Abstract There is ongoing debate as to whether gender specialization, historically considered to be the most efficient family arrangement, or gender egalitarianism, now typically seen as more economically and ideologically desirable, is more negatively associated with divorce in the contemporary United States. In the context of a stalled gender revolution, I draw upon gender equity theory to explore whether differential levels of institutional support for gender equality in the home, operationalized as state-level work-family policy supports, help explain why traditional gender arrangements are still often associated with marital stability among different gender couples. I use the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (1995–2019) merged with state policy information to test the hypothesis that gender specialization primarily reduces the risk of divorce when institutional support for balancing work and family life is low, using an indicator I term structural support for working families, especially among married parents. Findings support this hypothesis: male-breadwinning and gender specialization reduce divorce risk when structural support for working families is low, but there are no differences across work-family arrangements when support is high. By integrating micro- and macro-level views on gender, public policy, and family life, this study helps us understand how gendered institutional structures have shaped the progression of the gender revolution in the United States.
Kimberly McErlean (Mon,) studied this question.