You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

Skip to main
DONATE Reach A Counselor Meet Friends

Differences in Political Views Within Families and Mental Health Among LGBTQ+ Young People

LGBTQ+ young people who did not share political views with any of their immediate family members, or experienced full political discordance, had higher odds of seriously considering and attempting suicide.
Donate

Key Findings

  • Political discordance within families was associated with higher odds of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among LGBTQ+ young people. 
  • LGBTQ+ young people who reported not sharing political views with their immediate family members were more likely to report low family support than those who shared the same political views as their immediate family members (42% vs. 14%).
  • TGNB young people were more likely than their cisgender LGBQ+ peers to report not sharing political views with any of their immediate family members (32% vs. 28%).

Background

Politics influence health behaviors and outcomes through policies that either inhibit or facilitate access to resources and care.1 However, the political landscape has an additional impact on mental health beyond any direct impacts of health  policy.2 Political concerns and uncertainty about the future may also contribute to psychological distress among young people. Young people who report worrying about politics are more likely to lack optimism about the future and are more likely to report struggling with their mental health.3 This may be particularly relevant for LGBTQ+ young people, as the political environment in the US maintains a large focus on LGBTQ+ people, particularly transgender people.4,5 For example, a recent study found that the political climate was associated with mental health among LGBTQ+ college students, with students in more politically conservative states reporting greater rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality.6 These factors necessitate further exploration into different ways the political environment may shape LGBTQ+ young people’s mental health.

Beyond the broader political environment, differences in political views within families may also be associated with the mental health of LGBTQ+ young people. Family support is critical for all young people, but especially LGBTQ+ young people, for whom high family support is associated with a 62% reduction in the odds of suicidal ideation.7 However, when LGBTQ+ young people and their families share different political views, it may reduce the level or impact of this family support. Although differing political views do not necessarily indicate family conflict or a lack of support, these differences within the family may be associated with lower family support or poorer mental health. This political discordance warrants particular focus among LGBTQ+ young people as they are more likely than non-LGBTQ+ young people to say that political differences have caused issues or hurt relationships with family members.3

In particular, it remains unclear how family differences in political views relate to family support and the mental health of LGBTQ+ young people. To this end, this brief uses data from The Trevor Project’s 2025 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People to examine associations between political discordance in families and mental health for LGBTQ+ young people.

Results

Demographics
Family political discordance, or having different political views within the same immediate family, was a common experience for LGBTQ+ young people. Less than one-third of LGBTQ+ young people (30%) reported sharing the same political views as all of their immediate family members, while most young people had different political views from some (39%) or all (31%) of their family members.

This varied significantly by demographic factors. By age, LGBTQ+ young people ages 18 to 24 were more likely than those ages 13 to 17 to report sharing political views with only some, but not all, of their immediate family members (40% vs. 37%) or not sharing political views with any of their immediate family members (32% vs. 27%). In comparison to their cisgender LGBQ+ peers, TGNB young people were more likely to report not sharing political views with their family members (32% vs. 28%). LGBTQ+ young people living in the South (36%) were more likely to report having different political views from their family than young people living in other regions. LGBTQ+ young people living in large cities were more likely to align politically with their family members (36%) than young people in other areas, while LGBTQ+ young people living in rural areas (42%) were more likely to report having different political views from their family than young people from other areas.

Family Support and Political Discordance
Family support also differed by the level of political discordance reported by LGBTQ+ young people and was associated with their mental health. LGBTQ+ young people who reported not sharing political views with any of their immediate family members were more likely to have lower levels of family support than young people who shared the same political views as their immediate family members (65% vs 19%). Higher levels of family support were associated with lower odds of anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.61, 95% CI:0.58-0.66, p<.001), lower odds of depression (aOR=0.48, 95% CI:0.45-0.53, p<.001), lower odds of considering suicide (aOR=0.54, 95% CI:0.49-0.59, p<.001), and lower odds of attempting suicide (aOR=0.59, 95% CI:0.50-0.69, p<.001).

Political Discordance and Family Support for LGBTQ+ Young People chart

Familial Political Discordance and Mental Health
Compared to LGBTQ+ young people who shared political views with all of their immediate family members, those who experienced partial political discordance, or shared political views with only some but not all of their immediate family members, had higher odds of recent anxiety (1.20, 95% CI: 1.09-1.32, p<.001), higher odds of recent depression (aOR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.11-1.33, p<.001), and higher odds of considering suicide in the past year (aOR=1.23, 95% CI:1.11-1.36, p<.001).

Compared to LGBTQ+ young people who shared political views with all of their immediate family members, LGBTQ+ young people who experienced full political discordance, or did not align politically with any of their immediate family members, had higher odds of recent depression (aOR=1.31, 95% CI: 1.18-1.46, p<.001), higher odds of seriously considering suicide in the past year (aOR=1.49, 95% CI:1.33, 1.66, p<.001), and higher odds of attempting suicide in the past year (aOR=1.49, 95% CI:1.24-1.79, p<.001).

Family Political Discordance and Suicide Risk for LGBTQ+ Young People chart

Looking Ahead

Political discordance within families was associated with poorer mental health among LGBTQ+ young people in this analysis. Political discordance, whether between all members of the immediate family or only some members of the family, was associated with higher odds of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. The proportion of LGBTQ+ young people reporting political discordance within their immediate families also varied across different groups of LGBTQ+ young people. Specifically, TGNB young people were more likely than their cisgender LGBQ+ peers to report having different political views from all of their immediate family members. This demographic difference suggests that TGNB young people may be navigating a more challenging landscape for resources and support, especially given that many anti-LGBTQ+ policies and rhetoric specifically target TGNB people.8

When young people shared the same political views as their immediate family members, they also reported greater family support, suggesting that shared political affiliations may in part be reflective of shared family beliefs and values. Previous research has found that LGBTQ+ young people tend to be more politically aware, politically engaged, and more likely to take some form of civic action than their non-LGBTQ+ peers.9 For LGBTQ+ young people, politics, political concerns, and political beliefs are deeply important to them, and aligning with their families about those views may represent a deeper alignment of core values.

The results of this analysis also suggest that the associations between political discordance and mental health persisted even after accounting for family support. LGBTQ+ young people who shared political views with their families were less likely to report poor mental health or past-year suicide ideation and attempts. Because these analyses are cross-sectional, these associations are not causal; we cannot definitively say which precedes the other, nor can we completely rule out the effect of other factors which may be associated with both family political discordance and mental health. Although support from one’s family is one of the most important protective factors against suicide risk for LGBTQ+ young people,10,11 it only partially attenuated the relationship between political discordance and mental health for LGBTQ+ young people. The effect of political discordance still remained, suggesting that additional factors may explain the relationship between family political discordance and the mental health of LGBTQ+ young people, which would be a good subject of future investigation.

LGBTQ+ young people are especially aware of political news, as political affairs may directly impact different subgroups of LGBTQ+ young people.12 For example, while all LGBTQ+ young people demonstrated high rates of political action-taking, transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) young people reported greater motivation to take political action and more political concerns.13 Overall, the influence of politics on LGBTQ+ young people cannot be overstated; rather, politics are a social environmental factor that touches their lives, both individually and within their families.

For LGBTQ+ young people, and more specifically TGNB young people, policies can have a direct impact on their ability to access resources like healthcare or school facilities. Given that young people may be more reliant on their families to access necessary resources and care, differences in political views may be particularly relevant when they reflect disagreements about a young person’s needs. Our previous research found that, when asked how people in their lives can best support them, 85% of TGNB young people said ‘Not supporting politicians that advocate for anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.’14

LGBTQ+ young people are vocal about their political beliefs,15 and the findings of this brief highlight the importance of understanding how differences in political views within families relate to their mental health. To better support the LGBTQ+ young people in their lives, families should seek out resources on how they can better help them navigate political differences in the home and their resulting impacts. While the impact of harmful policies being enacted cannot be undone by families alone, LGBTQ+ young people who are able to be supported within their families, even when they disagree politically, is a critical first step to improving mental health and lowering suicide risk.

To learn how you can help LGBTQ+ young people navigate complex political environments, check out these resources and more research from The Trevor Project: Civic Engagement, Political Concerns, and Mental Health among LGBTQ+ Young People and Finding Support & Building Community amid Political Uncertainty. Also, check out our brief with the Movement Advancement Project: How State Policy Affects the Well-Being and Relocation of LGBTQ+ Young People.

Data Tables

Political Discordance among LGBTQ+ Young People and Their Families, by Demographic Characteristics

Political Discordance among LGBTQ+ Young People and Their Families, by Demographic Characteristics table

Methods

Sample
Data were collected through The Trevor Project’s 2025 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People. This brief used data from 16,667 LGBTQ+ young people between the ages of 13 to 24 who were recruited via ads on social media, posts from various LGBTQ+ “influencers”, state and national organizations that serve LGBTQ+ young people, and The Trevor Project’s direct outreach efforts (e.g., e-mail listservs).

Measures
Demographics (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and census region), were assessed by asking participants to select a response from a provided list of answers.14

Family political discordance was assessed by asking participants “Do you share the same political views as your immediate family members?” with response options including “Yes,” “No,” “Some family members, but not all,” and “Unsure.”

Family support was assessed using the 4-item family subscale of an abridged version of the Multidimensional Scale of Social Support.16 Response options ranged from 1 “Very strongly disagree” to 7 “Very strongly agree”. These responses were then averaged to create a score of family support, and participants were considered to have high family support if their score was above 5.

Symptoms of depression and anxiety were assessed using PHQ-217 and GAD-2,18 respectively. Past-year suicidal ideation and past-year suicide attempt were assessed using items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey.19

Analysis
Chi-square tests were used to examine differences between groups. Logistic regression models were used to examine associations between variables, controlling for age, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, census region, and rurality. Models examining the association between political discordance and mental health additionally controlled for family support level. Unless otherwise noted, all analyses are statistically significant at p<0.05, meaning results at least as extreme as those observed differences would be expected less than 5% of the time if there were no true difference (i.e., under the null hypothesis). Percentages in tables may not add up to 100 because of rounding.

References

  1. 1. Maddox, K. E. J. (2024). The role of health policy in improving health outcomes and health equity. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 134, 200–213.

    2. Anderson, T. L., Valiauga, R., Tallo, C., Hong, C. B., Manoranjithan, S., Domingo, C., Paudel, M., Untaroiu, A., Barr, S., & Goldhaber, K. (2025). Contributing factors to the rise in adolescent anxiety and associated mental health disorders: A narrative review of current literature. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 38, Article e70009. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcap.70009

    3. Surgo Health. (2025). The Data Behind the Divide : Youth Voices on Politics, Family, and Mental Health. https://www.trackyouthmentalhealth.com/reports/politics-and-youth-mental-health

    4. Dhanani, L. Y., & Totton, R. R. (2023). Have you heard the news? The effects of exposure to news about recent transgender legislation on transgender youth and young adults. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 20, 1345–1359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00810-6

    5. Lee, W. Y., Hobbs, J. N., Hobaica, S., DeChants, J. P., Price, M. N., & Nath, R. (2024). State-level anti-transgender laws increase past-year suicide attempts among transgender and non-binary young people in the USA. Nature Human Behaviour, 8, 2096–2106. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01979-5

    6. Thomas, L. (2026). The impact of political climate on the mental health of LGBTQIA+ college students. Journal of American College Health, 74(2), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2025.2537140

    7. Nath, R., Matthews, D .D., Hobaica, S., Eden, T., DeChants, J. P., Clifford, A., Taylor, A. B., Suffredini, K. (2025). Project SPARK Interim Report: A Longitudinal Study of Risk and Protective Factors in LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health (2023-2025). West Hollywood, California: The Trevor Project. https://doi.org/10.70226/OSCY3344

    8. Redfield, E., Conron, K. J. , and Mallory, C. (2024). Youth Impacted by Anti-Transgender Legislation in 2024. The Williams Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024-Anti-Trans-Legislation-Apr-2024.pdf

    9. Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (2024). Queer Youth Are Powerful, Diverse, and Engaged – but Struggling with Mental Health. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/queer-youth-are-powerful-diverse-and-engaged-struggling-mental-health

    10. The Trevor Project (2025). Friends, Family, and Community: Social Support and the Health of Transgender and Nonbinary Young People of Color. https://doi.org/10.70226/WKQJ1410

    11. The Trevor Project. (2025). The Role of Parent and Caregiver Support on Perceived Life Expectancy and Life Purpose for Black Transgender and Nonbinary Young People. https://doi.org/10.70226/PDHW8773

    12. Movement Advancement Project. September 2025. In Their Own Words: Learning from LGBTQ Youth Experiences to Tell a New Story. https://www.mapresearch.org/2025-lgbtq-youth-report

    13. The Trevor Project (2025a). Civic Engagement, Political Concerns, and Mental Health among LGBTQ+ Young People. https://doi.org/10.70226/RYWX6880

    14. Movement Advancement Project (2025). New Survey Reveals Dramatic Changes for LGBTQ Adults Since November 2024. https://mapresearch.org/brief/new-survey-reveals-dramatic-changes-for-lgbtq-adults-since-november-2024

    15. Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30-41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

    16. Richardson, L. P., Rockhill, C., Russo, J. E., Grossman, D. C., Richards, J., McCarty, C., McCauley, E., & Katon, W. (2010). Evaluation of the PHQ-2 as a brief screen for detecting major depression among adolescents. Pediatrics, 125(5),e1097-e1103. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2712

    17. Plummer, F., Manea, L., Trepel, D., & McMillan, D. (2016). Screening for anxiety disorders with the GAD-7 and GAD-2: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. General Hospital Psychiatry, 39, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.11.005

    18. Mpofu, J. J., Underwood, J. M., Thornton, J. E., Brener, N. D., Rico, A., Kilmer, G., Harris, W. A., Leon-Nguyen, M., Chyen, D., Lim, C., Mbaka, C. K., Smith-Grant, J., Whittle, L., Jones, S. E., Krause, K. H., Li, J., Shanklin, S. L., McKinnon, I., Arrey, L., Queen, B. E., & Roberts, A. M. (2023). Overview and methods for the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System—United States, 2021. MMWR Supplements, 72(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7201a1

The Trevor Project. (2026). Differences in Political Beliefs among Families and Mental Health in LGBTQ+ Young People. https://doi.org/10.70226/XKSS6303

For more information please contact: [email protected]

© The Trevor Project 2026

Download the Research Brief Return to Research Briefs Page