GLAAD Report Finds LGBTQ+ Film Representation at a Three-Year Low
A scene from PlainclothesPhoto Credit: Magnolia
by Chris Tremblay Aug 7
4 MIN READ
GLAAD’s 2026 “Where We Are in Film” study reports that LGBTQ+ representation in major-distributor films fell to its lowest level in three years, with transgender representation disappearing entirely from the organization’s 2025 sample. The report, released on 2026-07-09, examined 225 films distributed in the United States during 2025 by 10 major companies and their affiliated labels or streaming services.
Of the 225 films reviewed, 46 included at least one LGBTQ+ character, representing 20.4 percent of the total. That figure was down from 59 of 250 films, or 23.6 percent, in the previous study, and from a reported high of 28.5 percent in the 2022 film year. GLAAD describes the decline as a third consecutive year of reduced representation among the distributors it tracks.
The number of LGBTQ+ characters also decreased substantially. GLAAD counted 112 LGBTQ+ characters in the 2025 films, compared with 181 in the prior study. The organization reported that 34 of those characters, or 30 percent, were people of color, down from 36 percent previously. GLAAD said that the 2025 figure was the lowest proportion of LGBTQ+ characters of color recorded in the nine editions of the study that measured this category.
The report’s most pronounced finding concerns transgender representation. GLAAD counted zero transgender characters in the 225 films reviewed and zero films with transgender-inclusive characters. The organization recorded two transgender-inclusive films in each of the previous two studies and 12 in the study covering 2022 releases.
GLAAD characterized transgender inclusion in the films studied as “non-existent” and criticized both harmful portrayals and the exclusion of transgender characters and stories. The organization’s report argues that authentic representation should involve nuanced storytelling and meaningful participation by transgender people, rather than relying on stereotypes or inauthentic casting.
The absence of transgender characters is distinct from the report’s count of seven nonbinary characters. GLAAD classified those characters as nonbinary but did not identify them as transgender within the films’ narratives. The study counted characters based on what was stated or shown in the films, rather than on an actor’s real-life identity, source material, or outside reporting.
None of the 19 animated or family films in the study included an LGBTQ+ character. GLAAD defines the family category as animated and children’s films rated PG or below. The organization said that the complete absence of LGBTQ+ characters in this category overlooks LGBTQ+ young people and families who also watch mainstream family entertainment.
The report also found that LGBTQ+ characters remained more likely to appear in supporting or background roles than as central figures. Eighteen of the 112 characters were leads, 27 were significant supporting characters, 37 were supporting characters, and 30 were background characters. Taken together, supporting and background roles accounted for 60 percent of the characters counted.
Thirty-six of the 46 inclusive films passed the Vito Russo Test, a measure GLAAD uses to assess whether an LGBTQ+ character is identifiable, significant, and connected to the story rather than included only as a marginal device. That result means that most inclusive films in the sample met the test, although the overall number of inclusive films and characters continued to fall.
The report does not portray every part of the film business as moving in the same direction. GLAAD identified mid-budget films and horror as areas where LGBTQ+ stories achieved notable visibility or financial performance. Among the 19 inclusive films with publicly reported budgets, 11 had production budgets between $15 million and $90 million.
GLAAD also reported that every theatrically released LGBTQ+-inclusive horror film in the study with available budget information earned more than twice its production budget at the box office. The organization highlighted films including The Parenting, Companion, and Weapons in its discussion of horror’s performance. The report’s financial analysis applies only to the films and budget information covered by its methodology; it does not establish that LGBTQ+ content alone caused a film’s commercial result.
GLAAD cited Hedda, Blue Moon, and Sorry, Baby as examples of films that placed LGBTQ+ characters prominently in their stories. It also pointed to Fairyland as a film that included two characters living with HIV, following two consecutive studies in which the organization counted no LGBTQ+ characters living with HIV.
GLAAD President and Chief Executive Officer Sarah Kate Ellis said that the industry risks losing younger audiences if studios do not invest in films featuring LGBTQ+ characters. GLAAD Senior Director of Entertainment Research and Analysis Megan Townsend similarly argued that studios cannot afford to disregard LGBTQ+ moviegoers when developing films and marketing strategies.
The report connects representation to audience demographics, citing Gallup’s finding that 23 percent of Americans under 30 identify as LGBTQ+. That statistic is presented by GLAAD as part of its business argument for inclusive storytelling, not as a direct measurement of film attendance or box-office spending by LGBTQ+ audiences.
GLAAD recommends that studios increase the number and narrative importance of LGBTQ+ characters, restore representation of LGBTQ+ people of color, include transgender people authentically, and develop LGBTQ+-inclusive animated and family films. It also calls for continued investment in theatrical releases, streaming titles, independent productions, mid-budget projects, and original stories rather than relying only on established franchises.
The study is limited to films from 10 major distributors and does not represent every LGBTQ+-inclusive film released in 2025. GLAAD noted that smaller distributors released films it considered significant, including The History of Sound, Mother Father Sister Brother, The Wedding Banquet, Plainclothes, and A Nice Indian Boy. The report therefore documents a contraction in representation within the major-distributor sample, while also acknowledging that LGBTQ+ filmmaking continues beyond the largest studios.
For LGBTQ+ audiences, the report presents a mixed picture: major-studio inclusion declined, transgender representation was absent from the sample, and family films offered no LGBTQ+ characters. At the same time, the report identifies evidence that films centering LGBTQ+ people can receive critical attention and, in selected genres and budget ranges, achieve strong commercial results. The immediate business question is whether major distributors respond to those successes with broader, more consistent investment—or continue narrowing the range of stories visible in mainstream cinema.
The number of LGBTQ+ characters also decreased substantially. GLAAD counted 112 LGBTQ+ characters in the 2025 films, compared with 181 in the prior study. The organization reported that 34 of those characters, or 30 percent, were people of color, down from 36 percent previously. GLAAD said that the 2025 figure was the lowest proportion of LGBTQ+ characters of color recorded in the nine editions of the study that measured this category.
Transgender representation disappears from the sample
The report’s most pronounced finding concerns transgender representation. GLAAD counted zero transgender characters in the 225 films reviewed and zero films with transgender-inclusive characters. The organization recorded two transgender-inclusive films in each of the previous two studies and 12 in the study covering 2022 releases.
GLAAD characterized transgender inclusion in the films studied as “non-existent” and criticized both harmful portrayals and the exclusion of transgender characters and stories. The organization’s report argues that authentic representation should involve nuanced storytelling and meaningful participation by transgender people, rather than relying on stereotypes or inauthentic casting.
The absence of transgender characters is distinct from the report’s count of seven nonbinary characters. GLAAD classified those characters as nonbinary but did not identify them as transgender within the films’ narratives. The study counted characters based on what was stated or shown in the films, rather than on an actor’s real-life identity, source material, or outside reporting.
Family films remain a major gap
None of the 19 animated or family films in the study included an LGBTQ+ character. GLAAD defines the family category as animated and children’s films rated PG or below. The organization said that the complete absence of LGBTQ+ characters in this category overlooks LGBTQ+ young people and families who also watch mainstream family entertainment.
The report also found that LGBTQ+ characters remained more likely to appear in supporting or background roles than as central figures. Eighteen of the 112 characters were leads, 27 were significant supporting characters, 37 were supporting characters, and 30 were background characters. Taken together, supporting and background roles accounted for 60 percent of the characters counted.
Thirty-six of the 46 inclusive films passed the Vito Russo Test, a measure GLAAD uses to assess whether an LGBTQ+ character is identifiable, significant, and connected to the story rather than included only as a marginal device. That result means that most inclusive films in the sample met the test, although the overall number of inclusive films and characters continued to fall.
Mid-budget films and horror provide a different picture
The report does not portray every part of the film business as moving in the same direction. GLAAD identified mid-budget films and horror as areas where LGBTQ+ stories achieved notable visibility or financial performance. Among the 19 inclusive films with publicly reported budgets, 11 had production budgets between $15 million and $90 million.
GLAAD also reported that every theatrically released LGBTQ+-inclusive horror film in the study with available budget information earned more than twice its production budget at the box office. The organization highlighted films including The Parenting, Companion, and Weapons in its discussion of horror’s performance. The report’s financial analysis applies only to the films and budget information covered by its methodology; it does not establish that LGBTQ+ content alone caused a film’s commercial result.
GLAAD cited Hedda, Blue Moon, and Sorry, Baby as examples of films that placed LGBTQ+ characters prominently in their stories. It also pointed to Fairyland as a film that included two characters living with HIV, following two consecutive studies in which the organization counted no LGBTQ+ characters living with HIV.
What the findings mean for the movie business
GLAAD President and Chief Executive Officer Sarah Kate Ellis said that the industry risks losing younger audiences if studios do not invest in films featuring LGBTQ+ characters. GLAAD Senior Director of Entertainment Research and Analysis Megan Townsend similarly argued that studios cannot afford to disregard LGBTQ+ moviegoers when developing films and marketing strategies.
The report connects representation to audience demographics, citing Gallup’s finding that 23 percent of Americans under 30 identify as LGBTQ+. That statistic is presented by GLAAD as part of its business argument for inclusive storytelling, not as a direct measurement of film attendance or box-office spending by LGBTQ+ audiences.
GLAAD recommends that studios increase the number and narrative importance of LGBTQ+ characters, restore representation of LGBTQ+ people of color, include transgender people authentically, and develop LGBTQ+-inclusive animated and family films. It also calls for continued investment in theatrical releases, streaming titles, independent productions, mid-budget projects, and original stories rather than relying only on established franchises.
The study is limited to films from 10 major distributors and does not represent every LGBTQ+-inclusive film released in 2025. GLAAD noted that smaller distributors released films it considered significant, including The History of Sound, Mother Father Sister Brother, The Wedding Banquet, Plainclothes, and A Nice Indian Boy. The report therefore documents a contraction in representation within the major-distributor sample, while also acknowledging that LGBTQ+ filmmaking continues beyond the largest studios.
For LGBTQ+ audiences, the report presents a mixed picture: major-studio inclusion declined, transgender representation was absent from the sample, and family films offered no LGBTQ+ characters. At the same time, the report identifies evidence that films centering LGBTQ+ people can receive critical attention and, in selected genres and budget ranges, achieve strong commercial results. The immediate business question is whether major distributors respond to those successes with broader, more consistent investment—or continue narrowing the range of stories visible in mainstream cinema.
Copyright EDGE Media Network. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
