Representation matters: Film and television’s portrayal of non-hetereosexuality

by Phi Dan Cao (11714379)

Lecturer: Hande Sungur & Jeroen Lemmens

University of Amsterdam
Communication Science
Course: Graduation Project
Tutorial group: Entertainment Communication
Words: 3326
Table of contents

Introduction​ 2

Methods​ 3

Results​ 6

Discussion​ 12

Conclusion​ 14

References​ 15

Appendix​ 17

1
 Introduction

Is LGBT representation actually declining in Hollywood? According to a report from

GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Discrimination), major movie studios that feature
LGBT characters decreased from 23 to 14 between 2016 and 2017 (Daily Beast, 2018). In
addition to a decrease in numbers, there is also a decline in the quality of the representation of
characters of non-heterosexual orientation and transgender identity. The article found that
movies that do feature these characters, fail to develop them well, using the Vito Russo Test
to assess it, which is the equivalent of the Bechdel Test used to measure the representation of
women in film. According to this ‘LGBT Bechdel Test’, (1) the film has to contain a
character that is identifiably LGBT+, (2) they must not be solely defined by their sexual
orientation or gender identity, and (3) they must be tied into the plot in a way that their
removal would have a significant effect (GLAAD, 2014).
This therefore begs the question: Are LGBT+ characters represented enough and if
they are, how are these characters portrayed exactly? Not only in films, but it is also
interesting to find out whether this is the case on tv, music, and other entertainment channels
as well. Research suggests that the mainstream media make depictions of LGB individuals
more presentable and acceptable for the general public, preventing these characters from
engaging in realistic behaviours and dialogues (Bond, 2015). Therefore, this literature review
aims to report and discuss the representations (or lack thereof) of people of different
sexualities and gender identities in media entertainment (including, but not limited to, film
and Tv). Storylines that involve LGBT+ characters can improve social tolerance (Kilkenny,
2017). Therefore, a positive and realistic depiction can only benefit society and lead to
acceptance and inclusiveness of people identifying as LGBT. Scientifically, analyzing these
portrayals can help identify prevalent stereotypes or narratives designated to
non-heterosexual - in other words LGBTQ+ - characters and how that affects LGBTQ+
storytelling and viewer attitudes in entertainment media and literature. This could lead to
more widespread awareness outside of the scientific community on the issue.
A follow-up question on this is whether these depictions of LGBT individuals
accurate compared to real life views and statistics for example? 2% of main characters in Tv
shows from 2000 were non-hetereosexual compared to a percentage of 10-13 in real life

2
(Fouts & Inch, 2005). One of the most important aspects to find out, is whether these
portrayals of LGBT people are negative or positive. These portrayals could influence whether
LGBT viewers can identify themselves with these characters. To expand on that, in what
ways is the portrayals done exactly, are there certain tropes or clichés that occur? Of course
this heavily involves stereotyping, but it can also be that storylines in media entertainment
challenge these stereotypes.
To answer these, the literature will investigate: What does the scientific literature tell
us about the portrayal of non-heterosexuality in media entertainment?
It would be also interesting to know how non-heterosexual characters are portrayed
compared to heterosexual characters when they occur in the same narrative. This takes into
account the different masculinities and/or femininities of both non-heterosexual and
hetereosexual characters that are portrayed. In other words, how do these characters hold up
compared to their straight counterparts, regarding heteronormativity? Hypothetically, being
gay should not play a larger role in a homosexual character than in a heterosexual character.
Therefore, the following subquestion is introduced: How are non-heterosexual
characters portrayed compared to hetereosexual characters in storylines?
In contrast to Hollywood films, streaming movies and regular television shows seem
to feature more LGBT+ characters in 2018 than in the years before. The rise in queer
representation in media is mainly due to the popular streaming platform Netflix (Liao, 2018)
Without this, the rise in representation might have never happened and put us in the same
position years ago, where LGBT+ portrayals were more absent.
Along with this observation, a second and final subquestion is introduced: Is there a
difference in the portrayal of non-heterosexual characters before and after 2010?
The main research question will be answered in this literature review with the help of
15 scientific articles related to the topic. Along with the two added subquestions, these
articles will also help answering those in the discussion and conclusion accordingly.

Methods

​ Table 1 Method & Sample

Author Year Method Sample

characteristic

3
Avila-Saavedra 2009 Qualitative Tv series: Will &
discourse analysis Grace, It’s All
Relative, Queer Eye
for the Straight Guy

Bond 2014 Content analysis Media popular with

LGB youth

Bond 2015 Content analysis Media popular with

gay teens

Bond, Miller, and 2019 Content analysis LGB characters on

Aubrey television

Cabasky 2017 Content analysis Film ads about

lesbian and gay
characters

Cook 2018 Content analysis 9 television shows

from 2016-2017

Dhaenens 2013a Qualitative textual Tv series:

analysis Torchwood and True
Blood

Dhaenens 2013b Qualitative textual Gay teen characters

analysis in Glee

Fisher 2007 Content analysis Two television

seasons

Fouts & Inch 2005 Content analysis 22 tv comedies

Kelso 2015 Survey & Us television

Qualitative analysis
of a purposive

4
 sample

McInroy & Craig 2017 Interview 19 emerging adults

McKinnon 2017 Content analysis Hollywood disaster

movies

Netzley 2010 Content analysis 98 episodes of

primetime shows

Raley & Lucas 2008 Content analysis 62 characters from 8

prime time tv shows

For the aim of this literature review, a search for 15 scientific articles that did research
about the portrayal of non-hetereosexual characters in media entertainment was conducted
using the academic database Web of Knowledge. Two main aspects of studies were of interest
for the research question and they dictated what search terms were entered. One was studies
related to sexuality and non-hetereosexual characters, using the terms - as well as their
derivatives - ‘homosexuality’, ‘sexuality’, ‘queer’, ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘lgbt’, ‘sterereotype’,
‘masculinity’, ‘femininity’, and ‘representation’. To clarify, non-heterosexuality and
LGBT(Q+) will be used interchangeably in this literature review, mainly due to the fact that
most articles did research on non-heterosexual characters, not including people identifying
other than LGB, such as asexuality and being transgender. The search for studies about media
entertainment, movies and Tv series specifically, terms entered were - as well as their
derivatives - ‘movie’, ‘tv’, ‘series’, ‘cinema’, ‘Hollywood’, and ‘film’. ‘Communication’ and
‘Film and Radio Television’ were specifically chosen as a filter. Different combinations were
used as search strings and this led to different numbers of articles each time. An example:
(homosexuality OR gay OR lesbian OR stereotype* OR masculin* OR feminin*) AND
(movie* OR film* OR cinema OR hollywood OR series OR tv), and this yielded 1053
articles.
Many articles had little to do with the topic - concerning more about gender roles and
masculinity, which will be discussed in the discussion - or they were literature reviews and
opinion pieces. A good balance between qualitative and quantitative studies, as well as

5
diverse publication years of the articles were heavily taken into consideration. In addition,
many studies were also found through snowballing and reverse snowballing as almost all of
the 15 articles were cited by each other. Lastly, studies were also excluded if they only looked
at viewer attitudes on non-hetereosexuality in media.

Results

Table 2 Variables & Results

Author Year Main variables Main results

Avila-Saavedra 2009 Rise in gay male Gay identity is

characters on tv & presented as
heteronormative reinforcing
notions of traditional values
masculinity such as family and
lacking sexual
desires and
behaviours

Bond, Miller, and 2019 Gay, lesbian, Heterosexuals were

Aubrey bisexual, and likely to make more
hetereosexual jokes on sexuality
characters and than LGB
sexual references characters, more
and consequences likely to discuss
on television coming out

Dhaenens 2013a Representation of Gay characters

gay identity, intersected with
heteronormativy and other identity
homonormativity components and not
in a patriarchal idea
of masuclinity

6
 Dhaenens 2013b Portrayal of gay Glee represents gay
teens, youth as suffering
heteronormative victims or as
values, aspiring to
heteronormative
values but also
happy and
self-confident

Fouts & Inch 2005 Homosexual Homosexual

characters and characters were
verbal omments more likely to make
about sexual comments about
orientation sexual orientation
than heterosexual
characters

Netzley 2010 Gay (female and Gay characters more

male) and straight likely to be shown in
characters, sexual sexual sitations, and
situations, type of tv depicted to be more
show, sexually active

Raley & Lucas 2008 Gay characters, Nonhetereosexual

non-representation, characters were
ridicule, respect, more likely to
regulation ridicule themselves
than hetereosexual
characters

Bond 2014 LGB sexuality, LGB sexualities are

representation underrepresented,
butt of jokes and

7
 insults about
sexuality and rare
about relationships

Bond 2015 Gay- and lesbian LGB depictions

oriented media occur more frequent
(GLO), mainstream and more validating
media and in GLO media than
non-hetereosexual mainstream media
and heterosexual
talk and behaviour

Cabasky 2017 Types of audience, Portrayals of gays

frequency, same-sex and lesbians have
intimacy generally not
changed over time
they portrayed less
same-sex intimatcy
for big audiences

Cook 2018 LGBT More representation

representation, of LGBT characters
streaming and on streaming
broadcast platforms and more
display of affection

Fisher 2007 Medium & presence Movies and comedy

of behaviours and shows had
verbal messages substantial
related to gays, nonheterosexual
lesbians and content. Cable
bisexuals networks more
nonheterosexual

8
 content, not a lot of
sexual content

Kelso 2015 Depictions of gender Gender-variant kids

variant kids in media are often depicted as
(tv) expressing extreme
gender dysphoria or
signify the tragic
queer motif

McInroy & Craig 2017 Messages about Media continues to

sexual orientation, represent LGBTQ
differences in people as
experience one-dimensional and
stereotypical,
ignores many
subgroups

McKinnon 2017 Disaster films and LGBT experiences

LGBT characters in disaster movies
are ignored and
hetereosexuality is
normalised, other
identities are
irrelevant

​ The findings of these articles revealed many different results, and for this literature
review, these will be grouped together under similar patterns and concepts. The first concept
that will be introduced is the studies that specifically researched non-heterosexual characters
in media entertainment. These results are also the most relevant for the aim of this review as
it is best in answering the research questions. 7 out of 15 articles focused on non-heterosexual

9
characters in film and tv series and how they were portrayed (Avila-Saavedra, 2009; Bond,
Miller & Aubrey, 2019; Dhaenens, 2013a; Dhaenens, 2013b; Fouts & Inch, 2005; Raley &
Lucas, 2008; Netzley, 2010). The main consensus was that many LGBT characters were
mainly defined by their sexual orientation and their sexual identity played a large role in their
narratives. LGBT characters were presented as reinforcing traditional values whilst lacking
any sexual desires and behaviours themselves (Avila-Saavedra, 2009). For example, gay
(male) characters were positively involved with family (being parents) and portrayed in
patriarchal notions of masculinity to not challenge heteronormativity.
In relation to the first subquestion, the studies that compared non-heterosexual and
hetereosexual characters mainly made out that LGB sexual orientation was presented as a
significant aspect of the characters’ storyline compared to straight characters (Bond et al.,
2019; Fouts & Inch, 2005; Raley & Lucas, 2008; Netzley, 2010). Non-heterosexual
characters were more likely to comment on their sexuality as well as be depicted in comedic
jokes and insults about their sexual orientation as opposed to hetereosexual characters. They
were also heavily oversexualized compared to s and were disproportionately more likely to
comment on their sexual orientation and discuss coming out compared to their straight
counterparts. Regarding heteronormativity, Avilau-Seedra (2009) stated that LGBT characters
were presented as reinforcing traditional values whilst lacking any sexual desires and
behaviours themselves. For example, gay (male) characters were positively involved with
family (being parents) and portrayed in patriarchal notions of masculinity to not challenge
heteronormativity. In contrast, Dhaenens (2013a; 2013b) found that the gay characters in the
Tv shows he analysed, expressed and experienced same-sex desires explicitly and were
happy and self-confident, challenging patriarchal masculinity and heteronormtive values.
These portrayals of LGBT people are not a detached identity position but it represents how it
intersects with other identity components. However, the author does note in both studies that
these shows still associate gay characters with either as victims or villains.
​ The other eight studies that researched media entertainment in general, not necessarily
focusing on LGBT characters, mainly found that non-heterosexuality was severely
underrepresented (Bond, 2014; Bond, 2015; Cabasky, 2017; Cook, 2018; Fisher, Hill, Gruber
& Grube, 2007; Kelso, 2015; McInroy & Craig, 2017; McKinnon, 2017). Movies and Tv
series did not feature a great deal of non-hetereosexual content and storylines. However,
when non-heterosexual characters did appear in some cases, they were often depicted as

10
one-dimensional, stereotypical, and were largely ignored. In common with the previous seven
articles, their sexuality played a large role. Non-heterosexual sexual talk were often joked
about relating to sexuality and discussions about relationships and sex were very rare.
Same-sex intimacy was thus toned down and sanitized for the mainstream audience. These
results were mainly related to traditional/mainstream media such as broadcast networks and
Hollywood, while media such as streaming platforms and LGB media had a different
portrayal of non-heterosexuality. For example, media popular with LGB youth depicted
non-heterosexual characters as more validating in nature than in mainstream media,
especially in gay- and lesbian-oriented media (GLO) (Bond, 2015; McInroy & Craig, 2017).
Furthemore, non-heterosexual content was more likely to be depicted on streaming platforms
and cable networks than on commercial broadcast networks (Cook, 2018; Fisher et al., 2007).
Non-heterosexual characters were also almost completely absent in Hollywood
action/disaster films following extremely heteronormative narratives - heterosexual
relationships were essential for the story (McKinnon, 2017). Thus, the portrayal of
non-heterosexual characters was largely negative in mainstream media such as broadcast and
Hollywood, but rather positive in streaming platforms, GLO-media, and media popular with
gay youth.
​ There was a clear divide in the years that these articles were published: the articles
that were published in the 2000s and the ones published in the 2010s. However, two studies
by Dhaenens from 2013a and 2013b analysed three Tv shows from the 2000s, so this will be
included in the before-2010 distinction. Overall, they all found similar results to an extent,
reporting that non-heterosexual characters were underrepresented, stereotyped, centered
around their sexuality only, and mainly featured gay males - ignoring the diversity of the
LGBT+ community. The studies that dated after 2010, and that did research about
non-heterosexual characters in film and Tv, commonly found that depictions of
non-hetereosexuality was more frequent in streaming and cable platforms than mainstream
media and that the portrayals were sanitized by not letting queer characters engage in realistic
sexual talk and behaviours without making insults and jokes about their sexual orientation
(Bond, 2015; Bond, 2014; Bond et al, 2019; Cook, 2018). When they do engage in sexual
talk and behaviours, it was mostly portrayed as very extreme. Some studies before 2010,
found that LGB characters were depicted with notions of patriarchal masculinity and fitting
in with heteronormativity (Avila-Saavedra, 2009; Dhaenens, 2013a; Dhaenens, 2013b). By

11
involving heteronormativity, gay portrayals were also toned down for the mainstream
audience - erasing the sexual desires of non-heterosexual characters. As a summary regarding
this, the article by Cabasky (2017) stated that portrayals of gays and lesbians did not really
change over the time period of 1980 to 2013. The main argument being that same-sex
intimacy was sanitized for the big audiences as opposed to heterosexual intimacy, in other
words they made it ‘more presentable and acceptable’ for the audience.
​ Finally, one study that stood apart from these concepts focused on
gender-creative/variant pre-adolescent children (including transgender and gender
non-conforming) and stated that they were heavily underrepresented in the media,
specifically television (Kelso, 2018). When depictions of gender variant kids do appear, they
often focus on kids with extreme gender dysphoria (being uncomfortable in their gender)
and/or portray the ‘tragic queer’ motif (make them seem adorable and cute to the audience to
evoke pity). These findings are very similar to Dhaenens’ (2013b) analysis of Glee, where
gay teen characters are portrayed as victims and are questioned on the viability of being a
homonormative teen. Most other studies in this literature review focused mainly on gay and
bisexual characters, so including this perspective on other LGBT+ subgroups expands the
different domains of the portrayal LGBT+ characters.

Discussion

​ The main results from the 15 articles have been reported and integrated under similar
patterns and concepts to answer the research questions for this literature review. Regarding
the samples, methods, and publication year of these articles, it could be stated that there is a
fairly equal distribution of scientific studies. The samples that the studies used were movies,
Tv episodes, film ads, print media, Tv and movie characters, as well as real life participants.
This is fairly representative of media entertainment, although mostly films and Tv shows
were researched. In addition, there is a good balance of qualitative textual- and discourse
analyses (5) and quantitative content analyses and surveys (10) in this review, making it
scientifically inclusive by method types. On top of that, the publication years of the articles
encompass the entire 21st century, representing the 2000s and the 2010s very well not only in
publication but also the diversity of films and Tv shows researched that hailed from this time
period. This made way for a good comparison between the time periods in relation to the

12
second subquestion. However, no articles were from before the year 2000 and so no
conclusions can be drawn on the portrayal of non-heterosexuality outside the 21st century.
Future literature reviews could thus incorporate more scientific studies about the topic from
that time period.
Most studies and their results should certainly be used to answer the research
questions reliably. Although some studies are grounded in more theory and empirical
quantitative research, all findings make relevant statements about the portrayal of
non-hetereosexuality in media entertainment. The qualitative studies that analyzed certain Tv
shows go less in depth and make less of an empirical statement about the overall portrayal of
LGBT+ characters in media as a whole. However, these qualitative articles thoroughly
analyzed important non-heterosexual characters in certain shows and films and they did make
scientifically relevant statements that are vital in answering the research questions.
Furthermore, a study from 2018 was more of an honors thesis and not technically from a
scientific journal (Cook, 2018). If there was a choice to be made to exclude one article, this
one would have been chosen to be removed for academic reasons mainly. The study that
analyzed nine Tv shows proved to be very empirical however, as it was a content analysis
with clear defined operationalizations and the findings were also very scientifically relevant.
Finding enough articles on this topic proved to be very difficult, as there weren’t
many that specifically researched this topic. Studies about gender roles, masculinity, and
femininity in media entertainment were abundant, relating to homosexuality in some cases.
However, this was not enough to include these in the review, as the aim was to specifically
tackle the portrayal of non-heterosexual characters. In addition, other sexualities and gender
identities - such as asexuality, transgender, non-binary etc. - were not researched as most
articles focused on (cis-male) homosexuality.
The results of this literature review presented are thus not necessarily representative
of all non-heterosexual content and LGBT+ characters in media entertainment. Most studies
analyzed homosexual male characters in film and television only, who were mostly white and
middle to upper class. It was also stated in the literature that gay males are significantly more
depicted in both mainstream and LGBT-oriented media, than people of other sexual
orientations and gender identities (Bond, 2015).
​ Some studies regarding gender roles and the portrayal of masculinity and femininity
in media entertainment - mentioned prior - might have been relevant to include in this review

13
as they also discusseed homosexuality. However, these articles did not research
representation of non-heterosexual content and LGBT+ characters specifically, and were thus
excluded. Lastly, the search terms provided a great deal of articles from the 2000s and only
very little from the past few years. These studies could have also been very relevant, but this
review also needed more recent articles about this topic. And so, with weighing out
publication years and topic specificness, this sample of articles was created. Therefore, it can
be said that this literature review has provided all the relevant information there is currently
on the portrayal of non-heterosexuality in media entertainment, film and Tv specifically.

Conclusion

​ The aim of this review was to present thoroughly what the scientific literature has to
say about the portrayal of non-heterosexuality in media entertainment. In addition, this
review also seeks to answer the questions what the differences are in the portrayal of
non-heterosexual characters and heterosexual characters, as well as the differences between
the different time periods the articles were published in (pre- and post-2010). With the aid of
the 15 studies that are incorporated, the literature tells us that non-heterosexuality and
LGBT+ representation in media entertainment play a large part in the storyline and play a
large role in how the characters are portrayed. These portrayals featured - most of the time -
stereotypical jokes and insults, and aspired to heteronormative norms and values. Moreover,
non-heterosexuality in general is also heavily underrepresented in media entertainment.
When LGBT+ characters do appear, the literature found that they were mainly depicted as
one-dimensional characters prone to common stereotypes, such as playing overly sexually
active and conversing a great deal about their sexual orientation, as well as being portrayed as
suffering victims. This is evidently very different compared to hetereosexual characters, as
they are portrayed as well-layered and complex in their sexualities and sexual desires. There
were some differences in publication years, namely that articles post-2010 found that
non-heterosexuality was more represented in streaming platforms and other non-traditional
media. These portrayals were also sanitized to appeal to mainstream audiences, while the
articles before 2010 generally concluded that sanitization happened to fit in with the
patriarchal notion of masculinity. Other than that, the results were very similar, as

14
non-heterosexual representation suffered from underrepresentation and stereotypes, across
both time periods.
​ This literature review serves as an overview and as criticism regarding
non-heterosexual representation in media entertainment and should therefore stimulate other
researchers to study this topic more in depth, as well as create more awareness about LGBT+
portrayal. Future research is recommended to take into account the diversity of LGBT+
subgroups, and do more research about their portrayal in popular media. Not only concerning
sexuality and gender identity, but also race and ethnicity, which could also lead to interesting
results, as it was discussed how most gay characters were white (Bond, 2015). By doing this,
more literature reviews can incorporate the diverse findings this has to offer instead of being
only limited in reporting findings that only concern gay and white male characters for
example. Perhaps future studies could also investigate how non-heterosexal content is
portrayed in other forms of media entertainment such as music and books, which have not
been researched at all by the 15 articles. Film and television are not the only forms of media
entertainment that people consume, and expanding on this can lead to more interesting and
relevant findings and perspectives.
In conclusion, representation does matter, and entertainment media - whether or not
mainstream - should promote this, for the sake of both science and society. Researchers and
literature reviewers should have a large and diverse sample to work with, and media
consumers - LGBT+ or not - should be exposed to how diverse the world truly is and be able
to experience diverse storytelling and relate to it. That is why LGBT+ representation cannot
and should not continue to decline as media entertainment only continue to expand.

References

Allen, S. (2018). GLAAD Report: Hollywood Is Failing LGBT Characters in Its

Movies. Retrieved from
https://www.thedailybeast.com/glaad-report-hollywood-is-failing-lgbt-characters-in-its-movie
s
Avila-Saavedra, G. (2009). Nothing queer about queer television: televized

construction of gay masculinities. Media Culture and Society, 31(1), 5-+.

15
 Bond, B.J. (2015). Portrayals of sex and sexuality in gay- and lesbian-oriented media:

A quantitative content analysis. Sexuality and Culture, 19(1), 37-56.

Bond, B.J. (2014). Sex and sexuality in entertainment media popular with lesbian,

gay, and bisexual adolescents. Mass Communication and Society, 17(1), 98-120.

Bond, B.J., Miller, B. & Aubrey, J.S. (2019). Sexual References and Consequences

for Heterosexual, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Characters on Television: A Comparison

Content Analysis. Mass Communication and Society, 22(1), 72-95.

Cabasky, J.M. (2017). Advertising gay and lesbian-themed films to mainstream and

niche audiences: Variations in portrayal of intimacy and stereotypes. Atlantic Journal of

Communication, 25(3), 151-165.​

​ Cook, C. (2018). A content analysis of LGBT representation on broadcast and

streaming television. University of Tennessee Chattanooga, Honors Thesis.

Dhaenens, F. (2013a). The fantastic queer: Reading gay representations in Torchwood

and True Blood as articulations of queer resistance. Critical Studies in Media

Communication, 30(2), 102-116.

Dhaenens, F. (2013b). Teenage queerness: negotiating heteronormativity in the

representation of gay teenagers in Glee. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(3), 304-317.

Fisher, D. A., Hill, D. L., Grube, J. W., & Gruber, E. L. (2007). Gay, lesbian, and

bisexual content on television: A quantitative analysis across two seasons. Journal of

Homosexuality, 52, 167–188.​

​ Fouts, G. & Inch R. (2005). Homosexuality in Tv situation comedies: Characters and

verbal comments. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(1), 35-45.​

​ GLAAD. (2017). The Vito Russo Test. Retrieved from

https://www.glaad.org/sri/2014/vitorusso​

16
​ Kelso, T. (2015). Still trapped in the U.S. media's closet: Representations of

gender-variant, pre-adolescent children. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(8), 1058-1097.​

​ Kilkenny, K. (2017). Why television needs more LGBT characters. Retrieved from

https://psmag.com/social-justice/why-television-needs-more-lgbt-characters​

​ Liao, S. (2018). 2018 saw record growth in LGBTQ roles on television. Retrieved

from

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/26/18028908/glaad-report-television-tv-2018-lgbtq-diver

sity-gay-bisexual-trans-media-representation ​

​ McInroy, L.B. & Craig, S.L. (2017). Perspectives of LGBTQ emerging adults on the

depiction and impact of LGBTQ media representation. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(1),

32-46.​

​ McKinnon, S. (2017). Straight disasters: the (hetero)sexual geographies of Hollywood

disaster movies. GeoJournal, 82(3), 503-515. ​

​ Netzley, S.B. (2014). Visibility that demystifies: Gays, gender, and sex on television.

Journal of Homosexuality, 57(8), 968-986.​

​ Raley, A. B., & Lucas, J. L. (2006). Stereotype or success? Prime-time television’s

portrayals of gay male, lesbian, and bisexual characters. Journal of Homosexuality, 51,

19–38.

Appendix

Table 1 Method & Sample

Author Year Method Sample

characteristic

Avila-Saavedra 2009 Qualitative Tv series: Will &

17
 discourse analysis Grace, It’s All
Relative, Queer Eye
for the Straight Guy

Bond 2014 Content analysis Media popular with

LGB youth

Bond 2015 Content analysis Media popular with

gay teens

Bond, Miller, and 2019 Content analysis LGB characters on

Aubrey television

Cabasky 2017 Content analysis Film ads about

lesbian and gay
characters

Cook 2018 Content analysis 9 television shows

from 2016-2017

Dhaenens 2013a Qualitative textual Tv series:

analysis Torchwood and True
Blood

Dhaenens 2013b Qualitative textual Gay teen characters

analysis in Glee

Fisher 2007 Content analysis Two television

seasons

Fouts & Inch 2005 Content analysis 22 tv comedies

Kelso 2015 Survey & Us television

Qualitative analysis
of a purposive
sample

18
 McInroy & Craig 2017 Interview 19 emerging adults

McKinnon 2017 Content analysis Hollywood disaster

movies

Netzley 2010 Content analysis 98 episodes of

primetime shows

Raley & Lucas 2008 Content analysis 62 characters from 8

prime time tv shows

Table 2 Variables & Results

Author Year Main variables Main results

Avila-Saavedra 2009 Rise in gay male Gay identity is

characters on tv & presented as
heteronormative reinforcing
notions of traditional values
masculinity such as family and
lacking sexual
desires and
behaviours

Bond, Miller, and 2019 Gay, lesbian, Heterosexuals were

Aubrey bisexual, and likely to make more
hetereosexual jokes on sexuality
characters and than LGB
sexual references characters, more
and consequences likely to discuss
on television coming out

Dhaenens 2013a Representation of Gay characters

gay identity, intersected with
heteronormativy and other identity
homonormativity components and not

19
 in a patriarchal idea
of masuclinity

Dhaenens 2013b Portrayal of gay Glee represents gay

teens, youth as suffering
heteronormative victims or as
values, aspiring to
heteronormative
values but also
happy and
self-confident

Fouts & Inch 2005 Homosexual Homosexual

characters and characters more
verbal omments likely to make
about sexual comments about
orientation sexual orientation
than heterosexual
characters

Netzley 2010 Gay (female and Gay characters more

male) and straight likely to be shown in
characters, sexual sexual sitations, and
situations, type of tv depicted to be more
show, sexually active

Raley & Lucas 2008 Gay characters, Non-hetereosexual

non-representation, characters were
ridicule, respect, more likely to
regulation ridicule themselves
than hetereosexual
characters

Bond 2014 LGB sexuality, LGB sexualities are

20
 representation underrepresented,
butt of jokes and
insults about
sexuality and rare
about relationships

Bond 2015 Gay- and lesbian LGB depictions

oriented media occur more frequent
(GLO), mainstream and more validating
media and in GLO media than
non-hetereosexual mainstream media
and heterosexual
talk and behaviour

Cabasky 2017 Types of audience, Portrayals of gays

frequency, same-sex and lesbians have
intimacy generally not
changed over time
they portrayed less
same-sex intimatcy
for big audiences

Cook 2018 LGBT More representation

representation, of LGBT characters
streaming and on streaming
broadcast platforms and more
display of affection

Fisher 2007 Presence of Only movies and

behaviours and comedy shows had
verbal messages substantial
related to gays, nonheterosexual
lesbians and content. Cable

21
 bisexuals networks were more
likely to have
nonheterosexual
content

Kelso 2015 Depictions of gender Gender-variant kids

variant kids in media are often depicted as
(tv) expressing extreme
gender dysphoria or
signify the tragic
queer motif

McInroy & Craig 2017 Messages about Media continue to

sexual orientation, represent LGBTQ
differences in people as
experience one-dimensional and
stereotypical,
ignores many
subgroups

McKinnon 2017 Disaster films and LGBT experiences

LGBT characters in disaster movies
are ignored and
hetereosexuality is
normalised, other
identities are
irrelevant

22