Recently, scholars have propagated a ‘claim-based’ approach towards the study of women’s substantive representation. In this article, we challenge the relativism of such a ‘claim-based’ approach and explore the relevance of the concept of ‘responsiveness’ as a democratic criterion. We do so, more specifically, through a study of Muslim women’s substantive representation in the Flemish headscarf debate. We identify claims to speak for Muslim women formulated by (1) political parties and (2) Muslim women and (minority) women’s associations and examine the congruence between their respective claims. The important incongruence found between the claims formulated by right-wing and liberal parties and those of Muslim women/women’s associations provides empirical backing to the acclaimed relevance of a relational evaluation of women’s substantive representation. We conclude that the criterion of responsiveness is invaluable because it allows us to evaluate if actors’ claims to speak for women account for women’s capacity to speak for themselves.

This article returns to the meanwhile classic question of which factors explain the adoption of gender quotas, but approaches the issue through the literature on electoral reform. It argues that the latter offers two new issues to be studied when it comes to the adoption of gender quotas. Firstly, the definition of the political-institutional and socioeconomic context in which gender quotas are adopted should be broadened, and international institutions, much focused upon in research on gender quotas, should be integrated in this definition of the context in which gender quotas get adopted, so as to facilitate comparative research. Secondly, research needs to approach actors striving for gender quotas more critically. This implies paying more attention to the women/feminist stakeholders involved in campaigns for gender quotas, as well as to their strategic motivations and possible self-interest.