過去關於代議政治的性別研究，多著墨於男女代表在立法效能上的比較，本研究試圖擺脫過去的限制，釐清究竟男女代讀士的角色是否有所區別且其界線何在。本研究首先由理論探討性別與代表性的關係，就自由主義者觀點而言，代議士應超越任何認同群體的利益，包括本身的性別或是階級認同，致力於代表全體利益。社群主義者則認為，在共同的認同基礎上，代議士應積極代表本身所屬的認同群體，過女代表的出現(presence)，婦女的利益才能獲得實踐，描述性代表乃是實質性代表的前提要件。本研究究透過與第三屆立法委員的實際深入訪談，比較男女立委在代表認知與行為上的可能差異，研究顯示性別差異確實出現於立法院內，沿著選民認同與政策偏好兩個面向將男女立委切割成不同的代議士群體，主觀上認同婦女選民也使得女性立委在客觀上觀意投注較多心力於婦女議題，不同立法面向之間呈現出一致性與相關性。同時在面臨各種制度內外的主客觀的壓抑性別差異的限制時，Carroll的婦女網絡的觀點也解釋了性別差異在代議制度內(立法院)被保存與維繫的原因。

　　　　　Complered with past studies of female compatibility with men in the arena of representational politics, this study goes further, and looks to explore exactly what it is that distinguishes women from men, and the rationale of considering gender divisions as an integral part of normal party politics. I start with the theoretical discussion regarding representation. The liberal theorists maintain that our representative bodies should transcend interests based on group identity. In contrast, the supporters of the politics of identity claim that representatives should represent different identity groups, and particularly those that are oppressed. To evaluate whether gender makes a difference in terms of legislator's attitudes toward representation, I interviewed a sample of legislator's attitudes toward representation, I interviewed a sample of legislators to explore and compare male and female representatives' conceptualizations and attitudes to representation. Over all, I have observed a significant gender difference as regards women's issues, with respect to considerations may prevent women from bringing forth any significant changes, women are more likely to be involved with or develop women's networks, and that such networking is conducive to developing a stronger female group identity and identifying with women's culture.