage and higher probability of two-earner couples, while gender wage gaps strongly penalize female same-sex couples
Henderson et al. (ASAP, 2024) compare social safety net program utilization between LGBT and non-LGBT adults in the US
Badgett et al. (Williams Institute, 2014): increasing minimum wage would reduce poverty among same-sex couples
Dujeancourt et al. (SER, 2024) investigate the link between wealth and sexual orientation across genders using Swedish administrative data and employing unconditional quantile regressions and sibling fixed effects
Carpenter et al. (JEBO, 2025): sexual minorities in the US experience significantly more financial insecurity than similarly situated heterosexual individuals
Within-household dynamics
Assortative mating
Jepsen and Jepsen (Demography, 2002) find – in line with heterosexual couples - positive assortative mating among same-sex couples
Schwartz et al. (DemographicResearch, 2009): same-sex couples are less likely to be homogamous than different-sex couples
Analysis extended by Ciscato et al. (JPE, 2019):
different-sex couples exhibit a higher degree of assortativeness than same-sex ones with respect to age and ethnicity
sorting on education is stronger among female same-sex couples than different-sex couples
the process of specialization within the household mainly applies to different-sex couples
Allen et al. (REHO, 2017) build a model to link fertility with matching patterns in same-sex and different-sex couples
Whyte et al. (Applied Economics, 2019) analyze data on Australian online dating. They find that bisexual and pansexual women (but not men) enjoy a market premium
Manning et al. (Demography, 2022) discuss selection into cohabitation and marriage in same-sex and different-sex couples
Muñoz and Sansone (AEA P&P, 2024) analyze matching patterns among same-sex and different-sex couples in Latin America
Möllborn and Kolk (WP, 2024): the characteristics of people entering same-sex marriages have become increasingly similar over time to those entering different-sex marriages in Sweden, especially for women entering same-sex unions
See Mollborn et al. (Genus, 2025) for trends in the prevalence of parenthood and the sociodemographic characteristics of people with versus without coresident children in same- versus different-sex legal unions in Sweden since 1995
Ciscato and Goussé (IZA, 2024) estimate a multidimensional matching model of the marriage market to show that same-sex couples experience lower gains from live-in relationships
Stability
Manning et al. (Demography, 2016), Joyner et al. (Demography, 2017), and Marteau (Population, 2019) discuss relationship stability among same-sex and different-sex couples. See also Vallejo and Boertien (DemographicResearch, 2021) and Ponkilainen et al. (JoMF, 2025)
Chen and van Ours (JEBO, 2020): partnerships that were transformed into marriage in the Netherlands had a substantially lower separation rate
Kolk and Andersson (Demography, 2020) show trends in Sweden for same-sex relationships and divorce rates
Intra-household specialization
Specialization within same‐sex and opposite‐sex couples is discussed in Jaspers and Verbakel (SexRoles, 2013); Jepsen and Jepsen (Industrial Relations, 2015), Bauer (EurJPop, 2016), Martell and Roncolato (JDemEcon, 2016), Cudeville et al. (RePec, 2020), Siminski and Yetsenga (JLabE, 2021), Dilmaghani and Dean (Applied Economics, 2023), Yang (JoMF, 2024), Hancock et al. (NBER, 2025)
See also analysis of time use by Genadek et al. (Demography, 2020), Hofmarcher and Plug (Labour Economics, 2022), Fischer (JoMF, 2024)
See also discussion about household models in Martell and Roncolato (Handbook, 2022)
Giddins et al. (Demography, 2014): same-sex couples are less likely than their different-sex counterparts to exhibit a high degree of specialization. However, this “specialization gap” between same-sex and different-sex couples narrows across birth cohorts
Jaspers et al. (ASR, 2024): both men and women tend to work more hours when partnered with a female partner compared to a male partner
Isaac (IZA, 2024) compares same-sex and different-sex couples to disentangle the role of gender norms in intra-household labor supply
Using data from California, Carpenter and Gates (Demography, 2008) find that 37%-46% of gay men and 51%-62% of lesbian women aged 18-59 are in cohabiting partnership, compared with 62% among heterosexual individuals
Prickett et al. (Demography, 2015): different-sex couples do not invest time in children at appreciably different levels than same-sex couples
Evertsson and Boye (ESR, 2018) compare division of parental leave in different-sex and female same-sex couples
Andresen and Nix (JoLE, 2022) compare child penalties in different-sex and same-sex couples in Norway. See also Moberg et al. (JoMF, 2025)
Downs at al. (US Census, 2023) do the same in the US
Stückradt at al. (JFR, 2024) do the same in the Netherlands
van der Vleuten et al. (JFI, 2023) compare income trajectories of same-sex and different-sex couples during the transition to parenthood: more equal within-couple income development among female couples may not be the best strategy to maximise household income
Evertsson et al. (AJS, 2025) compare earning trajectories in same-sex versus different-sex couples and family policies in Nordic countries
van der Vleuten and Moberg (JoMF, 2025): : cash-for-care is unequally divided in all families, but more so for adoptive and biological parents in different-sex couples than for same-sex couples
Muñoz et al. (ArXiv, 2025) look et evidence of discontinuities in the distribution of relative income within same-sex and different-sex couples in Latin America
Other
Rosenfeld et al. (ASR, 2005): same-sex couples are more likely to be interracial than heterosexual couples
Oreffice (Labour Economics, 2011): younger and richer individuals have higher bargaining power in same-sex couples, resulting in lower labor supply
Kridahl and Kolk (ALCR, 2018): male same-sex couples retire closer in time than both opposite-sex couples and female same-sex couples
Ophir et al. (Demography, 2023) discuss how partnering and parenthood evolve over the life course of LGB individuals for two cohorts in the UK
Mernitz (Demography, 2024): compared with heterosexual young adults, lesbian and gay young adults entered a union at later ages (driven by men), whereas bisexual young adults entered a union at younger ages (driven by women)
Children in same-sex couples
Review by Mazrekay et al. (SSPE, 2024): children with same-sex parents perform at least as well as children with different-sex parents on educational and (mental) health outcomes
Rosenfeld (Demography, 2010): children of same-sex couples in the U.S. are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures
Allen et al. (Demography, 2013) argues instead that the implications of Rosenfeld's study are different when using either alternative comparison groups or alternative sample restrictions
Rosenfeld (Demography, 2013) replied that children raised by stable same-sex couples do remarkably well in school
Baccara et al. (AEJ: Applied, 2014): excluding same-sex couples from the adoption process would substantially reduce the overall number of adopted children
Reczek et al. (Demography, 2016): children in cohabiting households have poorer health outcomes than children in married households regardless of the sex composition of their parents. Children in same/different-sex married households are relatively similar to each other on health outcomes, as are children in same/different-sex cohabiting households.
Aldén et al. (IZA, 2017): boys and girls with lesbian parents in Sweden have a lower birth weight than other children. Boys with lesbian parents outperform other children in test scores. No significant differences among girls.
Boertien and Bernardi (Demography, 2019): children living with same-sex couples were historically more likely to be behind in school but this association disappeared over time, probably because of changing attitudes toward same-sex couples
Gonzales et al. (MCHJ, 2019): no differences in health insurance coverage or health services utilization between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual mothers. Children with bisexual mothers experience barriers to routine medical care
Mackenzie-Liu et al. (JPAM, 2021): Emails from fictitious gay male couples receive much shorter responses from foster care agencies that take longer to receive. No evidence of differential treatment for lesbian couples
Mazrekaj et al. (ASR, 2020): children raised by same-sex parents from birth perform better than children raised by different-sex parents in both primary and secondary education in the Netherlands. Similar findings in Kabátek and Perales (Demography, 2021)
Flores and Morrison (PLOS ONE, 2021) find few differences in political attitudes between people with same-sex and different-sex parents
Hollekim and Anderseen (SRSP, 2021): decline in negative beliefs about lesbian and gay parenting and marriage rights in Norway between 2009-2017
Palmaccio et al. (Leuven, 2023) look at Dutch individuals entering the labor market after high school. Young adults who lived in a same-sex family perform just as well early on the labor market as young adults from different-sex families
Boertien et al. (DemographicResearch, 2024): the gap between desired and realized fertility is larger for women in same-sex couples than for women in different-sex couples
Attitudes, institutions, and politics
Attitudes and behavioural traits
Andersen and Fetner (POQ, 2008) analyze how attitudes towards homosexuality change by age cohort and over time
Sabin et al. (AJPH, 2015) measure implicit and explicit attitudes towards gays and lesbians among health care providers
Coffman et al. (MS, 2017) use list experiments on MTurk to show that the size of the LGBT population and the magnitude of homophobic sentiments might be substantially underestimated.
See also Gutiérrez and Rubli (Labour Economics, 2024) for a similar list experiment in Mexico, and Ham et al. (Labour Economics, 2024) for Colombia.
Powell et al. (Science Advances, 2017): most Americans support businesses refusing to provide services to same-sex couples
Adamczyk and Liao (ARS, 2019) examine public opinion about LGBTQ-related issues in the US and other countries over time
Jones and Brewer (PGI, 2019) discuss public polarization on transgender rights
Aksoy et al. (EuroEcoRev, 2023): Republicans less generous in lab experiments to those perceived to be sexual minorities, Democratics more generous. Women, but not men, less likely to signal sexual minority status when aware of the potential payoff implications
Srimuang and Pholphirul (JHomosexuality, 2022) report LGBT attitudes in Thailand
Ekstam (JHomosexuality, 2022): attitudes toward homosexuality are remarkably stable over time at the individual-level
Bills and Hayes (JHomosexuality, 2022) investigates the relationships between gender norms and attitudes towards LGB individuals
Mastroianni and Dana (PNAS, 2022) compare changes in attitudes over time to people's perceptions of these changes
Aksoy et al. (JPAM, 2022) test whether information treatments regarding sexual orientation can change attitudes in Serbia, Turkey, and Ukraine
Gulesci et al. (Labour Economics, 2024): individuals in Latin America exposed to more soap operas with LGBTQ+ characters are less tolerant toward the LGBTQ+ community
Gromadzki and Siemaszko (WP, 2023) analyze waves of a spontaneous Twitter coming out campaign
Polikoff et al. (IJLYS, 2025) measure attitudes on teaching LGBT topics in school and on LGBT books
Lyon (CPS, 2023): messages from African sources or Western sources on changing social norms do not shifts beliefs or behavior on LGBT+ issues, but rather produce backlashes
Page et al. (PGI, 2024): pro-gay endorsements from a prominent Georgian football star reduce tolerance toward gay people
DelPriore et al. (ASB, 2024): information about reproductive assistance available to same-gender couples promotes more favorable views toward a child’s hypothetical sexual orientation
Berlingieri et al. (WP, 2025) measure trust behaviours of sexual minorities
Turnbull-Dugarte et al. (BJPS, 2025) use a double-list experiment in multiple countries to show that most citizens agree with statements that express the stereotypical views of Muslims as threatening to LGBTQ+ individuals
Manning and Gustafson (JoMF, 2025): increases in support for same-sex parents over time in the US
Napier (SPPS, 2025): there is greater acceptance of gay (vs. transgender) people in most Western countries, whereas the reverse is true in most non-Western countries. In the most intolerant places, transgender people are relatively more accepted than gay people
Institutions and changes in attitues
Andersen and Fetner (AJPS, 2008) analyze the relation between economic inequality and attitude towards homosexuality
Grossman (JP, 2015) links anti-LGBT attitudes in Africa to the rise of Pentecostal and Evangelical churces, as well as higher democratic political competition
Broockman and Kalla (Science, 2016): transphobia can be effectively reduced with door-to-door canvassing
Tadlock et al. (POQ, 2017): interpersonal contact with transgender individuals has positive effect on attitudes about transgender people and rights
Michelson and Harrison (JHomosexuality, 2023) emphasize the importance of close personal friendships in order to affect attitudes towards transgender people through interpersonal contact
Brodeur and Haddad (JEBO, 2021): there are more same-sex couples in counties in which gold discoveries were made during the gold rushes. Residents of gold rush counties still have more favorable attitudes toward homosexuality nowadays
Badgett et al. (World Development, 2019): relationship between social inclusion of LGBT people and economic development in 132 countries
See also Flores et al. (Williams Institute, 2023) for the relationship between democracy, LGBT rights, and GDP
Gunadi (Research in Economics, 2019): US counties with a higher share of slaves in the population more than 150 years ago are more likely to observe LGBT hate crime incidents nowadays
Tavits and Pérez (PNAS, 2019): use of gender-neutral pronouns is associated with more positive attitudes toward women and LGBT individuals
Gutierrez and Torres (JERP, 2025): heterosexual men resist adopting inclusive language because of beliefs about being labeled LGBTQ + when using it. Information intervention improves adoption
Baranov et al. (AEA P&P, 2020): in areas with higher historical convict concentrations, more Australians recently voted in favor of same-sex marriage
Miller et al. (APR, 2020) analyze the celebrity effect on attitudes of Caitlyn Jenner's story
Ananyev and Poyker (JEBO, 2021): colonial Christian missions had a long-term impact on anti-gay attitudes in Africa
Yang (AEL, 2021) exploits compulsory schooling reforms in 15 European countries to show that more education reduces individuals’ prejudice against sexual minorities
Flores et al. (FP, 2021) examined two antidiscrimination exercises: describing a personal narrative of discrimination and perspective-taking
Fernández and Parsa (Economica, 2022) analyze the gap in attitudes towards same-sex relationships between Democrats and Republicans over time
Ananyev and Poyker (SSRN, 2023, IZA, 2024): municipalities in Russia more exposed to the influx of released prisoners after an amnesty in 1953 have more anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes, homophobic slurs on social media, and anti-gay attitudes. See also Ananyev and Poyker (IZA, 2024)
Fernández et al. (JLEO, 2024) greater exposure to the gay population, measured in a variety of ways, led to a greater increase in approval
Lee (SocSci, 2024): positive effect of education on tolerance towards sexual minorities
See also Why is the Caribbean so Homophobic? by Alice Evans
Han and Zhang (EJPE, 2025): improvement in education through compulsory schooling laws increased tolerance towards homosexuality in China
Crabtree et al. (WP, 2025): AI-mediated conversations significantly increased support for transgender rights, but follow-up data one week later revealed notable attenuation
Ayoub (PRQ, 2025) linking national leaders' anti-LGBT+ messaging to to international anti-LGBT+ messengers (Putin) increases support for LGBT+ rights
Whitt et al. (PS&P, 2025): increase in support when transgender rights in sports are preceded by priming and framing around the more general LGBT+ rights struggle
Davis (JEBO, 2025): individualism reduces homophobia and increases LGBT rights
Politics (limited review, most studies are published in political science)
Strode and Flores (POQ, 2021): lesbians and gay men more likely to be registered to vote in the US than heterosexuals. Transgender individuals least likely to be registered to vote.
Jones et al (POQ, 2018) discuss factors affecting public opinion toward transgender people, rights, and candidates
Lewis et al. (PRQ, 2017): public attitudes are significantly more negative toward transgender people and policies pertaining to them than they are toward gay men and lesbians.
Magni and Reynolds (APSR, 2018): LGBT candidates generally do not have a negative impact on party vote share in the UK
Magni and Reynolds (JoP, 2020): LGBTQ candidates often experience discrimination at the ballot box in advanced economies
Haider-Markel et al. (PGI, 2017) and Jones and Brewer (JoP, 2019): penalty for transgender candidates at the ballot box
Mourelatos et al. (RePEc, 2022) on competitiveness and propensity to run for political office
Mansour and Reeves (JHR, 2024): exposure to HIV/AIDS mortality increased support for Democrats in the US
Institutional discrimination
Lowande and Proctor (AJPS, 2019): bureaucrats do not discriminate against same-sex couples in email requests for info about marriage licenses. If anything, officials tended to be more responsive to lesbian couples.
Ringger (JHomosexuality, 2020) examined whether defendants’ gender identity and/or sexual orientation influenced mock jurors’ decisions
The T (and I) in LGBTQI+
See review by Davis et al. (Handbook, 2025)
Demographics
Cerf-Harris (SocArXiv, 2015) uses changes to individuals’ first names and sex-coding in files from the Social Security Administration to identify people likely to be transgender
Herman et al. (Williams Institute, 2017) and Flores et al. (Williams Institute, 2016) describe age, race and ethnicity of individuals who identify as transgender. See also Carone et al. (Williams Institute, 2020) for statistics on transgender parents
Crissman et al. (AJPH, 2017) provide several demographic summary statistics from the 2014 BRFSS
Gülgöz et al (PNAS, 2019): 300+ trans kids don't differ from 500+ cis kids (including sibs of trans kids) on measures of gender development
Kolk et al. (Demography, 2025) look at demographic trends for transgender people in Sweden in the last 50 years and document socioeconomic disparities
Data collection guidance on sex, gender identity, and transgender status by the Chief Statistician in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2021)
Reisner et a. (BMC Public Health, 2023) measure sexual orientation, attraction, and behavior among transgender individuals
de Weerd et al. (AEA P&P, 2024): increase in individuals legally transitioning after process simplification in the Netherlands.
See also Moberg et al. (AEA P&P, 2025): increase in gender marker changes after removal of sterilization requirements in Sweden
Attitudes and behaviour
Coffman et al. (JPE:Micro, 2025) documents preferences, attitudes, and beliefs among and about non-binary individuals
Ardila Brenoe et al. (WP, 2024) explore whether continuous gender identity correlates with variation in economic decisions and outcomes
Napier (SPPS, 2024): greater bias toward transgender women than transgender men, especially in non-Western countries
Education
White et al. (JLGBTYouth, 2023): transgender and gender diverse individuals are more likely to select art and humanities college majors, and less likely to select business, science-related, and technology majors
Labor market
Botti and D'Ippoliti (Feminist Economics, 2017) list the determinants of falling into sex work among trans people
Robinson et al. (AoM Learning&Education, 2017) review current issues faced by transgender individuals in the workplace and encourage management educators to address transgender experiences in their classrooms
Geijtenbeek and Plug (EuroEcoRev, 2018) compare transsexual workers before and after their administrative gender transition. They find that MTF transsexual workers earn less as registered women and FTM transsexual workers earn as much (or more) as registered men. Similar results in Schilt et al. (BE JEP&A, 2008). See also Drydakis (IZA WoL, 2024)
Sidiropoulou (RePEc, 2019) gives an overview of relevant workplace legislation in Europe
Leppel (HandbookLHRPE, 2020): high labor force participation and unemployment rates for transgender individuals in Australia, the USA, the UK, and Ireland.
See also Leppel (JHomosexuality, 2021): no evidence that state-level employment non-discrimination laws were associated with improved labor force outcomes
Carpenter et al. (ILR Review, 2020): individuals who identify as transgender are significantly less likely to be college educated, have significantly lower employment rates, lower household incomes, higher poverty rates, and worse self-rated health. See also Stacey (Demography, 2024)
See also Shannon (LabourEconomics, 2022) for additional summary stats from another data source. The income profiles of those who transition earlier or can 'pass' reflect more the profiles of their gender identity than the sex assigned at birth.
See also Campbell et al. (Feminist Economics, 2024): trans women face labor market penalties for having a feminine gender expression and voice perceived as feminine, whereas trans men are rewarded for having a masculine gender expression and voice perceived as masculine
See also Carpenter et al. (SEJ, 2022) for additional estimates of economic outcomes for transgender individuals using the Household Pulse Survey
See also Carpenter et al. (AER:I, 2025) using census data from Canada: nonbinary individuals assigned male at birth, transgender men, transgender women, and cisgender women all earn significantly less than comparable cisgender men. Nonbinary individuals assigned female at birth experience an additional earnings penalty. Differences in job sorting explain a large share of these disparities.
Large employment and earning penalties for gender diverse individuals in New Zealand documented by Carpenter et al. (Economics Letters, 2025)
See also Wooden et al. (AuER, 2025) for Australia: transgender or gender-diverse persons are found to fare worse than cisgender persons in the labour market, income and finances, crime victimisation, health and subjective well-being
Van Borm et al. (IJM, 2020): suggestive evidence from lab experiment for co-worker and customer taste-based discrimination, but not for employer taste-based discrimination. See also Van Borm et al. (IJM, 2018)
Granberg et al. (LabourEconomics, 2020): hiring discrimination against trans people from a field experiment in Sweden. No clear evidence supporting statistical discrimination. See Drydakis (IJM, 2024) for a similar experiment in the UK
Mann (LabourEconomics, 2021) estimates the labor market impact of removing surgical requirements to change gender on ID cards in the US
Waite (JHomosexuality, 2021): gender diverse public employees in Canada are between 2.2 and 2.5 times more likely to experience discrimination and workplace harassment than their cisgender male coworkers
Webb (JMP, 2023) run a field experiment in India. Participants discriminated transgender workers deliverying grocery, but group discussion among neighbors reduced discrimination, more than informing participants about laws protecting trans individuals
Ciprikis et al. (JBE, 2024) analyzes self-employment by gender identity
Nettuno (Labour Economics, 2024) documents socio-economic disparities by gender identity in Chile
Aksoy et al. (MS, 2024): despite overreporting, majority of Americans still comfortable with transgender managers and in favor of employment nondiscrimination protection
Glintborg et al. (JCEM, 2024): use of gender-affirming hormone increased probability of employment in transgender men, but not transgender women in Denmark
Campbell et Rodgers (SSRN, 2025): hormone replacement therapy is associated with improved labor market outcomes in the US, while conversion therapy correlates with worse outcomes
Carpenter et al. (NBER, WP, 2024) use within-person timing variations and variations across siblings and coworkers to estimate transgender earnings penalties in US administrative data
Thomsen et al. (SS&M, 2024) compare transgender individuals who changed thier legal sex, who have been assigned trans-related diagnostic codes, and those who self-identified as transgender in a representative survey in Denmark. Transgender individuals who seek gender-affirming healthcare constitute a distinct and significantly disadvantaged group
Martínez-Alfaro et al. (JEBO, 2024): transgender applications receive 36 percent fewer callbacks than cisgender applications in correspondence study in Mexico
Health
Lagos (Demography, 2018) measures health among transgenders. See also Pitts et al. (FePs, 2009); Conron et al. (AJPH, 2012), Meyer et al. (AJPH, 2017), Downing et al. (AJPM, 2018)
See also Doan and Grace (ASR, 2022) on refusal of service by medical providers
Drydakis (IZA, 2019) reviews the literature on the relationship between transitioning, mental health, life and job satisfaction
Bozani et al. (IZA, 2019): trans people’s self-esteem and self-respect are enhanced by policy makers’ positive actions to promote inclusivity in the workplace
Button et al. (AJHE, 2023): find significant discrimination against transgender or non-binary African Americans and Hispanics in access to mental health care appointments
Wichaidit et al. (PLOS ONE, 2021) report statistics on suicidal intentions, drinking behavior, and exposure to sexual violence among transgender youth in Thailand
Campbell et al. (AEA P&P, 2023): hormone replacement therapy is associated with a substantially lower risk of suicide attempt
Campbell et al. (AEA P&P, 2024) look at the relationship between gender identity milestones, hormone replacement therapy, conversion therapy and supportive vs. unsupportive families. See also Campbell et al. (JAMA Pediatrics, 2024)
See also Doyle et al. (Nat Hum Behav, 2023) for a review of the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on psychosocial functioning
Feir and Mann (AJPH, 2024) document worsening mental health of transgender and gender-nonconforming people in the US. See also Mann et al. (SPPE, 2025)
Similar findings from Australia by Saxby et al. (BMJMH, 2025)
Mann et al. (AJHE, 2024): Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care meaningfully improves the mental health of transgender people
Ahmad et al. (Labour Economics, 2024) show that transgender patients are treated differently (resulting in lower quality of care), but with dignity using an in-person audit-study among low-cost private clinics in Pakistan
Lee et al. (NatureHumBeh, 2024): anti-transgender laws increase suicide attempts among transgender and non-binary young people in the US
Olson et al. (JAMA Pediatrics, 2024) very high levels of satisfaction and low levels of regret in 5-year follow-up study of trans youth accessing gender-affirming care. See also review by Thornton et al. (AJS, 2024)
Intersex
Muñoz et al. (PNAS Nexus, 2025) document disparities in mental, physical, and sexual health when comparing intersex individuals to the general population in Mexico, as well as stigmatization and bullying in childhood and adolescence
Muñoz et al. (Economics Letters, 2025): intersex individuals belong to households with incomes that are substantially lower than those of endosex male individuals
Other
The Council of Europe issued a paper on gender identity and expression with a wide range of policy recommendations
Sodomy laws and crime
Sodomy laws
Kenny and Patel (CGDev, 2017) show that legalizing homosexuality improves attitudes
Ciacci and Sansone (JPopulEcon, 2023): sodomy law repeals in the US led to a decline in the number of arrests for disorderly conduct, prostitution, sex offenses, alcohol and drug consumption
Chang (JPopulEcon, 2021): high men-to-women sex ratio makes repeal of a sodomy law less likely
Biesalski et al. (WP, 2025) look at the relarionship between colonialism and homophobia in Sub-Saharan Africa
Wallach et al. (AJPH, 2025) assess the role of strategic litigation in decriminalizing same-sex practices and where public health arguments, particularly regarding HIV, were central to these legal challenges
Crime
Ahmed et al. (IJCV, 2013) analyze the perceptions of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual domestic violence among undergraduates in Sweden
Meyer et al. (AJPH, 2017) find higher incarceration rates among sexual minorities
Flores et al. (Science Advances, 2020): Sexual and gender minorities in the US are 2.7 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than non-minorities. See also Flores et al. (AJPH, 2021), Truman and Morgan (BJS, 2022), Flores et al. (PLoS ONE, 2023), Baćak (AJPH, 2023)
Flores et al. (PLOS ONE, 2022) report statistics on hate crimes against LGBT people
Economic effects of same-sex marriage (SSM) legalization
Review articles of the effects of legal access to same-sex marriage by Badgett et al. (JPAM, 2024) and Karney et al. (RAND, 2024)
Demographics
Andersson et al. (Demography, 2006) investigates the demographics of registered partnerships in Norway and Sweden
Badgett et al. (REHO, 2008) look at the characteristics of gays and lesbians who decided to register as domestic partners in California
Dillender (Demography, 2014): no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry reduces the opposite-sex marriage rate. Similar conclusions in Graham and Barr (REHO, 2008), Trandafir (Demography, 2015), and Carpenter (Demography, 2020)
Farmer and Horowitz (SEJ, 2015) develop a model of same-sex dating, cohabitation, and marriage with (uncertain) state-specific marriage legality
Beaudin (Applied Economics, 2017) and Marcén et al (JPopulEcon, 2021) analyze interstate migration patterns following state legalization of SSM
Wong (WP, 2024): same-sex couples are more inclined to return to their birth state after SSM is legalized in that state
Hoffman and Velasco (SocialForces, 2024): increase after Windsor in individuals in mixed-citizenship same-sex couples in the US coming from countries with progressive LGB policies
Awad and McCluskey (AEA P&P, 2024): European SSM legalization decreased skilled labor migration to the US, but US recognition of foreign same-sex marriages in Windsor mitigated this effect.
Attitudes
Kreitzer et al. (PRQ, 2014): improvements in LGBT attitudes following SSM legalization in Iowa
Flores and Barclay (PRQ, 2016): residents of states that had SSM policy introduced had the greatest reduction of anti-gay attitudes
Bishin et al. (AJPS, 2016): no evidence of opinion backlash following recognition of marriage equality
Lax et al. (POQ, 2016) use list experiment to find no evidence of social desirability bias in surveys asking support for SSM
Tankard and Paluck (PsyScience, 2017): improvements in perceive social norms following the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of SSM
Manning at al. (JLEO, 2023): the year SSM marriages are introduced, there is a large increase in US newspaper coverage of both pro- and anti-gay sentiment that persists for several years.
Abou-Chadi and Finnigan (CPS, 2019): SSM legalization in Europe had a positive effect on attitudes toward gays and lesbians, registered partnerships and marriage bans had a negative effect
Ofosu et al. (PNAS, 2019): SSM legislation in the US was associated with decreases in antigay implicit and explicit bias
Twenge and Blake (JHomosexuality, 2020): Americans of all ages modified their beliefs about same-sex marriage over time
Aksoy et al. (EuroEecoRev, 2020): legal same-sex relationship recognition in Europe associated with statistically significant improvements in attitudes. Blasco et al. (JLEO, 2021) further distinguish between week and strong ties in affecting attitudes.
Seror and Ticku (RePec, 2021): enrollment in seminary studies for the Catholic priesthood fell in states legalizing SSM
Baranov et el. (JEconGrowth, 2023): in historically male-biased areas (due to convict transportation), more Australians voted against same-sex marriage
Eisner et al. (PNAS, 2024): increase in biological stress levels during Switzerland’s marriage equality vote
Health
Dee (EJ, 2008): same-sex partnership laws led to statistically significant reductions in syphilis (but effects on the incidence of gonorrhea and HIV were smaller and statistically imprecise). Similar results in Francis et al. (SocScie&Med, 2012). See also Schwartz et al. (Lancet HIV, 2015), Nikolaou (OBES, 2023), Nikolaou (HealthEcon, 2022)
Hatzenbuehler et al. (AJPH, 2010): psychiatric disorders increased significantly among LGB respondents living in states that banned gay marriage
Raifman et al. (JAMA Pediatrics, 2017): reduction in suicide attempts among high school students following SSM legalization. Results contested by Anderson et al. (Journal of Law&Economics, 2021)
Flores et al. (PNAS, 2018) analyze the psychological responses of LGBT individuals to SSM ads before a state referendum
Perales et al. (SocScie&Med, 2018): LGB people report worse life satisfaction and mental health in states with higher shares of ‘No’ voters in SSM referendum in Australia
Saxby et al. (SocScie&Med, 2020): individuals in same-sex relationships living in regions in Australia with high shares of votes against legalising same-sex marriage are in poorer health but are less likely to access primary healthcare
Boertien and Vignoli (Demography, 2019): subjective well-being of individuals from same-sex couples increased after SSM legalization in England and Wales. Similar results in the Netherlands from Chen and van Ours (HealthEcon, 2021)
Hatzenbuehler et al. (Pediatrics, 2019): the rate of homophobic bullying increased and accelerated in the period prior to Proposition 8 in California and then gradually declined in the years following the vote
Drabble et al. (PLOS ONE, 2021) summarize literature on psychological impact of SSM legalization
Pinillos-Franco and Kawachi (WP, 2025) find that homophobic individuals present a higher probability of reporting poor health status and report health improvements following SSM legalization
Health Insurance
Hatzenbuehler et al. (AJPH, 2012): decreases in health care use and costs among gays following SSM legalization in Massachusetts
Dillender (CoEP, 2015): women (but not men) in same-sex couples more likely to have access to health insurance through their spouses’ employers following legal recognition of same-sex relationships. See follow-up paper by Wurm (CoEP, 2025) for labor supply responses.
Downing and Cha (AJPH, 2020): increase in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, similar results for men and women
Carpenter et al. (JPAM, 2021): increases in health insurance for men in same-sex households following SSM legalization
Carpenter at al. (AJHE, 2023): decline in employers offering health insurance benefits to same-sex domestic partnership after 2015 SSM legalization
Harrell et al. (JAMA, 2025): recent gains in insurance coverage among same-sex couples have largely been concentrated among individuals of high socioeconomic status
Labor and fertility
Aldén et al. (Demography, 2015) look at the impact of the introduction of registered partnership for same-sex couples on earnings and fertility in Sweden. Resource pooling for gays and increase in fertility rates for lesbians
See also Martin and Rodriguez (SSRN, 2024) and Bielsa (WP, 2024; WP, 2024) on the impact of SSM on adoption and Assistive Reproductive Treatment
Ponkilainen et al. (WP, 2025): female couples today are nearly as likely to have children following a legal union as different-sex couples in Nordic countries
Hansen et a. (REHO, 2019): impact of SSM on partners' labor supply
Sansone (JPubE, 2019): increase in employment among same-sex couples after SSM legalization in the U.S. Suggestive evidence that this change was driven by a decline in discrimination
Nikolaou (SEJ, 2021): SSM laws decrease sexual orientation-motivated hate crimes and incidence of employment discrimination. See also Levy and Levy (SSR, 2017).
Housing
Miller and Park (REHO, 2018): increase in same-sex mortgage applications
Hagendorff et al. (JCF, 2022): mortgage applications from same-sex borrowers more likely to be denied after SSM legalization
Dilmaghani and Dean (JHousingE, 2020) measure changes in home-ownership rates in Canada following SSM legalization
Other
Alm et al. (NTJ, 2000; JPAM, 2014) and Stevenson (NTJ, 2012) analyze the tax effect of legalizing SSM. See also Friedberg and Isaac (Restat, 2024), Isaac (JHR, 2025). Friedberg and Isaac (IZA, 2023) look at the tax implications among older people.
Delhommer and Hamermesh (JPAM, 2021): legal SSM changed the nature of marital surplus and household investments within same-sex couples
Zhu and Smieliauskas (JBusEthics, 2021) measure market reactions to firms headquartered in a state that legalized SSM
Piano et al. (Public Choice, 2024): larger state spendings on benefits linked to marriage associated with faster adoption of same-sex marriage legalization
Gao et al. (AEA P&P, 2025): SSM bans in the US increase public financing costs, reduce tax revenue, and lead to unfavorable migration patterns
Maciel et al. (SSRN, 2025): increase in same-sex marriages in municipalities with higher support for Bolsonaro during the period between his election and the start of his mandate
General overview of SSM laws and review of the literature in Marcén and Morales (Handbook, 2022)
Development Economics
Koehler and Menzies (WBWP, 2017) highlight the scarcity of data on LGBT in developing countries. The authors also discussed different survey questions to ask about sexual orientation and identity, and the potential of big data and experimental data. See also the WB research agenda
A 2019 report from the World Bank described newly collected data on income, poverty, social exclusion, and living conditions of LGBTI people in Serbia
Nyeck et al. (Williams Institute, 2019) discuss the economic cost of stigma and discrimination in South Africa
Viteri Burbano et al. (IDB, 2024) provide guidance to make projects financed by the IDB more inclusive of LGBTQ+ minorities. It also includes a good overview of the legislative landscape in Latin America and a few case studies
Miscellaneous
Valfort (OECD, 2017) reviews the literature on LGBTI in OECD countries. She also includes several papers outside econ
The 2020 OECD report Over the Rainbow reviews LGBTI laws in OECD countries
The The Oxford Handbook of Global LGBT and Sexual Diversity Politics collets several LGBT papers outside econ
Russell et al. (ARS, 2023) provide a discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in sociology
Thelwall et al. (JHomosexuality, 2023) discuss the evolution of LGBTQ+ terminology in academic journal articles
Writing guide for LGBTQ+ manuscript (focused on psychology) by Veldhuis et al. (SGD, 2024)
Data
Data limitation and methods
Black et al. (Demography, 2000) discuss available data sources and potential measurement errors. See Schönpflug et al. (Feminist Economics, 2018) for a discussion on data in Europe
Martell (Economics Letter, 2021) studies the impact of inferring sexual orientation identity via membership in a same-sex household.
Kühne et al. (JOS, 2019): self-reported and partnership-inferred sexual orientation are not mutual substitutes, instead leading to substantively different conclusions about differences between heterosexuals and sexual minorities
Julian et al. (Demography, 2025): individuals who identify as bisexual and individuals with another/multiple sexual identities often have partners who identify as heterosexual. Therefore, the prevalence of sexually diverse partnerships is distinctly higher when accounting for the sexual identity of both partners than when relying solely on one partner’s sex or identity
See also Julian et al. (JoMF, 2024) for a discussion of how same-sex couples are identified in several US surveys (ACS, CPS, Pulse, NHIS, and NCHAT)
Misclassification
Main issue: a low rate of random error in a large group (opposite-sex couples) may lead to miscalculations in the estimates of a small group (same-sex couples). Because of errors in the sex variable, several same-sex couples may actually be mis-identified opposite-sex couples
Evidence of such measurement error has been found by Black et al. (CCPR, 2007); O’Connell and Gooding (Census, 2007); O’Connell and Feliz (Census, 2011), although the exact magnitude of such error is unclear. See also the related FAQ (Census, 2013) and Goodnature and Neto (JRAP, 2021)
Lewis et al. (Census, 2015) discuss sex and relationship mis-reporting in the American Housing Survey
The U.S. Census Bureau adopted several changes between 2007 and 2008 in order to reduce measurement errors in the American Community Survey. First, it introduced processing and editing changes. Second, it implemented formatting changes to the questionnaire. Thanks to these reforms, there was a significant reduction in the mis-reporting of sex (Kreider and Lofquist, Census 2015).
Banens and Le Penven (Population, 2016) discuss sex mis-coding in France
The U.S. Census Bureau has started introducing the relationship options “opposite-sex’ or “same-sex” marriages and unmarried partnerships in the 2017 CPS, 2019 ACS, and the 2020 Decennial Census. Manning at al. (Demography, 2021): the new relationship categories lead to identify different same-sex couples in terms of demographic characteristics when compared to previous surveys.
Imputations
In the 2000 and 2010 Census, the partner who reported being a spouse of the household head was changed to unmarried partner if the two individuals had the same sex. The American Community Survey had a similar procedure until 2013
In the 1990 Census, the relationship category remained the same (spouse), but the sex of the partner was changed in cases in which the household head and the spouse had the same sex
Current Population Survey: until 2010, same-sex married couples were imputed as opposite-sex married couples. Between 2010 and 2018, same-sex married couple were imputed as same-sex unmarried couple. See also Edwards and Lindstrom (Census, 2017)
See this detailed timeline of how and when same-sex couples have been recorded and imputed in surveys conducted by the U.S. Census
Methodology
Jans et al. (AJPH, 2015) investigate sexual orientation item non-response and sexual minority self-identification trends in California
Bauer et al (PLOS ONE, 2017) discuss different ways to include gender identity questions in surveys
Tordoff et al. (AJE, 2024) compare asking assigned sex at birth to asking transgender self-identification
Robertson (ASB, 2018) how the questions are asked (e.g. anonymous and online) also matter
Miller et al. (CDC, 2021) discuss qualitative interviews on the 2-step gender identity questions
The White House also released a guide in 2023 to collect SOGI data
The report notes that there may be some concern that adding SOGI questions to a survey will cause respondents to skip questions or abandon the survey altogether: but current surveys collecting SOGI data show that respondents are unlikely to skip SOGI questions, especially compared to other sensitive data items. See also the 2023 report by the US National Science and Technology Council, Fredriksen-Goldsen and Kim (RoA, 2015), Cahill et al. (PLoS ONE, 2014), Katz-Wise et al. (PM, 2024)
Bates et al. (JOS, 2019) find no evidence that sexual minorities might be at hard-to-survey population in the 2020 U.S. Census
Ellis et al. (US Census, 2018): most respondents do not find SOGI questions difficult or sensitive to report for themselves or for others in their households , and few raised objections to these questions in the context of the Current Population Survey
Boehmer et al. (MedicalCare, 2024) looks at trends in response patterns to SOGI questions in the BRFSS
Julian et al. (Demography, 2024): younger birth cohorts are more likely to select “something else” for their sexual identity and “none of these” for their gender identity
Hansen et al. (JSSM, 2025): no significant relationship between response order ("lesbian or gay" before/after "straight, that is, not lesbian or gay") and sexual orientation. Young adulthood was predictive of "don’t know" responses, indicating that don’t know responses may capture sexual fluidity, change, or uncertainty
Dataset-specific papers
American Time Use Survey: Prickett et al. (Demography, 2016); Flood and Genadek (Demography, 2021)
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: read Jesdale (AJPM, 2021)
This NCES blog discusses the addition of SOGI data in education datasets in the US
Please email me if you think I am missing some interesting (published) papers.