Popular culture’s fascination with the Bridgerton TV show lies in the production’s ability to disguise regressive gender dynamics under glossy modern takes.
Audiences are initially immersed into the show’s fictional aristocracy, a softened version of the regency era, where the constraints of women seem less severe. The colours are vibrant and the romance is both steamy and scandalous.
Each season follows prestigious families as eligible lords and ladies enter the marriage market, seeking advantageous matches to secure the highest status.
The show has been praised for its modern twist on the past. Its racially integrated society, female characters and expanding LGBTQ+ storylines highlight the pressures faced by gentlewomen.
Yet, Bridgerton ultimately falls short of challenging gender roles or stereotypes. It offers just enough progressive sensibility while maintaining traditional values that are harmful towards women.
The male characters are variations of the same archetype — brooding, emotionally unavailable and properly sowed. They view women as objects of desire, often eyeing their bodies while expecting perpetual innocence, even if they never receive consequences for their own sexual behaviour.
This acts as reinforcement for stereotypical preconceptions between the male and female sex under the guise of romance.
Season four’s hero, Benedict Bridgerton, exemplifies this double standard. As a charming, misunderstood “rich boy,” he engages in casual threesomes and one-night stands with nameless women, yet in the end he still gets the girl.
In contrast, if he were a woman, such behaviour would leave him destined for social ruin.
And when these aristocratic men do fall in love, their emotional arcs rely on discomfort and conflict — particularly when the women in their lives assert independence or challenge them.
They then perform heroics, participate in some good makeup sex and claim that love conquers all, while praying on the written naivety of the female characters to ensure nothing fundamentally changes.
Sophie Baek and Benedict Bridgerton’s storyline reveals this. As the illegitimate daughter of an earl and maid, Sophie exists on the margins of society. Even as her relationship develops with Benedict, her worth remains tied to his perception of her.
“Be my mistress,” he suggests knowing he cannot marry someone so beneath him.
As their love persists, they ultimately reinforce the social hierarchy. Sophie is only accepted as marriageable after her noble lineage and proximity to male power is revealed.
If the show was really pushing historical boundaries and was aligning with more modern takes, why wouldn’t Sophie pave her own way by being the brave, virtuous and educated woman she is?
Eloise Bridgerton is similarly nerfed as a character. Once a fiery, independent thinker and social rebel, she is recast as a socially constrained spinster left for the shelf. Her desire for autonomy is softened to fit a more conventional romantic arc.
What once defined her character is brushed off as a phase, implying that independence is earned through isolation and quieter existence.
While some might say “it’s just being historically accurate,” Bridgerton has already broken historical expectations. If it can rewrite racial boundaries, why does it still fall back on gender and class in ways that reinforce misogyny?
