Introduction

Gender is now a foreign policy issue on which some states are trying to lead, to promote either pro-or anti-gender norms (see Aggestam and True, 2021: 318). Over the past decade, a growing number of countries have pledged to adopt a feminist foreign policy while, at the same time, in other countries, authoritarian governments have rolled back gender equality norms (Chenoweth and Marks, 2022). In this chapter, we ask what drives some states to espouse a feminist foreign policy and others to lead an anti-gender movement? To answer this question, we focus on state leadership on gender and foreign policy, that is, states leading on pro-and anti-gender foreign policies in the international realm. As part of the explanation for state leadership, the chapter considers the role of political leaders advocating for these policies within states.

Leadership matters in foreign policy. We define leadership as being in the vanguard (Zhukova et al, 2022: 198). Through leadership, states seek prestige to bolster the country's image and status in international affairs (see Towns, 2010), but also their domestic legitimacy. Displaying leadership is a way for states to try to shape the international normative and institutional context, thus establishing their international status for years to come, and ‘locking in’ corresponding domestic policies. Furthermore, political leadership entails defining and clarifying goals for a group, and then bringing the group together to pursue those goals (Keohane, 2020: 236). Thus, state leadership with respect to feminist foreign policy means not only clarifying it as a goal and mustering the resources to pursue it but also setting an example for other states and leaders to follow.

Pro-gender equality state leadership may include the explicit adoption of the label feminist foreign policy, which adds a new quality to the pursuit of foreign policy goals. Many states have pro-gender equality foreign policies, but only a few have declared they are pursuing a feminist foreign policy. Aggestam and Bergman Rosamond (2016: 323) suggest more generally that ‘adopting the “f-word” … elevates politics from a broadly consensual orientation of gender mainstreaming toward more controversial politics, and specifically toward those that explicitly seek to renegotiate and challenge power hierarchies and gendered institutions that hitherto defined global institutions and foreign and security policies’.