The State of Disability Representation on Television: An Analysis of Scripted TV Series from 2016-20 by Ruderman Family Foundation

Foreword by Jay Ruderman

The narratives presented on screen significantly influence societal perceptions. Recognizing this impact, the Ruderman Family Foundation commissioned this white paper to examine the state of authentic disability representation on television, in collaboration with the Geena Davis Institute as the researchers.

For the past two decades, our foundation has championed the principle that inclusion and understanding of all people are essential to a fair and flourishing community. We have urged the entertainment industry to take a leadership role in depicting and employing individuals with disabilities. Hollywood shapes the stories that the world consumes and has an obligation to portray people with disabilities authentically.

Our previous study, “Authentic Representation in Television, 2018,” reveals a stark reality: only 22% of characters with disabilities were portrayed authentically by actors with the same disability. This underscores the significant underrepresentation of individuals with disabilities in media despite their substantial presence in the general population. The findings in this white paper reveal that, despite progress in broader diversity efforts, authentic disability representation on screen remains nearly unchanged from our previous research, with only 21% of characters with disabilities played by actors with the same or similar disability. This underrepresentation underscores the urgent need for nuanced and authentic narratives. Furthermore, our research shows that when characters with disabilities are portrayed, they often embody stereotypes rather than complex, relatable individuals.

The stakes are high; the messages conveyed through television can influence public policy and shape societal understanding of inclusion. We hope this paper serves as both an analysis and a call to action, inspiring writers, producers, and networks to create narratives that resonate with authenticity and empathy.

We invite you to explore this white paper and join us in our mission to advocate for a media landscape where individuals with disabilities are represented with dignity and depth.

JAY RUDERMAN President, Ruderman Family Foundation

Executive Summary

We analyzed disability representation in 350 scripted TV series from 2016 to 2023 on streaming/ broadcast/cable platforms that originated in the U.S. and were currently in production, according to Luminate Film & TV, by Variety.

Key findings include:

♦ Overall, just 3.9% of characters have a disability. The share of characters with disabilities on TV ranged from a low of 2.6% in 2020 to a high of 4.7% in 2021. Statistical analysis indicates that there is no positive or negative trend in disability representation on screen over the eight years analyzed.

♦ Overall, among streaming services, 4.7% of characters had a disability, while among broadcast/cable, 3.3% had a disability. The data does not suggest these numbers are improving over the timeframe examined for either platform.

♦ Overall, 21.0% of characters with a disability were authentically cast by actors with the same (or similar) disability. Statistical analysis indicates that there is no positive or negative trend in authentic casting for disability representation on screen over the years analyzed. However, there was large variance year to year. For example, the lowest share of authentically cast characters with a disability was 9.4% in 2018. The highest share of authentically cast characters with disabilities was 33.3% in 2016. Because the total number of characters with disabilities on screen is low overall, year to year the share of authentic casting can appear to increase or decrease dramatically, on account of just a few characters.

♦ Overall, white characters are about one-and-a-half times as likely to be portrayed as having a disability than characters of color (4.4% of all white characters compared with 3.1% of all characters of color). The year of production is not a significant predictor, meaning that the racial diversity of disabled characters is largely stable over the timeframe examined.

♦ LGBTQIA+ characters were about twice as likely to be depicted as having a disability than those who are not LGBTQIA+ (8.5% of LGBTQIA+ characters compared with 3.7% of non-LGBTQIA+ characters). The year of production is not a significant predictor, meaning that disabled representation among LGBTQIA+ characters is largely stable over the timeframe examined.

♦ The study finds 56.9% of characters with a disability who are 20 and older shown working or known to have a job, compared with 67.8% of characters without a disability who are 20 and older. In short, characters over 20 with a disability are less likely to be shown working than characters over 20 without a disability.

The evidence leads to the following recommendations:

increase authentic disability representation on screen. This will also help foster an industry culture that seeks out and values the contribution of people with disabilities.

♦ Adopt authentic casting practices. Authentic casting will lead to more accurate portrayals in the media. By casting actors with disabilities to play characters with disabilities, productions will be less likely to unconsciously invoke disability tropes and stereotypes. Authentic casting will foster a more inclusive industry and these stories will resonate more deeply with all audiences.

♦ Be conscientious of intersecting identities when writing and casting characters with disabilities. The study found that most characters represented with a disability were white, and much less racially diverse than nondisabled characters. Consider various identities such as race, gender, and age when casting disabled actors. Also, write the character in a way that shows how the intersection of disability and other marginalized identities leads to a unique experience.

♦ Write narratives that do not center on a character’s disability. Narratives that integrate disability as one aspect of a character’s identity, rather than the sole focus of their identity, will lead to more accurate portrayals. This approach promotes acceptance of disability and can contribute to a reimagination of disability and its meaning.

♦ In narratives, reject the presumption that disability means different. Challenge the idea that disability is abnormal; recognize disability as one intersecting identity among many.

♦ Make accessibility common, and unremarkable on screen. Make sets accessible for those with and without apparent disabilities. Adopt inclusive design by integrating accommodations into the backdrop of the story, such as ramps, assistive technologies, or signs with braille. Equally important is ensuring that the production environment itself embraces accessibility, enabling people with disabilities to fully participate behind the scenes

♦ Highlight the realities of living with disabilities in storytelling. Accurate representation requires depicting the everyday experiences and accommodations that are important for people with disabilities. For example, narratives involving deaf or hard-of-hearing characters should authentically include interpreters when appropriate, reflecting their role in facilitating communication. This approach not only enhances authenticity but also fosters audience understanding of the diverse realities of disability. By accurately showing such details, stories can contribute to more inclusive and impactful portrayals.

♦ Show those with disabilities in community with one another. Research shows that when individuals with disabilities are in community with one another, they have better mental health. It is essential that media representations showcase the positive benefits of shared community and community engagement for those with disabilities.

♦ Avoid ableist language. Ableist phrases and language contribute to the devaluing of those with disabilities. It also presumes able-bodiedness is the norm. It is harmful to make ableist language commonplace as it perpetuates negative attitudes and marginalizes those with disabilities. When scripts include words like “crazy” or “lame,” consider alternatives that describe what is meant, without debasing the disabled community.

Background

On-screen disability representation and why it matters

With US households consuming an average of nearly three hours of television a day (and television still the most popular leisure activity among Americans),1 TV plays a significant role in shaping our understanding of ourselves and others. For example, the portrayal of same-sex relationships on television has had a profound impact on public understanding and acceptance of queer identities in the US. Shows like Will & Grace (which aired from 1998 to 2006) have been credited with increasing the visibility of gay characters and familiarizing their audiences with same-sex relationships. Studies have shown that exposure to such portrayals is linked to more positive attitudes toward LGBTQIA+ identities, which helped shift public opinion toward acceptance and respect.2 In this same manner, attitudes about other communities with a history of marginalization can be shaped by on-screen representation, such as people with disabilities.

Television has the power to influence societal attitudes and how we think about accessibility, inclusion, and the experiences of people with disabilities. In recent years, scripted TV has featured a variety of characters with disabilities, including Violet Wu (As We See It, Amazon Originals) navigating dating in her 20s with autism; Maya Lopez (Echo, Disney+), an independent and skilled fighter who is also deaf and has a prosthetic leg; and Isaac Goodwin (Sex Education, Netflix), a character in a wheelchair with a sarcastic wit who finds himself in a love triangle. . These characters have the potential to challenge widespread stereotypes, or to refute inaccurate beliefs about people with disabilities. However, onscreen portrayals of disability can risk reinforcing harmful tropes and beliefs, too. Portrayals in fictional media are important because they influence public perceptions of disability, which shapes debates around public policy and public understanding of inclusion and its necessity.

This research analyzes how disability portrayals on TV have changed over time and to assess how they might be contributing to shifting societal attitudes about disability. This study explores whether disability representation on TV has increased over the last eight years, and if that representation is portrayed by actors with the same (or nearly the same) disability. To explore the state of disability representation on television, this study carries out an analysis of a random sample of 350 scripted TV series across the past eight years (from 2016 through 2023), including streaming and cable/broadcast, that originated in the US.3 Given television’s power to shape cultural norms, the hope is that this study will inspire new and reimagined stories that contribute to a more inclusive and accurate portrayal of disability in the media.

Portrayals in fictional media are important because they influence public perceptions of disability, which shapes debates around public policy and public understanding of inclusion and its necessity.

The state of disability representation on television

More than 1 in 4 adults in the US have some type of disability.4 And nearly everyone will move in and out of disability in their lifetime, whether it is through illness, aging, or injury.5 Several studies have looked at disability representation across TV, and nearly all of them point to low levels of visibility. For example, GLAAD’s Where we are on TV 2021-2022 study finds that characters with disabilities make up just 2.8% of TV series regulars.6 A study by the Geena Davis Institute analyzing 2022 new TV programming for children finds only 1.2% of characters had a disability.7 That said, another study by FilmDis looked at English-language live-action narrative shows that aired in the US between 2020-2022, and found that 86% included at least one disabled character. This means that while disability representation is low overall, many series include some disability representation. With respect to intersectional representation, the study by FilmDis found that most (73.7%) characters with disabilities on screen were white.8

More than 1 in 4 adults in the US have some type of disability

Despite such limited disability representation on screen, a 2019 survey by the Ruderman Family Foundation found that US households looking for more accurate portrayals of disabled characters had an annual spending power of nearly $125 billion.9 About 80% of respondents said they watched a television series with at least one main character with a disability, and the same proportion said they were watching movies featuring at least one main or secondary storyline related to disability.10 A 2024 study by the Inevitable Foundation found that two-thirds of respondents, both disabled and nondisabled, were not satisfied with the current state of disability and mental health representation in film and television. The same study also found that accurate portrayals of disabilities and mental health conditions drove audiences to talk about and recommend series and films to their friends and family.11

In addition to the demand for more stories about disability on screen, market research shows there is consumer demand for representation of disability by actors that share the characters’ disabilities, also referred to as “authentic casting.”12 According to the Ruderman Family Foundation report titled “Disability Inclusion in Movies and Television, Market Research 2019,” about half of US households want to see portrayals of disability by actors with disabilities and would sign up for a content distributor committed to actors with disabilities.13 As such, there is a commercial incentive to create media with authentic disability representation.

How often is disability representation on screen portrayed by actors with disabilities?

As noted, “authentic casting” is when characters on screen with disabilities are played by actors with the same disability.14 On broadcast networks, 22% of all characters with disabilities were portrayed authentically by an actor with the same disability, according to a Ruderman Family Foundation study of TV shows that aired in 2018. Among streaming services, 20% of characters were authentically portrayed by actors with disabilities. Additionally, looking at just the top-10 network shows in 2018, just 12% of all characters with disabilities were authentically cast, though this was an increase from 5% in 2016.15

The practice of actors portraying a character with a disability they themselves do not possess is a common and controversial aspect of casting in film and television. “Disabled mimicry” can often be the result, which is “the performance of disabled roles by nondisabled actors or actors without the specific disability represented, which is often reduced to mimicking disability through physicality and vocal intonation.”16 Renowned disability scholar Dr. Rosemarie Garland-Thomson argues that one answer for the prevalence of disability portrayed by actors who do not have a disability is that, in general, there is a less clear “collective notion” of what it means to be disabled, and therefore less concern for portraying it with authenticity.17 This lack of a collective understanding contributes to the ongoing practice of “disabled mimicry” and highlights the need for more authentic representation. Disability representation on screen has historically been shaped by nondisabled producers, directors, writers, and actors. By excluding people with disabilities from the production process, television and film run a greater risk of relying on tropes and stereotypes to inform disabled storylines,18 which can further the stigmatization of disabilities.

There are several ways that narratives perpetuate stereotypes and stigmatize disabilities. For example, some disability narratives approach disability “as a mystery in need of explanation,”19 which can contribute to the cultural and systematic exclusion, discrimination against, and exploitation of people with disabilities.20 Additionally, the media-monitoring organization FilmDis found an overwhelming number of instances of characters with disabilities serving as inspiration for nondisabled protagonists or as comic relief on several major network shows between 2019 and 2020.21 Such narratives marginalize individuals with disabilities in both media and societies, spreading misinformation that can have pernicious effects on disabled communities.

The next section calls attention to some common disability tropes that perpetuate harmful stereotypes, reinforce ableist attitudes, and limit public understanding of disabled individuals, highlighting why these portrayals need to be curtailed, to foster more inclusive and authentic representation. The findings section of this report analyzes whether some of these tropes emerged, and how.

Common disability tropes

Common disability stereotypes include being pitiable, exotic, deviant, comical, asexual, powerless, othered, dependent, and tragic.22 When storylines and characters repeatedly play into these tropes and stereotypes, it marginalizes people with disabilities by creating a reductive picture of people’s reality. As author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie argues in her 2009 TED Talk “The Danger of the Single Story,” a “single story” about any marginalized group reduces complexity and thereby understanding, which can lead to prejudice and reinforcement of power imbalances. As long as stories about disability lack depth, variety, and authentic representation, a collective understanding of disability will be incomplete.

In addition to disability stereotypes, a number of disability tropes are common in film, television, and other entertainment media. What follow are several of these tropes:

Inspiration Porn: This trope is when characters with disabilities are portrayed as extraordinary or heroic, serving as inspiration for nondisabled viewers or characters within the story, typically framed in a way that suggests their heroicness is because they “overcame” their disability. In these cases, individuals with disabilities serve as mere symbols intended to evoke pity or admiration. It can also be implied that “overcoming disability” is an achievement in and of itself. Or that it is solely a matter of personal determination, ignoring the broader systemic barriers that affect people with disabilities.23

Disabled Villains: This trope is when disability is used to make villains appear frightening. These stories also tend to link physical or mental disabilities to a character’s malevolence. This harmful trope suggests that disability is either the cause or a reflection of their violent behavior or even a punishment for evil actions, reinforcing the idea that disability is something to be feared. These portrayals dehumanize individuals with disabilities by weaponizing disability as a source of spite or ill repute.

Disability as a Superpower: This trope gives characters with disabilities abilities that either compensate for or stem from their disability, often in a supernatural or exaggerated way. For example, a blind character might have their other senses heightened to a superhuman degree, or a character with a neurological difference might possess mystical insight. While seemingly empowering, this trope can be problematic when it suggests that a disability must be offset by extraordinary powers instead of the story portraying disabled individuals as capable without such embellishments or powers.24

Magical Healing Fantasy: This trope follows a character with a disability and their journey to “cure” or eliminate that disability. It reinforces the harmful notion that disabilities are flaws that need to be corrected for a person to live a fulfilling life or conform to societal norms. By suggesting that disabled individuals are incomplete or deviant until they are “fixed,” this trope perpetuates the stigma that disability is something inherently negative, or abnormal.25

Data and Methodology

Defining disabilities on screen

People with disabilities encompass a diverse population, and individuals with the same disability can experience that disability in different ways. Moreover, many disabilities are hidden or not immediately visible. This report defines disability broadly to encompass physical (such as low vision, deafness, limb difference), intellectual/learning/developmental (such as ADHD, autism, Down syndrome), and mental health issues (such as severe anxiety, substance use disorders, and depressive disorder).26 For this report, analysts conducted background research for each series in the sample (see “Sample” section below) to determine whether the series included a character with a disability in the main cast, even if the show does not discuss the character’s disability in every episode. Less prominent characters with disabilities were identified depending on the narrative of the episode selected (see “Sample” section). In addition, research was carried out to determine if characters with disabilities were played by actors with the same (or a very similar) disability; researchers searched for public sources (at least two) where the actor identifies themselves as someone with a disability, to assess how often characters with disabilities are played by actors with the same disabilities.

Sample

To assess the current state of disability representation on TV and how it has evolved, this study analyzes a random sample of 350 scripted TV shows in production in the US from 2016 to 2023. The shows are sampled from all scripted TV shows released in the US (and originating in the U.S.) in the specified year on broadcast/cable and streaming,27 according to Luminate, an industry database by Variety. For each year in the dataset a unique set of shows is sampled randomly. Due to randomness, the same series has the opportunity to be included in numerous years, if the show is in production for multiple years.28 The second episode from the corresponding year for each series was identified for narrative analysis. The second episode is selected to account for as much uniformity in narrative progression across different shows as possible.

Table 1 presents the total number of series sampled for the specified year and the number of characters identified from the selected episodes (including lead/colead, notable supporting, supporting, and minor roles. Please see the Glossary for character prominence definitions).29 Given that a different number of shows are in production and released in the U.S. each year, and because shows were selected randomly, the number of episodes sampled varies from year to year.

TABLE 1

Total number of episodes and characters in the dataset

Series database source: Luminate Film & TV

Data collection

For data collection, content analysis is utilized, which is a research method where researchers operationalize complex concepts into quantifiable markers and systematically identify every occurrence of those markers in media. The data collection process is carried out by a team of human expert analysts, who have all met training standards to ensure consistent and reliable data collection.

All characters in the second episode of the sampled series for the respective year who play lead/colead, notable supporting, supporting, and minor roles were analyzed for the following demographic information: gender, race, LGBTQIA+ identity, disability, and age. This data is collected to report the state of intersecting identities among characters with disabilities.

Last, to test whether changes over time are statistically significant, or whether differences between platforms (e.g. streaming versus cable/broadcast) are statistically significant, a multilevel model that accounts for dependencies between characters in the same show is applied.30 This approach accounts for the fact that characters from the same show are not entirely independent of one another, which could influence the results (known as nested data). The multilevel model helps ensure that any observed changes over time or differences between platforms (e.g., streaming vs. cable/broadcast) are statistically significant and not due to chance or patterns within specific shows. However, the raw percentages are also provided in tables and charts to give readers an intuitive, descriptive view of the data, complementing the statistical findings. This approach allows for both easy-to-understand summaries and rigorous statistical testing.

Findings

Disability representation on TV

Overall, in series from 2016 to 2023, the analysis finds that among all narratively prominent characters (leading, notable supporting, supporting, minor31), just 3.9% have a disability. The share of characters with disabilities on TV ranged from 2.6% in 2020 to 4.7% in 2021, and therefore there was little variation over the time frame examined (See Figure 1). According to a multilevel model to account for statistical dependencies between characters in the same show, the year is not a statistically significant predictor of disability representation, which means that the analysis did not identify a robust positive or negative trend in disability representation over the eight years examined. In other words, the data do not suggest disability representation is more frequent or less frequently, from 2016 to 2023.

FIGURE 1

Share of all characters with disabilities

Source: Geena Davis Institute Note. *2020 was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted production schedules. See Table 1 for total characters for each year analyzed

Of note, in 2021 and 2022, the show “See,” a story set in a future where most humans are blind, was included in the sample, which is somewhat responsible for the relatively higher numbers of overall disability representation in those years.

As shown in Table 2, lead characters are more likely to have a disability than other character levels. On average, 8.3% of leads have a disability compared with 6.1% of notable supporting, 2.9% of supporting, and 1.9% of minor characters have a disability. This may be due to the reliance on narratives to tell stories about disabilities, and characters in supporting and minor roles are typically given less screen time or narrative to explore storylines like those involving disabilities. Alternatively, it may be the case that when casting minor characters, disability representation is not prioritized.

Overall, in series from 2016 to 2023, the analysis finds that among all narratively prominent characters (leading, notable supporting, supporting, minor), just 3.9% have a disability.

The share of leading characters with a disability on TV ranged from 2.6% in 2022 to 14.5% in 2019. According to a multilevel model to account for statistical dependencies between characters in the same show, the year is not a statistically significant predictor of disability representation in leading roles, which means that the analysis did not identify a robust positive or negative trend in leads with disabilities over the eight years examined.

TABLE 2

Share of characters with disabilities and role-type

Source: Geena Davis Institute

Note. *2020 was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted production schedules. See Table 1 for total characters for each year analyzed.

This study also analyzed disability representation differences between platforms (See Figure 2). On broadcast/cable platforms, an average of 3.3% of all characters over the timeframe examined had a disability; on streaming, it is 4.7% of all characters. Again, the series year was not a statistically significant predictor of disability representation for either platform, meaning that there isn’t a positive or negative trend of disability representation for either. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between the two platform types (broadcast/cable compared with streaming), leading us to conclude that the TV platforms similarly show disability on screen – it is similarly low across platforms.

FIGURE 2

Share of all characters with disabilities on TV by platform

Source: Geena Davis Institute

Authentic casting analysis

“Authentic casting” is when actors with disabilities portray characters with their disability.32 According to our analysis, on average, 21.0% of characters in non-minor roles33 with a disability are played by actors with a publicly acknowledged disability across all years. The share of characters with disabilities played by actors with disabilities on TV ranged from a low of 9.4% in 2018 to a high of 33.3% in 2016. However, according to a multilevel model to account for statistical dependencies between characters in the same show, “year” is not a statistically significant predictor of characters with a disability being played by actors with a disability. In other words, there isn’t a clear trend from 2016 to 2023 that suggests authentic casting efforts have changed over the timeframe. Because the total number of characters with disabilities on screen is low overall, year to year the share of authentic casting can appear to increase or decrease dramatically, on account of just a few characters.

TABLE 3

Authentic casting of disability representation on TV

Note. *2020 was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted production schedules. The drop in 2018 is notably, but an outlier, and not indicative of a broader trend in authentic representation on screen.

The share of characters with disabilities played by actors with disabilities on TV ranged from a low of 9.4% in 2018 to a high of 33.3% in 2016.

Disability and intersectional representation

The following section analyzes whether the intersectional identities of characters with disabilities on TV are similar to the intersectional identities of characters without disabilities.

According to the analysis, characters with disabilities are more likely to be white and more likely to be LGBTQIA+ than characters without disabilities. Of characters with a disability, 39.9% are women (compared with 41.9% of characters without a disability), 32.3% are people of color (compared with 40.4% of characters without a disability), and 9.9% are LGBTQIA+ (compared with 4.4% of characters without a disability).

Looking at age groups, teens are more common among disabled representation than non-disabled representation (15.7% of characters with a disability are a teen, compared to 11.1% of characters without a disability). All told, race, LGBTQIA+, and teenage disability representation differences are statistically significant. This indicates that the portrayal of disability varies meaningfully depending on whether a character belongs to one of these groups or not.

Overall, white characters are about one-and-a-half times as likely to be portrayed as having a disability than characters of color (4.4% of all white characters compared with 3.1% of all characters of color). LGBTQIA+ characters were about twice as likely to be depicted as having a disability than those who are not LGBTQIA+ (8.5% of LGBTQIA+ characters compared with 3.7% of non-LGBTQIA+ characters). The year of production is not a significant predictor for any interaction, meaning that the diversity of disabled characters at these intersections is determined to be largely stable over time.

Notes. Analysis is of all characters in the dataset (for all years). An asterisk indicates a statistically significant difference in representation between characters with a disability and characters without a disability for the specified identity. For instance, disabled characters on TV are less likely to be people of color than nondisabled characters on TV, indicating an imbalance in portrayals of disability at the intersection of race.

TABLE 4

Intersectional analysis of disability representation on TV

Use of ableist language

In addition to disability portrayal, we analyzed the selected series for ableist language (See Figure 3). Ableist language includes words or phrases that discriminate against or devalue people with disabilities, often by reinforcing negative stereotypes or assuming that able-bodied ness is the norm. Examples include using terms like “crazy,” “lame,” or “crippled” as insults, which can perpetuate harmful attitudes and marginalize those with disabilities and can occur regardless of whether or not the episode has disability representation.

The study finds that over time, ableist language has declined, and this decline is statistically significant.

In the sample, the study finds that over time, ableist language has declined, and this decline is statistically significant. Although there was an uptick in ableist language in 2023, overall, the trend has been downward since 2016.

FIGURE 3

Ableist language on TV

Percent of episodes that invoke an ableist slur

Note. 2020 was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted production schedules.

Portrayal of characters with disabilities

ARE CHARACTERS WITH DISABILITIES SHOWN WORKING?

Those with disabilities are active members of their communities, and media representations should reflect that reality. One way to accomplish this is to show characters with disabilities in workplaces or with jobs and careers.34 While there has been a steady increase of participation in the workforce for people with disabilities in the US, individuals with a disability who are 16 and older represent about 40% of labor force participation as of July 2024, compared to a 79% labor force participation rate for those without a disability.35

In short, characters over 20 with a disability are less likely to be shown working than characters over 20 without a disability.

The study finds 56.9% of characters with a disability who are 20 and older are working or known to have a job, compared with 67.8% of characters without a disability who are 20 and older, and this difference is statistically significant according to a multilevel model. In short, characters over 20 with a disability are less likely to be shown working than characters over 20 without a disability. However, year is not a significant predictor; therefore, we determine no clear change over time (See Figure 4).

FIGURE 4

Share of characters (20 and older) with and without a disability shown with a job

Note. Analysis excludes characters under 19. Job status analysis is of characters ages 20 and older.

Next, the analysis looks at several disability tropes and how these tropes emerged in the dataset.

WHO IS SHOWN AS A BURDEN?

Media portrayals can often fall into the trap of framing people with disabilities as a burden to others.36 From this perspective, a disability may be presented narratively as a “problem” that needs to be “solved” or that characters with disabilities need charity. The following are a few ways this disability narrative emerged. In a few episodes, aging parents are portrayed as a burden to their adult children, a theme that has been identified in other studies.37 In a few other cases, characters with mental health disabilities are shown as a burden to their romantic partners, often because they are portrayed as unreliable or shown limiting their nondisabled partners’ social lives, either because of their anxiety or substance abuse issues. While it is important to show the realities of caregiving for aging parents or those with mental health challenges, on-screen portrayals can do so in a way that does not blame people with disabilities.

DO CHARACTERS RESENT THEIR DISABILITIES?

Similar to people with disabilities shown as a burden, another media trope is to show people with disabilities personally resenting their disability because their disability limits them. This could include instances when characters work excessively to try and eliminate their disability because they want to be “normal,” further demonstrating the “magical healing fantasy.” This also comes up when characters exclude themselves from situations that are challenging to manage because of inaccessibility, and they resent their disability as the reason they are excluded. There are instances of people with disabilities resenting their disability in the series analyzed such as when characters become frustrated when their disability interferes with their careers, or social lives. There are also various examples of characters having angry outbursts because their disability inhibits them in some way. In some cases, the character’s level of resentment is so high that it leads to additional self-harm. Overuse of narratives like these perpetuate the myth that disability in and of itself limits opportunity. While people with disabilities may resent their disabilities in reality, resentment should not be the default assumption. Moreover, these storylines can convey that the underlying source of feelings of resentment are due to poor accommodations, or social attitudes that are discriminatory.

IS DISABILITY USED FOR INSPIRATION?

Another disability trope is when the person with a disability is treated as “inspirational” because of what they are capable of doing despite their disability.38 Some refer to this trope as “inspiration porn” as it is often a narrative directed at a nondisabled audience, showcasing individuals with disabilities “overcoming” their disability. Many of these narratives also show those with disabilities performing everyday tasks, to which those who are not disabled look with inspirational awe. In other words, such depictions focus on the inadequacies of those with disabilities by celebrating their ability to strive toward “normal” while being strong and resilient.39 The issue with these narratives is that they still treat disability as a difference that needs to be fixed and overcome, and assume that there is a “normal” to aspire toward. However, disability is not a personal flaw in need of being overcome.40

While this trope did not come up often, it did emerge in a few ways. For example, in one instance, a character with a developmental disability tells a doctor that she is inspired by him because she shares his disability and had also wanted to be a doctor. She states that his success in being a doctor makes him a hero. Framing his capacity to be a doctor as inspirational in spite of his disability depicts his disability as a negative obstacle.

However, some episodes subverted this trope. For example, in one episode, the main character has PTSD and is celebrated by others in his acting class for engaging with those painful memories to help him succeed in his acting, despite the fact that engaging in those memories in such a way is harmful to his mental health. Those in his acting class even show envy because they don’t have something traumatic to reference when they are doing their performances. Here, the show pokes fun at the classmates for their envy to draw attention to the absurdity of the trope.

IS A SENSE OF COMMUNITY VISIBLE?

Research shows that low social participation among people with disabilities negatively impacts their health, well-being and independence. Socializing with others who also have a disability is one way that people with disabilities can create a community and have feelings of personal autonomy, belonging, and being a part of a collective.41 In these episodes, there are examples of people with disabilities shown as a member of a disability community or with friends or family who also have a disability. Disability community experiences show up in a few ways that are expected, such as those with addictions attending AA or NA meetings, or characters in therapy groups. Some examples also include those with disabilities living in communities with others that also have disabilities. In another episode, characters bond when they realize they share the same disability. While it is important that those with disabilities are shown engaging with communities of people who do not have disabilities, it is also important to show people with disabilities among individuals who are also disabled to demonstrate the richness of shared experiences, and the support and joy that those communities can bring.

In sum, this study finds that disability representation on TV from 2016 to 2023 has been stagnant (including at the level of leading/coleading characters), and there is no significant difference between broadcast/cable and streaming platforms. Authentic casting of disabled characters has also remained stagnant over the time frame examined. Analysis of intersecting identities revealed that characters with disabilities are more likely to be white than characters without disabilities, but also more likely to be LGBTQIA+ than characters without disabilities. Characters that are teenagers are more common as characters with disabilities than characters without disabilities. The study also found that over time ableist language has declined. Where do we go from here?

Given the plateau of disability representation on TV from 2016 to 2023, including leading roles, it’s clear little progress is being made. Authentic casting has similarly plateaued. Encouragingly, ableist language has declined over time, but more progress can and must be made. The next section identifies ways to foster substantive, and more sustained, change for disability representation.

Recommendations

♦ Greenlight more stories performed by people with disabilities. Support projects that are from the perspective of people with disabilities and provide the resources to bring these projects to life to increase authentic disability representation on screen. This will also help foster an industry culture that seeks out and values the contribution of people with disabilities

♦ Adopt authentic casting practices. Authentic casting will lead to more accurate portrayals of disability in media. By casting actors with disabilities to play characters with disabilities, productions will be less likely to unconsciously invoke disability tropes and stereotypes. Authentic casting will foster a more inclusive industry, and these stories will resonate more deeply with all audiences.

♦ In narratives, reject the presumption that disability means different. Challenge the idea that disability is abnormal to recognize disability as one intersecting identity among many.

About the Disability Representation Advisory Council

DEBORAH CALLA (SHE/HER)

Deborah Calla is a Brazilian-born, Emmy-winning writer/producer with a focus on social impact entertainment. She is the executive producer and the co-CEO of the Media Access Awards, an Emmywinning PBS show celebrating the accomplishments of disabled people in media. She has produced several independent feature films, including Dream House, starring Justin Theroux; Beautiful Life, with Jesse Garcia; as well as a number of TV shows, such as 2023’s Latin Women in Music and Latino Artists for HBO.

BETH A. HALLER, PH.D. (SHE/HER)

Beth Haller, Ph.D., is a retired media and disability professor, who is now co-director of the Global Alliance for Disability in Media and Entertainment (www.GADIM.org). GADIM works to promote the international inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of mass media. Haller’s latest book is Disabled People Transforming Media Culture for a More Inclusive World. She developed and taught some of the first media and disability courses in North America, including those at Towson University, in Maryland; the City University of New York; York University, in Toronto, Canada; and the University of Texas at Arlington.

MARLEE MATLIN (SHE/HER)

Marlee Matlin’s first film, Children of a Lesser God, garnered her the Academy Award for Best Actress. Her 35-year film career includes 2022’s CODA, which broke records at the Sundance Film Festival and won the SAG Award for Best Ensemble and the Academy Award for Best Picture. Nominated for four Emmy Awards, she also starred in the Tony Award–nominated revival of Spring Awakening on Broadway. In 2023, Marlee made her directorial debut for Fox’s TV show Accused. In 2024, she was featured in the PBS American Masters documentary Marlee Matlin: Not Alone Anymore.

LAUREN RIDLOFF (SHE/HER)

Lauren Ridloff began acting six years ago, transitioning from a remarkable past as Miss Deaf America and a decade as a Manhattan kindergarten teacher. Hired in 2016 to tutor director Kenny Leon in ASL for the Broadway revival of Children of a Lesser God, she earned the lead role, receiving rave reviews and a Tony nomination. Lauren became a series regular on The Walking Dead and made history as Marvel’s first deaf superhero in Eternals. Honored as a BAFTA Breakthrough talent, she starred in and executiveproduced a Starz series with Joshua Jackson, cementing her as a trailblazer in entertainment.

SHOSHANNAH STERN (SHE/HER)

Shoshannah Stern represents the fourth generation of a multigenerational deaf family. She helped write Marvel’s Echo, which went to number on Hulu and Disney+. She has sold pilots to AMC and Sony, and created, wrote, executive-produced, and starred in Sundance TV’s This Close for two seasons. As an actor, she is known for her roles on Weeds, Jericho, Supernatural, and Grey’s Anatomy. Her writing has appeared in The New York Times’s “Modern Love” column and the Los Angeles Times. Her directorial debut for PBS’s American Masters, Marlee Matlin: Not Alone Anymore, premiered at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival. Shoshannah lives in Los Angeles with her daughter, husband, and dog.

Appendix

Glossary

Ableist language: Ableist language includes words or phrases that discriminate against or devalue people with disabilities, often by reinforcing negative stereotypes or assuming that able-bodied ness is the norm. Examples include using terms like “crazy,” “lame,” or “crippled” as insults, which can perpetuate harmful attitudes and marginalize those with disabilities and can occur regardless of whether or not the episode has disability representation.

Authentic casting: Authentic casting is when actors with disabilities portray characters with the same or similar disabilities. For example, an actor with a hearing impairment playing a Deaf or Hard of Hearing character would be considered “authentic casting,” while an actor with no identifiable disability playing a character that uses a wheelchair would be “inauthentic casting.”

Character prominence: Analysis in this report looks at disability representation at different prominence levels. 1) Leads and coleads are the protagonist(s) of the “A” story in the episode. 2) Notable supporting characters are characters who make significant contributions to the story and/or are prominently featured but are not the lead. In television, notable supporting actors are usually non-lead members of the cast, recurring characters, and noteworthy guest stars. 3) Supporting characters are those who appear in more than one scene but are not heavily featured. 4) Minor characters are those who have a role in the main narrative, but appear only briefly. Background characters are excluded.

Disability: A disability can be physical (such as low vision, deafness, limb difference), intellectual/ learning/developmental (such as ADHD, autism, Down syndrome), or a mental health issue (such as severe anxiety, substance use disorders, and depressive disorder).

Disabled mimicry: The performance of disabled roles by nondisabled actors or actors without the specific disability represented, which is often reduced to mimicking disability through physicality and vocal intonation.

ENDNOTES

1. United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). American Time Use Survey (ATUS): Arts Activities.

2. E.g. Bond, B. J. & Compton, B. L. (2015). Gay on-screen: The relationship between exposure to gay characters on television and heterosexual audiences. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 717-732.

3. A total of 20 series were included in the sample twice and one series was included in the sample three times due to randomization, because these shows were on-air multiple years in the sample, for a total of 329 unique series.

4. Center for Disease Control. (2024). “Disability and Health Data System.” Center for Disease Control

5. Garland-Thomson, R. (2016). “Becoming Disabled.” The New York Times

6. Townsend, M. & Deerwater, R. (2022). “Where We Are on TV 2021-2022.” GLAAD

7. Meyer, M., & Conroy M. (2023). “See Jane 2023: How Has On-Screen Representation in Children’s Television Changed from 2018 to 2022?” The Geena Davis Institute.

8. Law, A. & Evans, D. (2022). “Disability Representation on Television 2020-2022 – The Pandemic Years Study Fact Sheet.” FilmDis

9. Shaul Bar Nissim, H. (2019). “Disability Inclusion in Movies and Television, Market Research 2019.” The Ruderman Family Foundation

10. Shaul Bar Nissim, H. (2019). “Disability Inclusion in Movies and Television, Market Research 2019.” The Ruderman Family Foundation

11. Darnell, S. (2024). “Audiences Are Waiting for Hollywood to Greenlight Disability.” Inevitable Foundation

12. Haller, B. (2019). “Authentic Disability Representation on US Television Past and Present.” In The Routledge Companion to Disability and Media. Ellis K., Goggin G., Haller B., & Curtis R. (eds). Routledge.

13. Shaul Bar Nissim, H. (2019). “Disability Inclusion in Movies and Television, Market Research 2019.” The Ruderman Family Foundation

14. Haller, B. (2019). “Authentic Disability Representation on US Television Past and Present.” In The Routledge Companion to Disability and Media. Ellis K., Goggin G., Haller B., & Curtis R. (eds). Routledge.

15. Shaul Bar Nissim, H. & Mitte, RJ. (2020). “Authentic Representation in Television, 2018.” The Ruderman Family Foundation.

16. Law, A. & Evans, D.. (2022). “Disability Representation on Television 2020-2022 – The Pandemic Years Study Fact Sheet.” FilmDis

17. Garland-Thomson, R. (2016, Aug 19). “Becoming Disabled.” New York Times

18. Haller, B.A. (2023). Disabled People: Transforming Media Culture for a More Inclusive World. Routledge Press: London.

19. Huff, J.L. (2002). “Disability Discourse: Disability Discourse: Disability, Human Rights and Society, and: Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse (review).” NWSA Journal (14): 3.

20. Mitchell, D. & Snyder, S.L. (2014). Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.; Haller, B.A. (2023). Disabled People: Transforming Media Culture for a More Inclusive World. Routledge Press: London.

21. Law, A. & Evans, D. (2020). “FilmDis White Paper on Disability Representation on Television: Examining 250 TV Shows from April 2019 to March 31, 2020.” FilmDis

22. Keplinger, K. (2016, Mar 23). “Review: Graceling and Bitterblue by Kristin Cashore.” DisabilityinKidLit.

23. Prange-Morgan, C. (2022, June 28). “What is ‘Inspiration Porn’ and Why Does it Matter?” Psychology Today.

24. Duyvis, C., Razi, N., & Whaley, K. (2016, Mar 23). “Discussion: Magical Disabilities.” DisabilityinKidLit

25. Nikamp, M. (2014, Mar 4). “The Trope of Curing Disability.” DisabilityinKidLit

26. American with Disabilities Act (ADA). What is the definition of a disability under the ADA? Available at https://adata.org/faq/what-definition-disability-underada

27. Streaming content includes the following platforms: Amazon Prime, AMC+, Apple TV+, BET+, Disney+, HBO Max, Hulu, Netflix, Paramount+, and Peacock. Luminate categorizes broadcast and cable shows together, so we are unable to split analysis between these two platform types.

28. A total of 20 series were included in the sample twice and one series was included in the sample three times due to randomization, because these shows were on-air multiple years in the sample, for a total of 329 unique series.

29. See the Glossary for character prominence definitions.

30. A multilevel model is an advanced form of regression used to handle hierarchically structured data—in this case, characters nested within shows. It estimates relationships between variables (e.g., time, platform type) while accounting for dependencies within clusters (like multiple characters from the same show). This ensures more accurate results by reducing bias that might occur if all observations were treated as independent.

31. Leads and coleads are the protagonist(s) of the “A” story in the episode. Notable supporting characters are characters who make significant contributions to the story and/or are prominently featured but are not the lead. In television, notable supporting actors are usually non-lead members of the cast, recurring characters, and noteworthy guest stars. Supporting characters are those who appear in more than one scene but are not heavily featured. Minor characters are those who have a role in the main narrative, but appear only briefly. Background characters are excluded.

32. Haller, B. (2019). “Authentic Disability Representation on US Television Past and Present.” In The Routledge Companion to Disability and Media. Ellis K., Goggin G., Haller B., & Curtis R. (eds). Routledge.

33. We only analyze actors in non-minor roles, because personal information about actors in minor roles is more difficult to verify.

34. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. (n.d.). “Community Involvement.” New York State.

35. Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2024, July). “Disability Employment Statistics.” US Department of Labor.

36. Aspler, J., Harding, K. D., & Ariel Cascio, M. (2022). Representation matters: Race, gender, class, and intersectional representations of autistic and disabled characters on television. Studies in Social Justice, (16): 2.

37. (2024). “Making care pop: What we see and don’t see about caregiving on TV.” Geena Davis Institute. Available at: https://geenadavisinstitute.org/wp-content/ uploads/2024/01/GDI-2023-Making-Care-Pop.pdf

38. Romanska, M. (2020, November 2). “On screen and on stage, disability continues to be depicted in outdated, cliched ways.” PBS News.

39. Preston, J. & Haller, B. (2016). Confirming normalcy: ‘Inspiration porn’ and the construction of the disabled subject? In K. Ellis & M. Kent. (Eds.) Disability and social media. Routledge.

40. Zaks, Z. (2024). Changing the medical model of disability to the normalization model of disability: Clarifying the past to create a new future direction. Disability and society, 39(12), 3233-3260.

41. Labbé, D., Miller, C. W., & Ng, R. (2019). Participating more, participating better: Health benefits of adaptive leisure for people with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, (12): 2.

The State of Disability Representation on Television: An Analysis of Scripted TV Series From 2016 to 2023

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Tegan Bratcher, Sofie Christensen, Dr. Gina Gayle, Melanie Lorísdóttir, Dr. Sophia Noor-Kiser, Marisa Rodriguez, Lena Schofield, Dr. Larissa Terán, Dr. Sarah Trinh, and Jenna Virgo for contributing to the data collection; Romeo Pérez for data management, data collection, and additional review of the background; Summer van Houten for data collection and additional review of the report; and Mark H. White for data analysis. We extend a special thanks and deep gratitude to our Disability Representation Advisory Council members for lending their expertise and experience: Deborah Calla, Dr. Beth Haller, Marlee Matlin, Lauren Ridloff, and Shoshannah Stern.

How to cite this study

Conroy, M., Espinoza, C., & Romero Walker, A. (2024). The State of Disability Representation on Television: An Analysis of Scripted TV Series From 2016 to 2023. Ruderman Family Foundation and The Geena Davis Institute.

About Geena Davis Institute

Since 2004, the Geena Davis Institute has worked to mitigate unconscious bias while creating equality, fostering inclusion and reducing negative stereotyping in entertainment and media. As a global research-based organization, the Institute provides research, direct guidance, and thought leadership aimed at increasing representation of marginalized groups within six identities: gender, race/ethnicity, LGBTQIA+, disability, age, and body type. Because of its unique history and position, the Institute can help achieve true on-screen equity in a way that few organizations can. Learn more at www. geenadavisinstitute.org.

About Ruderman Family Foundation

The Ruderman Family Foundation believes that inclusion and understanding for all people is essential to a fair and flourishing community. Guided by our Jewish values, we advocate for and advance the inclusion of people with disabilities throughout our society; strengthen the relationship between Israel and the American Jewish community; and model the practice of strategic philanthropy worldwide. We operate as a nonpartisan strategic catalyst in cooperation with government, private sectors, civil society, and philanthropies.