Has research on lesbian domestic violence improved over the past decade?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Research on lesbian intimate partner violence (IPV) has grown substantially in visibility and volume over the past decade, producing more scoping reviews, systematic syntheses, and population-level estimates, but it remains methodologically uneven, geographically narrow, and conceptually nascent in several key domains [1] [2] [3].
1. Growth in outputs and new syntheses, but still “nascent” scholarship
Academic attention to IPV in lesbian and broader sexual-minority relationships has increased — recent calls describe the literature as having “substantial growth” while still being nascent, reflecting more publications, reviews, and explicit research-to-action agendas in the 2010s and early 2020s [1]; scoping and systematic reviews now try to map what is known about victimization and perpetration among sexual minority women [2].
2. Better population benchmarks — but only in some countries
Large-scale surveys have for the first time provided national benchmarks for sexual-minority adults: for example, the U.S. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (2016–2017) produced lifetime IPV prevalences for lesbian and bisexual women that are higher than comparable heterosexual estimates, a milestone that anchors many recent analyses [1]. However, such high-quality, national-level data are unevenly available and concentrated in high-income contexts [1].
3. Persistent methodological weaknesses undermine comparability
Despite more studies, many archives of lesbian/IPV research still rely on nonprobability samples, small convenience datasets, inconsistent definitions of sexual minority status, and a wide array of measures of IPV—many unvalidated—making comparisons and meta-estimates fragile [2] [4]. Older critiques urging more well-controlled, theory-driven designs remain relevant because those methodological problems have not been comprehensively solved [5].
4. Measurement and psychometrics are now recognized as priority gaps
Recent work highlights the urgent need to evaluate and improve IPV measurement tools for LGBTQ+ samples: consensus-based validity testing and psychometric work are being called for because current instruments often lack demonstrated reliability or responsiveness in sexual-minority populations [6]. In short, the field is moving from describing prevalence toward internal technical work on measurement — but that work is ongoing and incomplete [6].
5. Service, legal, and help-seeking research still shows service blind spots
Research documenting barriers to help-seeking and system responses has existed for years, and studies continue to show dismissive or inadequate criminal-justice and service responses to lesbian survivors, indicating that applied research on service effectiveness remains limited [7] [8]. Reviews repeatedly note scarce evidence on whether programs tailored to sexual-minority survivors are effective, preserving a gap between knowledge and practice [8].
6. Intersectionality and global representation lag behind publication volume
Newer reviews and qualitative studies emphasize intersectional drivers — race, trans status, age, and region — but research that rigorously examines these intersections remains sparse, and the Global South is particularly under-researched [3] [1] [9]. Where studies exist (e.g., campus research in South Africa), they underscore context-specific drivers and impacts, showing that more geographically diverse work is both necessary and feasible [9].
7. Verdict: clear improvement, but not yet “solved”
Overall, the past decade has seen meaningful improvement: clearer national estimates in some countries, more reviews, and an explicit pivot toward measurement and intersectional questions [1] [2] [6]. Yet foundational limitations persist — nonrepresentative sampling, inconsistent definitions, limited psychometric validation, uneven geographic coverage, and weak evidence on service effectiveness — so the field has advanced but remains far from mature [2] [5] [8].
8. What the literature itself recommends next
Authors across reviews call for representative sampling frames, validated IPV instruments for LGBTQ+ populations, research-to-action partnerships to translate findings into campus and community interventions, and more work in underserved regions — priorities that, if enacted, would shift the field from patchy growth to sustained, actionable knowledge [1] [6] [3].