Skip to main content

The politics of happily-ever-after: romance genre fiction as aesthetic public sphere


How does the romance reading community understand the genre in relation to sociopolitical concerns? This paper draws on interviews, observations of romance writers’ conferences, and a variety of text data to explore how popular romance fiction functions as an aesthetic public sphere, a site of political discourse. While I find that romance novels and the romance community address a range of sociopolitical issues, readers and writers debate whether they should address these issues. Some think romance should only provide entertainment, while others embrace the genre’s potential for active engagement with sociopolitical issues. These expectations play out in both romance novels and in community relations. Despite debate over the ideal purpose of romance, there is widespread agreement among readers that the genre is fundamentally about hope and the belief that love—and romance reading—can transform the world. This research extends the aesthetic public sphere concept to popular genre fiction, showing that romance is a particular kind of reading experience that allows readers to engage with serious sociopolitical issues with the promise of a happily-ever-after.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    The acronym DEI was the term preferred by RWA’s external diversity consultant and board members during the 2019 national conference. Community conversations about DEI go back to the earliest days of RWA (founder Vivian Stephens, a Black woman, advocated for more diversity in romance publishing). However, I maintain that the sustained discussions and institutional responses (however inadequate) mark a new phase.

  2. 2.

    For studies that do focus on relational or industry dynamics, see Greenfeld-Benovitz (2012), Lois and Gregson (2015), Moody (2013), and Markert (2016).

  3. 3.

    RWA’s status is now in flux, but they were influential in the American community during the period under study (2015–2019). Current membership is likely below the documented 9000 figure—in late December 2019 RWA plunged into crisis due to mishandling of diversity issues. See section Entertainment and Engagement: Expectations for Reading and Community for more discussion.

  4. 4.

    Though the share of male and non-binary readership has grown in recent years, romance is still primarily consumed by women (Appendix 3).

  5. 5.

    This respondent was not comfortable discussing erotic romance with her young child at home.

  6. 6.

    Both of these are Colleen Hoover novels included as Goodreads winners. Several respondents said they felt Hoover was more of a women’s fiction or new adult author, and speculated that her books win the “Best Romance” category because a majority of Goodreads voters are general fiction readers, not regular romance readers who are invested in the genre definition.

  7. 7.

    Milan’s tweets were part of a larger conversation about bias in the romance publishing industry after others noted former Borders book buyer Sue Grimshaw “had liked racist/white-supremacist-adjacent tweets” (Grady 2020). See also Noori Farzan 2020 or Wendell 2019 for more coverage of this case.

  8. 8.

    Brockmann, who is white, is referring to commonly cited exit poll statistics suggesting that 53% of white women voted for Trump in 2016.

  9. 9.

    This article was widely shared and praised on romance community social media.

  10. 10.

    “Non-substantive” comments did not directly state a reaction to the book or the review, such as comments seeking or suggesting other novels.

  11. 11.

    That is, of course, if you share McQuiston’s politics. One SBTB comment complained that the Democrats were portrayed as “too good” and the Republicans “too bad” to be multidimensional characters, but no one otherwise commented on the partisan depictions.

  12. 12.

    Most people observed at conferences are not identified by their real names; I make an exception for speeches made publicly available. Armentrout’s speech is publicly accessible on RWA’s YouTube channel.

  13. 13.

    I thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this important point.

  14. 14.

    RITA award year is year following publication, i.e. the 2018 publication Lady in Waiting is the 2019 RITA winner


  1. Aarya. 2019. Book Review: Red, White, and Royal Blue by Casey McQuiston. Smart Bitches, Trashy July 28, 2019. Accessed 3 Nov 2019.

  2. Alexander, J.C. 2006. The Civil Sphere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ali, K. 2017. Human in Death: Morality and Mortality in J.D. Robb’s Novels. Waco: Baylor. University Press. Kindle Edition.

  4. Alter, A. 2018. The Changing Face of Romance Novels. The New York Times. July 7, 2018. Accessed 8 July 2018.

  5. Barot, L. 2016. Queer romance in twentieth- and twenty-first-century America: Snapshots of a revolution. In Romance Fiction and American Culture: Love as the Practice of Freedom?, ed. W.A. Gleason and E. Murphy Selinger, 389–404. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beckett, L. 2019. Fifty Shades of White: The Long Fight Against Racism in Romance Novels. The April 9, 2019. Accessed 10 April 2019.

  7. Becker, H.S. [1982] 2008. Art Worlds. Berkeley, Calif. London: University of California Press.

  8. Bettelheim, B. [1975] 1989. The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales. New York: Vintage Books.

  9. Brackett, K.P. 2000. Facework Strategies Among Romance Fiction Readers. The Social Science Journal 37 (3): 347–360.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brockmann, S. 2018. That RWA LTA Speech (News from Suz). July 21, 2018. Accessed 10 Oct 2019.

  11. Canfield, D. 2017. Romance as resistance: How the happily-ever-after genre is taking on Trump. Entertainment Weekly online. November 3, 2017. Accessed 10 Dec 2019.

  12. Cawelti, J.G. 1976. Adventure, Mystery, and Romance: Formula Stories as Art and Popular Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Childress, C. 2017. Under the Cover: The Creation, Production, and Reception of a Novel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cole, A. 2017. An Extraordinary Union. New York: Kensington.

  15. Cullinan, H. 2019. Marketing Your Inclusive Romance, Part I. Romance Writers Report 39 (3): 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Darnton, R. 1984. Chapter 1: Peasants tell tales: The meaning of mother goose. The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History. New York: Basic Books, 9–72.

  17. Felski, R. 2008. Uses of Literature. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fish, S. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fletcher, L., B. Driscoll, and K. Wilkins. 2018. Genre Worlds and Popular Fiction: The Case of Twenty-First Century Australian Romance. The Journal of Popular Culture 51 (4): 997–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Foasberg, N.M. 2012. Online Reading Communities: From book clubs to book blogs. The Journal of Social Media in Society 1 (1): 30–53.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Frantz, S.S.G., and E. Murphy Selinger, eds. 2012. New Approaches to Popular Romance Fiction: Critical Essays. Jefferson: McFarland & Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fusco, J. 2015. Marketing Insider. Romance Writers Report 35 (3): 42–43.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gleason, W.A., and E. Murphy Selinger, eds. 2016. Romance Fiction and American Culture: Love as the Practice of Freedom? New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Greenfeld-Benovitz, M. 2012. The interactive romance community: the case of “covers gone wild. In New Approaches to Popular Romance Fiction: Critical Essays, ed. S.S.G. Frantz and E.M. Selinger, 195–205. Jefferson: McFarland & Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Grady, C. 2020. Bad Romance. June 24, 2020. Accessed 24 June 2020.

  26. Griswold, W. 2013. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Griswold, W., and M. Bastian. 1987. Continuities and Reconstructions in Cross Cultural Literary Transmission: The Case of the Nigerian Romance Novel. Poetics 16 (3): 327–351.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Habermas, J. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Herrera, A. 2019. Immigrant stories in romance are revolutionary. We need more of them. November 6, 2019. Accessed 2 Dec 2019.

  30. Jacobs, R.N. 2007. From mass to public: rethinking the value of the culture industry. In Culture, Society, and Democracy: The Interpretive Approach, ed. I. Reed and J. Alexander, 101–128. Boulder: Paradigm Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jacobs, R.N. 2012. Entertainment media and the aesthetic public sphere. In Oxford Handbook of Cultural Sociology, ed. J. Alexander, R. Jacobs, and P. Smith, 318–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jacobs, R.N., and N.M. Wild. 2013. A Cultural Sociology of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. American Journal of Cultural Sociology 1 (1): 69–95.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jones, P. 2007. Beyond the Semantic ‘Big Bang’: Cultural Sociology and an Aesthetic Public Sphere. Cultural Sociology 1 (1): 73–95.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kamble, J. 2014. Making Meaning in Popular Romance Fiction: An Epistemology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kingston, E. 2018. Reclaiming Historical Romance. Romance Writers Report 38 (12): 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kramer, G. 2019. Making Politics Loving Again: PW Talks with Casey McQuiston. Publishers Weekly. March 22, 2019.

  37. Loren, R. 2018. The Ones Who Got Away. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks Casablanca.

  38. Leach, S. 2019. Red, White, and Royal Blue Did the Unthinkable. Then It Went Viral. Glamour online. December 2, 2019. Accessed 4 Dec 2019.

  39. Lena, J.C. 2012. Banding Together: How Communities Create Genres in Popular Music. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lois, J., and J. Gregson. 2015. Sneers and Leers: Romance Writers and Gendered SexualStigma. Gender & Society 29 (4): 459–483.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Long, E. 2003. Book Clubs: Women and the Uses of Reading in Everyday Life. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. MacLean, S. 2017. How Trump Killed Off My Romantic Lead. The Washington Post online. August 8, 2017 Accessed 8 Aug 2019.

  43. Markert, J. 2016. Publishing Romance: The History of the Industry, 1940s to the Present. Jefferson: McFarland & Company Inc, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  44. McKernan, B. 2013. Interactivity, Interdependence, and Intertextuality: The Meaning of Video Games in American Civil Society. Dissertation, University of New York at Albany.

  45. McKernan, B. 2015. The Meaning of a Game: Stereotypes, Video Game Commentary and Color-Blind Racism. American Journal of Cultural Sociology 3 (2): 224–253.

    Google Scholar 

  46. McQuiston, C. 2019. Red, White, and Royal Blue. Griffin.

  47. Milan, C. 2015. Speaking Out. Romance Writers Report 35 (5): 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Modleski, T. 2008. Loving with a Vengeance: Mass-produced Fantasies for Women, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Moody, S.L. 2013. Affecting Genre: Women’s Participation with Popular Romance Fiction. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

  50. Noori Farzan, A. 2020. A romance writer called a novel racist. Now the industry is in chaos and its top awards have been canceled. The Washington Post. January 8, 2020. Accessed 9 Jan 2020.

  51. Paperback Trade Fiction. 2019. The New York Times. June 1, 2019. Accessed 4 Dec 2019.

  52. Pawley, C. 2002. Seeking “Significance”: Actual Readers, Specific Reading Communities. Book History 5: 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Polhemus, R.M. 1990. Erotic Faith: Being in Love from Jane Austen to D.H. Lawrence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Prokop, J. 2019a. Sports Related Head Injuries? Romance Fiction is Leagues Ahead of Other Genres in Treatments of Them. Kirkus Reviews. October 9, 2019. Accessed 10 Oct 2019.

  55. Prokop, J. 2019b. How Romance Awards Are Changing—And Why It’s About Time. Kirkus Reviews. August 26, 2019. Accessed 10 Oct 2019.

  56. Putman, E. 2017. Writers on Writing Featuring Marta Perry. Romance Writers Report 37 (5): 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Radway, J.A. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rai, A. 2017. Hate to Want You. New York: Avon.

  59. Regis, P. 2003. A Natural History of the Romance Novel. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Roach, C.M. 2016. Happily Ever After: The Romance Story in Popular Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Romance Writers of America. 2019a. About RWA. Accessed 7 Aug 2019.

  62. Romance Writers of America. 2019b. About the Romance Genre. Accessed 7 Aug 2019.

  63. SchüsslerFiorenza, E. 1992. But she Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Shayne, M. 2016. The Storyteller. Romance Writers Report 36 (7): 32–33.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Squires, J. 2004. Politics beyond boundaries: a feminist perspective. In What Is Politics? The Activity and Its Study, ed. Adrian Leftwich. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kindle edition.

    Google Scholar 

  66. The Ripped Bodice. 2018. The State of Racial Diversity in Romance Publishing—2017.

  67. ThumalaOlave, M.A. 2018. Reading Matters: Towards a Cultural Sociology of Reading. American Journal of Cultural Sociology 6 (3): 417–454.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Thurston, C. 1987. The Romance Revolution: Erotic Novels for Women and the Quest for a New Sexual Identity. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Verill-Rhys, L. 2019. Letter-to-Editor. Romance Writers Report 39 (2): 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Vivanco, L. 2016. Pursuing Happiness: Reading American Romance as Political Fiction. Humanities E-Books. Kindle Edition.

  71. Wendell, S. 2019. WTAF, RWA: Courtney Milan Banned, Suspended from RWA. Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. December 23, 2019. Updated January 12, 2020. Accessed 13 Jan 2020.

  72. Wohl, H. 2015. Community Sense: The Cohesive Power of Aesthetic Judgement. Sociological Theory 33 (4): 299–326.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Wu, J. 2011. Enlightenment or Entertainment: The Nurturance of an Aesthetic Public Sphere Through a Popular Talent Show in China. The Communication Review 14 (1): 46–67.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


Thank you to the Editor and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. I also would like to thank Wendy Griswold, Jun Fang, Emily Handsman, Mallory Fallin, and the members of Northwestern University’s Culture and Society Workshop for their helpful feedback on various stages of this article. Portions of this research were supported through grants from the Romance Writers of America and the Sexualities Project at Northwestern.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Michelson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


Appendix 1: Novels included in content analysis

2018 Notable Books (appeared on 2+ industry recognition lists)

Cole, Alyssa. 2018. A Princess in Theory. Avon.

Guillory, Jasmine. 2018. The Wedding Date. Berkley.

Hoang, Helen. 2018. The Kiss Quotient. Berkley.

Loren, Roni. 2018. The Ones Who Got Away. Sourcebooks Casablanca.

2017 Notable Books

Cole, Alyssa. 2017. An Extraordinary Union. Kensington.

Daria, Alexis. 2017. Take the Lead. SMP Swerve.

MacLean, Sarah. 2017. The Day of the Duchess. Avon.

Rai, Alisha. 2017. Hate to Want You. Avon.

2016 Notable Books

Bouchet, Amanda. 2016. A Promise of Fire. Sourcebooks Casablanca.

Jenkins, Beverly. 2016. Forbidden. Avon.

Shupe, Joanna. 2016. Magnate. Zebra.

2015 Notable Books

Dev, Sonali. 2015. The Bollywood Bride. Kensington.

Hall, Alexis. 2015. For Real. Riptide Publishing.

Meader, Kate. 2015. Playing With Fire. Pocket Books.

RITA Best First Book Winners Footnote 14

Tremayne, Marie. 2018. Lady in Waiting. Avon Impulse.

[Take the Lead—already accounted for above with 2017 notable books]

Etchison, Cheryl. 2016. Once and For All. Avon Impulse.

Dunn, Pintip. 2015. Forget Tomorrow. Entangled.

Goodreads Best Romance Winners

[The Kiss Quotient—already accounted for above with 2018 notable books]

Hoover, Colleen. 2017. Without Merit. Atria Books.

Hoover, Colleen. 2016. It Ends With Us. Atria Books.

Hoover, Colleen 2015. Confess. Atria Books.

Appendix 2: Interview respondent demographics

Age Gender Sexual orientation Race/ethnicity
Median age: 44 Female/woman: 28 Straight/heterosexual: 18 White/Caucasian: 22
Range 30–70 Male/man: 2 Gay: 2 Black: 2
   Bisexual: 3 Black/Multiracial: 1
   Demisexual:1 White/Arab: 1
   Other: 2 Latinx: 1
    Hispanic: 1
    Greek: 1
    Asian American: 1
N = 29 N = 30 N =26 N = 30
Relationship status Have children? Highest degree obtained Household income
Married: 20 Yes: 13 Some college:1 < $29,000: 2
Partnered: 2 No: 17 Associates: 3 $30,000–59,000: 5
Single: 6   Bachelors: 12 $60,000–90,000: 5
Widowed: 1   Masters: 11a >$100,000: 17
   JD: 1  
   Doctorate: 2  
N = 29 N = 30 N = 30 N = 29
  1. 32 interviews were conducted but no demographics question received 32 responses. Respondents were able to opt of out questions they preferred not to answer. Most questions were open ended. For example, the respondent who wrote in Greek for race/ethnicity discussed this choice—she felt like she was “supposed to say white” but as a second generation immigrant she did not relate to white American culture and did not identify herself that way
  2. aIncludes one respondent currently pursuing a PhD

Appendix 3: Romance reader demographics

Readership statistics are reported by RWA from "The Romance Book Buyer 2017: A Study by NPD Book for Romance Writers of America” (Romance Writers of America 2019b).

  • Female: 82%

  • Male: 18%

  • Average age of the romance reader: 35–39 years old

  • Ethnicity: 73% White/Caucasian, 12% Black/African American, 7% Latino/Hispanic, and 4% Asian/Asian American.

Sexual orientation: 86% heterosexual or straight; 9% bisexual, pansexual, or other bi+ identity; 2% gay or lesbian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michelson, A. The politics of happily-ever-after: romance genre fiction as aesthetic public sphere. Am J Cult Sociol 9, 177–210 (2021).

Download citation


  • Reading
  • Romance
  • Aesthetic public sphere
  • Civil society