On March 24, Netflix posted on social media that Season 5 of Bridgerton was underway and would feature Francesca Bridgerton’s love story. When reading this announcement, I was over the moon!
In Season 3, the show made the significant choice to introduce Francesca’s future love interest as Michaela instead of Michael. As a queer woman, this change from the novels meant so much to me.
Rarely are queer relationships given happy endings in media, especially in period pieces. A widely popular romance series that shines a light on historical queer couples is such a refreshing thing to see, though not all fans saw the announcement this way.
The comments of the announcement post were flooded with viewers saying they’d skip the season, that it wouldn’t be historically accurate, that Francesca’s character was ruined, or a mix of all three.
Yet, these commenters are the same demographic that praised Heated Rivalry and watched every episode of Heartstopper. Why do lesbian relationships in media not get the same reaction as gay ones?
The Double Standard
In Season 3, fan-favorite character Benedict Bridgerton had an awakening. When he had sex on screen with multiple men and women, there was no distinct uproar, no outraged tweets or threats to cancel the show. In fact, Benedict was revered as an icon, and the show’s writers were praised for their ingenuity.
The issue with Francesca’s new queer identity is that her main love interest is also a woman, not some fling that leads to her straight marriage. For consumers of a show that has shown much more scandalous content than two women being in love, this seems to be an odd place to draw the line.
I often find the reason to be fear. Shows like Heated Rivalry, Young Royals, or Heartstopper step outside the heterosexual lens while still centering on men. Straight women can view from a distance and remove themselves much more easily.
However, with Bridgerton showcasing two women, completely removing men from the equation, an unknown fear begins to arise among women who still believe their value is tied to men.
Women are often taught to feel uncomfortable at the thought of feeling desire or of pursuing love. This is most likely why Eloise Bridgerton, the brash, outcast sister, is more often believed to be queer.
She fits the narrative that queer women are different and identifiable from straight women. Francesca, on the other hand, is demure, family-oriented, and conventionally attractive.
If someone like Francesca could easily find another husband, why does she “have” to be queer? This is the comment I see the most. Francesca introduces the idea that queer women can be anyone; there’s no neat box to place them in.
Nothing threatens the patriarchy more than queer women, because if two women can choose each other, where do men get their power over them?
Bridgerton Has Been Breaking Boundaries
Francesca’s actor, Hannah Dodd, said in a promotional interview with Netflix, “Queer people did exist, have always existed, and will always exist,” an anthem for many queer individuals.
While the show might take liberties with how accepting “The Ton” is and the potential of marriage in the end, that doesn’t make the season wildly inaccurate in its themes and portrayal of love.
Bridgerton already casts blind to race and disabilities, featuring prominent characters whose very being is historically inaccurate. Also, the show has already changed numerous details from the books and doesn’t claim to be a faithful adaptation in any sense.
Why should it be? Bridgerton’s excitement comes from its risks and deviation from societal norms.
Francesca’s storyline as a young widow longing for love and motherhood won’t change; it’ll only blossom. I’m so excited to see where the showrunners take her and Michaela’s story and to have queer love proudly represented in such an influential show.
Want to see more HCFSU? Be sure to follow us on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and Pinterest!