Conclusion: Why Representation on TV Matters

  • Lulu Le Vay
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Science and Popular Culture book series (PSSPC)


This chapter summarises the core themes and arguments identified which are extended further in a discussion of the most recent popular texts featuring surrogacy storylines in American and Australian dramas The Handmaid’s Tale and Top of the Lake: China Girl. Further to this, the importance of how TV representations and reproductive politics connect in the construction and perpetuation of family ideology is also highlighted, and how this work must be acknowledged as an important moment in popular culture. This then emphasises the need for continual analysis of family ideology in the ever-changing media world, future works which the author underlines can only benefit from the foundations that have been laid throughout this book.


  1. Ahmed, Sara. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, Sara. 2010. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baby Mama. 2008. Directed and Written by Michael McCullers. Film. Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures.Google Scholar
  4. Battles, Kathleen, and Wendy Hilton-Morrow 2002. “Gay Characters in Conventional Spaces: Will and Grace and the Situation Comedy Genre.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 19 (1): 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlant, Lauren. 2008. The Female Complaint. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berridge, Susan, and Karen Boyle. 2014. “I Love You, Man: Gendered Narratives of Friendship in Contemporary Hollywood Movies.” Feminist Media Studies 14 (3): 353–368.Google Scholar
  7. Bridesmaids. 2011. Directed by Paul Feig. Written by Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo. Film. Universal City, California: Universal Pictures.Google Scholar
  8. Brooks, Peter. 1996. The Melodramatic Imagination. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brundson, Charlotte. 1997. Screen Tastes: Soap Opera to Satellite Dishes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Bruzzi, Stella. 2001. “Docusoaps.” In The Television Genre Book, edited by Glenn Creeber, Toby Miller, and John Tulloch. London: BFI.Google Scholar
  11. Carroll, Noel. 1996. Theorizing the Moving Image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, Cathy J. 1997. “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 3 (4): 437–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coronation Street. 1960–present. Created by Tony Warren. TV Programme. Manchester: ITV.Google Scholar
  14. Dimitriadis, Greg, and George Kamberelis. 2013. Focus Groups. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Farquhar, Dion. 1996. The Other Machine: Discourse and Reproductive Technologies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Feasey, Rebecca. 2015. Mothers on Mothers: Maternal Readings of Popular Television. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. Dialectic of Sex: The Case for a Feminist Revolution. New York: Naomi Wolf.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  19. Franklin, Sarah. 1990. “Deconstructing Desperateness’: The Social Construction of Infertility in Popular Representations of New Reproductive Technologies.” In The New Reproductive Technologies, edited by Maureen McNeil. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giuliana & Bill. 2009–2014. Executively Produced by Alastair Surprise, Robert Sizemore. TV Programme. Los Angeles, CA: E!Google Scholar
  21. Gledhill, Christine. 1987. “Speculations on the Relationship Between Soap Opera and Melodrama.” Quarterly Review of Film and Video 14 (1–2): 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gorton, Kristyn. 2009. Media Audiences. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Grey’s Anatomy. 2005–present. “Fear (Of the Unknown)” Season 10, Episode 24. Directed by Bill D’Elia. Written by Shonda Rhimes. May 15, 2014. TV Programme. New York: ABC.Google Scholar
  24. Halberstam, Judith. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn, Annette. 1992. Women’s Pictures: Feminism and Cinema. 2nd ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  26. Lam, Carla. 2015. New Reproductive Technologies and Disembodiment. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, Ruth, and Judith Scanlon. 2016. “Whose sexuality is it anyway? Women’s experiences of viewing lesbians on screen.” Feminist Media Studies 17 (6): 1005–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mamma Mia! 2008. Directed by Phyllida Lloyd. Written by Kristen Catherine Johnson. Film. Universal City, California: Universal Pictures.Google Scholar
  29. McNeil, Maureen. 1990. The New Reproductive Technologies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Mercer, John, and Martin Shingler. 2004. Melodrama: Genre, Style and Sensibility. New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
  31. Morse, David. 1972. “Aspects of Melodrama.” Monogram 4: 16–17.Google Scholar
  32. Mumford, Laura. 1991. “Plotting Paternity: Looking for Dad on Daytime Soaps.” Genders 12: 45–61.Google Scholar
  33. Mumford, Laura. 1995. Love and Ideology in the Afternoon: Soap Opera, Women, and Television Genre. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar
  34. Oliver, Kelly. 2012. Knock Me Up, Knock Me Down. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Packer, Vin. 1952. Spring Fire. New York: Gold Medal. Google Scholar
  36. Rahill, Frank. 1967. World of Melodrama. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rapp, Rayna, Ross Ellen, and Renate Bridenthal. 1979. “Examining Family History.” Feminist Studies 5 (1): 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roberts, Dorothy. 1995. “The Genetic Tie.” The University of Chicago Law Review 62 (1): 209–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roberts, Dorothy. 1996. “Race and the New Reproduction.” Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1154.Google Scholar
  40. Roberts, Dorothy. 2000. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  41. Rules of Engagement. 2007–2013. Created by Tom Hertz. TV Programme. New York: CBS.Google Scholar
  42. Sandelowski, Margarete. 1990. “Fault Lines: Infertility and Imperiled Sisterhood.” Feminist Studies 16 (1): 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, James L. 2018. Melodrama. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, Murray. 1995. Engaging Characters: Fiction, Emotion and the Cinema. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  45. The Handmaid’s Tale. 2017–present. Created by Bruce Miller. Written by Margaret Atwood. TV Programme. Channel 4.Google Scholar
  46. The New Normal. 2012–2013. Created by Elodie Keene, Max Winkler, Ryan Murphy. TV Programme. New York: NBC.Google Scholar
  47. Throsby, Karen. 2004. When IVF Fails: Feminism, Infertility and the Negotiation of Normal. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  48. Thurer, Shari. 1994. Myths of Motherhood: How Culture Reinvents the Good Mother. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  49. Top of the Lake: China Girl. 2017. Directed by Jane Campion. Written by Jane Campion, Gerard Lee. TV Programme. London: BBC2.Google Scholar
  50. Warner, Michael. 1999. The Trouble with Normal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Williams, Linda. 1991. “Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess.” Film Quarterly 44 (4): 2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilkinson, Sue. 1999. “Focus Groups: A Feminist Method.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 23 (2): 221–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lulu Le Vay
    • 1
  1. 1.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations