What a Drag! the Criminalization of Gender Performance in U.S. Law

Background: This study examines how drag performance, an expressive art form central to LGBTQIA+ culture, is increasingly criminalized through state-level censorship laws. Drawing from queer legal studies, critical policy analysis, and constitutional law, this research analyzes the legal framing and historical trajectory of gender nonconformity as a site of state regulation. Contemporary anti-drag bills often position gender performance as obscene or inappropriate, invoking moral panic and child protection rhetoric to justify their enactment. However, these laws draw from a longer legal history, echoing the Comstock Act, cross-dressing bans, and early obscenity codes. This study explores the criminalization of drag and gender nonconforming performance in U.S. law, tracing how legal definitions of “obscenity,” “public decency,” and “sexual conduct” have been weaponized to restrict LGBTQIA+ expression. While often framed as moral or child protection concerns, laws targeting drag reflect a long-standing legal tradition of regulating gender through vague and discretionary policy tools. This research situates contemporary anti-drag legislation within a historical arc of queer censorship and constitutional conflict.

Methods: The study employs a legal-historical and qualitative policy analysis of anti-drag legislation from 2022 to 2024. Data were collected from official state legislative websites and analyzed using ATLAS.ti, with codes derived from grounded theory and interdisciplinary frameworks. Using qualitative coding and close reading, the analysis focused on key terms (e.g., “obscene,” “harmful to minors,” “gender-oriented material”) and the construction of legal categories used to police gender expression. Particular attention was paid to the evolution of legal language over time and the rhetorical strategies used to present gender variance as a threat to public order. Findings were triangulated with public policy documents and archival media reporting to understand enforcement patterns and public discourse.

Results: Findings demonstrate that laws restricting drag are not new, but part of a longer history of gender regulation under moral and legal pretense. Today’s bills continue this legacy through the use of vague terminology that enables selective policing of queer communities while maintaining legal deniability. These laws often fail constitutional tests under the Miller standard for obscenity and disproportionately impact trans and nonbinary individuals. Yet they remain politically effective tools of ideological governance.

Conclusions and implications: This research has significant implications for social work, particularly given the profession’s ethical obligation to promote dignity and challenge injustice. By grounding the legal history and rhetorical strategies behind anti-drag legislation, this study calls on social workers, legal advocates, and policy scholars to resist moralistic governance and defend the rights of marginalized communities. This research highlights the critical role social workers can play in recognizing how law is used to erase marginalized identities. By understanding the roots and rhetoric of these policies, advocates can better challenge legal discrimination and support community resilience.