Women’s Power Index
from Women and Foreign Policy Program
from Women and Foreign Policy Program

Women’s Power Index

Find out where women around the world wield political power—and why it matters.

Last updated April 1, 2025 8:00 am (EST)

Tracker

Created by CFR’s Women and Foreign Policy program, the Women’s Power Index ranks 193 UN member states on their progress toward gender parity in political participation. It analyzes the proportion of women who serve as heads of state or government, in cabinets, in national legislatures, as candidates for national legislatures, and in local government bodies, and visualizes the gender gap in political representation. 

More From Our Experts

Scroll down below the table to view a list of current female heads of state or government, learn why women's political representation matters, find additional resources on women's political participation, and read the methodology.

How to Use the Index

More on:

Women and Women's Rights

Global

Women's Political Leadership

  • Use the map to view data for one indicator at a time. Select the indicator you wish the map to display using the drop-down menu above the map.
  • Use the table to view data for all indicators together. The drop-down menu above the table lets you customize the list of countries or regions to display.
 

 

 

 

 

More From Our Experts

Current Female Heads of State or Government

Why Women's Representation Matters

Today, women around the world are running for political office in unprecedented numbers—and winning. Here is why it matters.

More on:

Women and Women's Rights

Global

Women's Political Leadership

In the aggregate, women’s leadership promotes bipartisanship, equality [PDF], and stability. And when women make up a critical mass of legislatures—around 25 to 30 percent—they are more likely to challenge established conventions and policy agendas. 

Common ground. Women are more likely to cross party lines to find common ground. A study of the U.S. Senate found that women senators more frequently worked across the aisle and passed more legislation than their male counterparts. For example, women U.S. senators from both parties joined together to negotiate an accord to end a government shutdown. Another study showed that women prime ministers and cabinet ministers are more successful in reaching compromises. In Northern Ireland, Catholic and Protestant women’s groups joined forces to establish a powerful political party that made progress across religious divides during the Northern Ireland peace efforts in the late 1990s.

Equality and social welfare. Women lawmakers are more likely to advocate for policies that support equality and social welfare [PDF]. Once they reach a critical mass in legislatures, results ensue: One study found an increase in expenditure on education. Another study linked the growing share of women in sub-Saharan African legislatures to increased healthcare spending and lower child and infant mortality. Parliaments with more women have passed more robust climate policies. During the pandemic, women-led governments responded with rapid, effective, and socially inclusive measures [PDF]. Parliaments with a higher share of women lawmakers are also more likely to pass and implement [PDF] legislation that advances gender equality.  

Stability. Women’s inclusion at leadership tables promotes stability. One study found that, on average, a country is almost five times less likely to respond to an international crisis with violence when women’s parliamentary representation increases by 5 percent. Within countries, women’s parliamentary representation is associated with a decreased risk of civil war and lower levels of state-perpetrated human rights abuses, such as disappearances, killings, political imprisonment, and torture. In post-conflict Rwanda, where over 50 percent of parliamentarians are women, lawmakers have supported inclusive decision-making [PDF] processes that promote reconciliation efforts at the local level. Women played leading roles in achieving peace in the Philippines and in shaping post-conflict constitutions around the world.  

To be sure, electing women does not guarantee those outcomes. Holding political office is just the first step to wielding political power; in many countries, institutional structures and political systems still limit women’s ability to influence policy. Women are not a homogenous group, and not all women leaders will be cooperative, peaceful, or advocate for laws that strengthen gender equality. Being the first woman elected to a leadership position often means navigating previously male-dominated structures, which can translate into political caution rather than policy change. 

In any event, evidence suggests that some hurdles are growing. As the number of women seeking office has increased, so has physical violence  and online abuse [PDF] targeting women in politics. One study of women parliamentarians found that 44.4 percent [PDF] were threatened with death, rape, or physical violence. According to another study, women officials are targeted 3.4 times more often than men. Women have also been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic through unemployment, wage disparity, and declining managerial positions.  

Nonetheless, these setbacks have motivated women in many countries to become politically engaged and to connect through burgeoning worldwide networks [PDF]. As the ranks of women leaders increase, they help to inspire and empower others to enter the political arena.

Additional Resources

For more work from CFR scholars, see “Renewing the Global Architecture for Gender Equality,” by Ann Norris; “Women in the 118th Congress: Halting Progress, Storm Clouds Ahead,” by Linda Robinson; “Biden’s Progress on Women’s Rights: Good Start, But Not Fast Enough,” by Linda Robinson; “Women Under Attack: The Backlash Against Female Politicians” in Foreign Affairs, by Jamille Bigio and Rachel Vogelstein; “Other Nations Have Been Putting Women in Charge. Where’s the U.S.?” in the Washington Post, by Alexandra Bro and Rachel Vogelstein.  

About the Data

Political parity score:

The political parity score (a number between 0 and 100) is an aggregate of women’s representation across five indicators of political participation: heads of state or government, national cabinets, national legislatures, national legislature candidates, and local legislatures. The index measures women’s representation, which refers to the numerical presence of women rather than women’s impact or policy preferences. 

Each indicator was scored by converting the raw data into a ratio of women’s representation over men’s representation and then scaling the result to 100. Thus, if women hold 25 percent of the seats in a country’s national legislature, the country is given a score of 33.3 (25 divided by 75 scaled to 100) for the national legislatures indicator. The maximum score for each indicator is 100, which means that women make up 50 percent or more of the measured value for that specific indicator. 

The aggregate score was then obtained by calculating the unweighted average of each of the five indicator scores (for those where data was available). For countries with the same score, we assigned them the same rank and left a corresponding gap in the index. Thus, if two (or more) countries tie for a position in the ranking, the position of those ranked below them is unaffected (i.e., a country comes in third if exactly two countries score better than it and fourth if exactly three countries score better than it). 

The index will be updated on a quarterly basis with, when possible, new publicly available data. An increase or a decrease in a country’s relative rank does not necessarily mean that the country has improved or worsened its female representation in all—or any—of the five scored indicators. A change in a country’s aggregate score, however, means that women’s representation has changed in one or more of the five indicators. 

Elected and appointed heads of state or government since 1946: The number of female heads of state and government between January 1, 1946, and April 1, 2025. We count female heads of state or government after World War II—when the world saw a wave of independence movements—and only include 193 UN member states. This list does not include monarchs or governors appointed by monarchs, acting or interim heads of state or government who were not subsequently elected or confirmed, honorary heads of state or government, copresidents, joint heads of state, heads of government of a constituent country, or women who were or are not constitutionally the head of government but rather serve or served in a position akin to a deputy to the president. In countries with collective heads of state, the list includes only presiding members (often called the chairperson). 

This indicator was scored using the following methodology: The number of years since 1946 with a female head of state or government was divided by the number of years since 1946 with a male head of state or government. The male value was calculated by subtracting the female value from the total number of years since 1946 (seventy-nine). When a female head of state or government was suspended, we counted her time in office up until the date she was suspended, even if she officially remained in office (e.g., Park Geun-hye in South Korea and Dilma Rousseff in Brazil). If a country has had a woman head of state or government at the same time, we did not double count the time period. This data was collected using publicly available information and can be viewed in the map above. 

Cabinets: Percentage of ministerial positions held by women, as of January 1, 2025. This data was collected by UN Women and can be found in the UN Women’s Women Political Leaders 2025 poster. UN Women collected data from national governments, permanent missions to the United Nations, and publicly available information. UN Women’s count of the total number of ministers includes deputy prime ministers and ministers but excludes vice presidents and heads of governmental or public agencies. UN Women includes prime ministers or heads of government if they hold ministerial portfolios. 

National legislatures: Percentage of seats held by women in lower and upper houses of national legislatures, as of March 1, 2025. This data was collected by IPU. 

National legislature candidates: Percentage of registered female candidates in the most recent elections to the lower and upper houses of national legislatures, as of March 31, 2025. This data was collected by IPU. 

Local legislatures: Percentage of elected seats held by women in local government bodies, as of March 31, 2025. This data was collected by the UN Statistics Division (UNSD), a division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. See here for the data and here for a detailed explanation of UNSD’s methodology and data collection. 

 

Close

Credits

The original version of the Women's Power Index was created by Rachel B. Vogelstein and Alexandra Bro.

Top Stories on CFR

Trade

President Trump doubled almost all aluminum and steel import tariffs, seeking to curb China’s growing dominance in global trade. These six charts show the tariffs’ potential economic effects.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.