2. Aim and method

The aim of this study was to gather survey data on whether Nordic gender equality professionals had encountered opposition to their work and, if so, to examine the extent, occurrence and impact of such opposition. The report is based on an online survey distributed to civil society organisations, academics and government officials working as experts within the broad field of gender equality in the Nordic countries.

The study focuses on the following questions:

Do experts in gender equality advancement encounter opposition in their work?
If so, how frequent is it, and what are the main forms of opposition?
What is the concrete impact of encountered opposition on gender equality work?
Best practices. What preventive foresight strategies and support mechanisms have been most beneficial?

2.1 Structure and implementation of the survey

The study is based on data gathered from an online survey that was conducted in May–June 2025. The survey was designed to capture potential differences between three sectors of gender equality work and between individual Nordic countries. The target groups of the survey were:

Civil society organisations
Academics
Government officials

The survey questionnaire form was piloted with test respondents from each sector, who provided feedback on its structure and questions. An expert group of six Nordic professors also provided feedback on the questions and structure of the questionnaire. The role of this academic expert group is explained in Appendix II.

Potential respondents were identified through purposeful sampling and snowball sampling. In total, 281 potential participants were contacted: 126 civil society organisations (CSOs)/non-governmental organisations (NGOs), 43 government officials and 112 academics in the Nordic countries. Participants received a personalised link to the survey questionnaire via email with a cover letter containing instructions. To avoid bias towards familiar or value-aligned organisations, the email invited all respondents to refer other relevant participants through a snowball sampling approach to capture a broader range of perspectives. The communications and questionnaire were in English. Reminders were sent in both May and June.

A total of 88 responses were received, resulting in a 31% response rate, which is typical for online surveys.

All responses were anonymous. Respondents from civil society organisations could choose whether to respond either as an individual or on behalf of their organisation. Academics could respond as individuals only, not as representatives of an entire institution. Government officials and public sector respondents could only respond as representatives of their institution, not as individuals.

This design reflects the different fields of gender equality work. Civil society organisation participants could answer either as individuals or on behalf of their organisation, as this reflects the overlap between personal engagement and organisational roles. Academic respondents provided individual answers based on their expertise, rather than representing their departments or universities. Government officials responded exclusively as institutional representatives, as this reflects their professional responsibilities within formal policy and administrative tasks.

To ensure respondent objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest, the Council for Gender Equality of Finland (Tane), the Coalition of Women’s Associations in Finland (NYTKIS), the six professors in the study’s expert group, and the author of this report were excluded from participation in the survey.

Respondents’ answers were anonymised to ensure that individual respondents cannot be identified in the reporting of results. Questions about minority status were optional. Government officials were not asked to report minority status, as they represented the entire institution/organisation. An aspect of uncertainty is whether some respondents with a minority background, particularly in smaller geographic regions such as the Faroe Islands, may have been hesitant to respond due to fear of being recognised.

2.2 Theoretical framework and methodology

The study uses descriptive statistics to examine the prevalence and variation of opposition to gender equality work, as well as its impacts. Open-ended responses were analysed using thematic analysis to identify shared frames and interpretations of what opposition to gender equality entails.

The theoretical background presumption underlying the analysis and discussion in this report is a discursive and constructive approach to social and political reality that draws on critical frame analysis and discourse theory. Within the theoretical context of this study, policy actors, civil society organisations and academic experts in gender equality are understood as actively contributing to the interpretation and reframing of gender equality as a contested concept.

An example is the way in which intersectional gender equality advancement reinterprets and reframes gender equality to accommodate structural disadvantage, anti-racism, anti-ableism and transgender rights, for instance. The survey was designed to provide the respondents with a possibility to choose which definition of gender equality best described their work.

The theoretical approach draws and builds on extensive research on anti-gender mobilisation in Europe and the Nordic region, compiled by the author of this report for the purpose of this study.

Against the theoretical background of this study, open-ended survey responses are interpreted as sites contributing to how gender equality is defined and framed, as well as to how opposition to gender equality is understood and experienced by respondents.

Existing research also shows that anti-gender actors and other opponents of gender equality advancement actively reframe existing notions of gender equality, portraying intersectional gender equality advocacy and policy in particular as ‘harmful’ gender ideology.

Distinguishing between the two different framing processes of 1) advancing gender equality, and 2) discursive opposition to gender equality is essential for the purpose of this study, as treating them as equivalent risks creating false balance. For this reason, the report analyses discursive forms of opposition, characteristic of covert pushback strategies, in a separate chapter on encountered opposition (chapter 3.6).

2.3 Respondent background characteristics

Of the 88 survey respondents, the largest group consisted of representatives from civil society and NGOs (n = 38), followed by academics (n = 30). Among the academic respondents, 25 were professors, associate professors, or senior lecturers. The remaining respondents represented public sector and government institutions (n = 20). The participation of public sector and government officials is notable, given the relatively small number of gender equality positions in these institutions compared with civil society organisations, NGOs, and academic institutions.

In terms of geographic distribution, the highest number of responses came from Finland (n = 20), followed by Iceland (n = 18) and Norway (n = 18), Sweden (n = 17), and Denmark (n = 11). Greenland and the Åland Islands together provided 4 responses, which are reported collectively. Relative to population size, Iceland, followed by Greenland and the Åland Islands combined, had the highest engagement.

No responses were received from the Faroe Islands, despite attempts to reach gender equality experts there. Previous research from the Faroe Islands, however, indicates that rhetorical opposition to gender equality may be present in this region.

Respondent distribution by sector

Civil society/non-governmental organisations: 43.2% (n = 38).
Academia, research and teaching: 34.1% (n = 30).
Public sector /government: 22.7% (n = 20).

Respondents by country

Finland: 22.7% (n = 20).
Norway: 20.5% (n = 18).
Iceland: 20.4 % (n = 18)
Sweden: 19.3% (n = 17).
Denmark: 12.5% (n = 11).
Greenland and Åland Islands: 4.6% (n = 4).
Faroe Islands: 0.0% (n = 0).

Total respondents: 88. Response rate: 31%.

Individual respondents were invited to provide information about minority status, gender, and sexual orientation. Among the civil society/NGO respondents and the academic respondents, 32 chose to provide information about their gender and minority background. Of these, the majority identified as women (72%, n = 23), with a significantly smaller number identifying as men (15.6%, n = 5) and non-binary (9.4%, n = 3) or other (1%, n = 1).

Minority background was included to examine possible correlations between minority status and experiences of opposition to gender equality work. Of the 32 respondents who chose to provide information on their minority status, 56.2% (n =18) identified as belonging to one or more minority groups. 16 respondents provided more detailed information about their minority status in a response option where respondents could provide more details about their intersecting minority identities.

To ensure the respondents’ anonymity, only generalised descriptions of minority statuses are provided in this report, when relevant for understanding forms of opposition and impact of opposition on respondents. Responses included various sexual and gender identities, indigenous and religious backgrounds, and non-heterosexual marital status.

2.4 Areas of gender equality work among respondents

To capture the scope and variety of professional experience and expertise in gender equality advancement work across civil society, academia and government in the Nordic region, all respondents were asked about their specific focus areas. Government officials and academics were also asked additional questions about their areas of gender equality expertise.

The majority of respondents specialised in gender equality in the broad sense, followed by LGBTIQ+ rights, human rights, minority rights, trans/intersex issues and women’s and girls’ rights. Across all three sectors, one third (33%, n = 29) focused on men and masculinities. This proportion is nearly as high as those working on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and/or comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) (35.6%, n = 31), gender mainstreaming (35.6%, n = 31), or anti-racism (36.8%, n = 32). These figures clearly indicate that work and advocacy relating to boys and men constitutes a substantial component of gender equality advancement in the Nordic region.

Other focus areas reported in the open-ended responses (11.5%, n = 10) included social services and social rights, gender-based violence, sexual violence, and intimate partner violence, public health, access to legal assistance, LGBTQI+ family-related children’s rights and gendered power. Figure 1 below illustrates the focus areas among all respondents.

Figure 1: In my everyday work, I/my organization mainly focuses on issues related to [choose all that apply]

Number of respondents: 87

Among government officials, the majority reported working in public policy or foreign policy. Open-ended responses also included equality, equal treatment and human rights. See Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Select the option that best describes your organization’s work.

Number of respondents: 20

Figure 3 below shows the range of academic disciplines represented in the survey responses. The majority of academics who responded specialised in gender studies (nearly 70%). This high proportion partly reflects the purposeful and snowball sampling of gender studies scholars, as the survey targeted those academics in particular who conduct research on themes related to gender equality. Other academic disciplines represented included sociology, political science, history, and cultural studies. Open-ended responses also mentioned social work, management and organisational studies, social work and child protection, working life studies and leadership.

Figure 3: In my academic research and teaching, my main discipline or field is [choose all that apply]

Number of respondents: 30

A substantial majority of respondents (82%, n = 69) from all three sectors reported actively creating content on social media regarding their gender equality work. See Figure 4. This background information is significant, as the study finds a correlation between online presence and the risk of encountering threats or harassment. This pattern has been observed in previous Nordic studies.

Figure 4: Are you or is your organization actively creating content on social media regarding the work you do for gender equality?

Number of respondents: 84

2.5 Multiple understandings of gender equality

The interpretation of the survey data is grounded in the theoretical premise that respondents actively shape how gender equality is framed, including how opposition to gender equality is defined. Existing research shows that gender equality is a concept with multiple institutional interpretations and definitions, depending on the context, such as public policy, academic research, and civil society advocacy work. Professionals working in different areas of gender equality advancement are also generally aware that there are multiple, and sometimes competing, interpretations of what gender equality entails.

Different understandings of gender equality, as well as potential shifts in the meaning of the term, are important to consider. These interpretations shape public debate, influence policy development, and guide state funding for the implementation and advancement of gender equality measures across different levels of society in the Nordic countries. For this reason, the survey included background questions that allowed respondents to select from multiple definitions of gender equality work, rather than simply assuming that all respondents have a shared understanding of what gender equality means and consequently, what opposition to gender equality work means.

When respondents were asked which statement best described gender equality in their organisational or individual line of work, the vast majority (87.5%) defined gender equality work as intersectional. This means that they perceived gender equality work to include issues related to gender diversity, men and masculinities, anti-racism and anti-ableism.

A small proportion of respondents defined gender equality more narrowly, either as equality strictly between men and women (3.4%, n = 3) or as work focused exclusively on the rights, health, and advocacy of women and girls (5.7%, n = 5). Three of these responses came from the civil society organisation group and two from the government sector. Further analysis of these respondents’ areas of specialisation indicates that they mainly worked on violence against women and girls or identified their work as men’s rights advocacy. In contrast, all academic respondents defined gender equality as intersectional. See Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Please select the statement that best describes gender equality in your line of work [please select one]

Number of respondents: 88

Because government officials responded as representatives of their institutions rather than as individuals, their definitions of gender equality are likely shaped by national legislation and policy decisions, including those informed by international agreements. Their definitions should therefore be interpreted as context-dependent and reflective of both legal and institutional frameworks rather than personal views. Nevertheless, in all Nordic countries and regions represented in the survey, most government respondents also defined gender equality as intersectional. Only two respondents, who were from two different countries, in this group defined gender equality strictly as equality between men and women.

In the open-ended response section (3.4%, n = 3), additional definitions of gender equality work included work related to domestic violence, issues concerning trans women who identify as lesbians, and intersectional work addressing men and boys belonging to minority groups.