Netflix’s hit show Bridgerton, which first took the world by storm with its gripping love stories way back in 2020, is slated to release its fifth season in 2027.
This season follows Francesca Bridgerton (Hannah Dodd) and Michaela Stirling (Masali Baduza), following the death of Francesca’s husband and Michaela’s cousin, John.
For those who read the books Bridgerton is based off of, this came as a huge shock. Michaela was once Michael, a fan favorite.
But … I literally couldn’t care less. I’m sorry! (I’m not.) In a show that has worked tirelessly to reinvent the period drama and foster representation, I struggle to understand the motive for people’s shock. The show is constantly depicting different cultures, waving away racism typical of the Victorian era with ease (and a swoon-worthy prequel series, Queen Charlotte). No one had a problem with that.
Furthermore, Benedict Bridgerton, last season’s protagonist, had a beautiful arc surrounding the discovery of his own queerness, and he did not receive the same reaction Francesca has for deviating from the book character. In fact, many people went as far as to say they wished he had gotten the gender-swapped season!
This is not a new phenomenon; shows like Heartstopper and Heated Rivalry have gained massive acclaim, while sapphic stories like Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies or First Kill are quietly cancelled. And that’s not to hate on either of those shows; it’s amazing to have that representation, and they’re telling meaningful stories.
But often when men are completely taken out of the equation, there is less support. The patriarchy demands male dominance. Even implicitly, being unable to engage with lesbian or sapphic love stories reinforces the question: why is it uncomfortable for people to watch women choose each other?
I’ve also seen people wondering — why Francesca? Rather than someone like Eloise, who’s been going against the marriage mart for the entire show? Fran, who “had her great love,” and whose story was always about doing what she was “supposed” to do?
But that’s exactly the point Bridgerton is trying to make: gay people have always existed, and they don’t all match one ‘idea’ of queerness. Francesca is just another example of that. For a show like Bridgerton to take that leap and platform a lesbian love story on such a massive scale is groundbreaking and incredibly exciting.
Bridgerton is a show I keep coming back to, not just for the drama. I come back for the love stories, and the rich, nuanced commentary it makes on everything from race to class (last season was especially inspiring on this front).
My message to all the book purists is this: if you miss Michael Stirling that bad, re-read the book! Let’s face it, there’s no way everyone would have been happy with the casting anyway. Everyone experiences a book differently, and the Michael Stirling cooked up in your head wouldn’t have been matched to a T. Michaela is blissfully free from that pressure, as she is someone none of us were expecting. And Masali Baduza is jaw-droppingly gorgeous, so … get over it?
Bridgerton is a show about love conquering all. Why should queer love ever be excluded from that?
I’ll leave it to Hannah Dodd, who said it best: “Queer people did exist, have existed, and will always exist. So they deserve a love story just like everybody else.”