Political Bias in Language Models

We argue, with systematic empirical evidence, that a large language model's political ideology is not a fixed point, but a conditional distribution $\mathbb{P}($position$\mid$context$)$ over a real political space. We evaluate nine current LLMs using a unified measurement framework anchored by VAA-CHES projection models, which map responses onto three validated dimensions (lrgen, lrecon, galtan) across six contextual axes. Our findings reveal high sensitivity to context: persuasive framing and under-represented languages displace coordinates by up to 0.57 and 0.52 units, respectively, while chain-of-thought reasoning often amplifies rather than dampens paraphrase instability. Despite this local plasticity, the model cohort occupies a remarkably narrow Overton envelope overall, occupying roughly one-third the spread of major European parties. Supported by a multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) analysis, we conclude that a single point cannot summarize LLM political behavior; it must be characterized as a shape. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/sakhadib/LLM-Ideoplasticity.

It has generally been assumed that geopolitical bias in language models originates from the training data used during the pre-training phase. We tested seven open-weight LLM pairs consisting of the base model (pre-training only) and the chat model (pre-training and post-training) from seven labs on a paired-scenario forced-choice probe over 28 country pairs in English, French, and Chinese, and found that geopolitical bias originates in post-training rather than in pre-training. Across seven AI labs, six showed shifts in the direction associated with the country or region of the model developer after post-training. This shift is strongest in Alibaba's Qwen 2.5: while the base is neutral on China-favourability (-0.15 log-odds, p=0.15), the post-trained chat variant is at +2.91 (p<10^-4), an 18x shift in odds. We also observe shifts in biases toward other countries across all models. Additionally, the magnitude of this shift depends on the language used to prompt the model: the French-made Mistral becomes pro-France only under French prompting (FR-EN shift +1.91, p<10^-4). These findings suggest that geopolitical preferences in language models are not simply inherited from large-scale internet data but are actively shaped during post-training, highlighting the need for greater transparency, auditing, and oversight of alignment processes that influence how models represent nations, cultures, and political perspectives.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic political bias across a variety of sensitive contexts. We find that LLMs handle counterpart topics from opposing political sides asymmetrically. We refer to this phenomenon as covert political bias and identify 7 categories of techniques through which it operates. We propose two metrics for covert bias: Sentiment Consistency measures symmetry in rhetoric and framing across paired political prompts; Helpfulness Consistency measures symmetric depth and engagement. To reduce both types of covert bias, we introduce Political Consistency Training (PCT), an RL training method with two complementary paradigms: Sentiment Consistency Training and Helpfulness Consistency Training. We show that PCT preserves overall helpfulness, substantially reduces covert political bias, and generalizes to held-out benchmarks. We release our work at https://political-manipulation.ai

As large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly participate in online discourse, red-teaming their capacity to support political influence campaigns is critical for information integrity. In pursuit of this goal, we focus on locally deployed open-source LLMs, as opposed to frontier API-only models, given their superior alignment with the operational constraints of privacy-conscious malicious actors deployed in social media environments. We introduce an empirical red-teaming framework for measuring LLM Overton Windows (OWs), defined as the range of political opinions a model can reliably express on controversial topics, and for quantifying how simple natural-language jailbreaks expand that range. We evaluate more than 30 LLMs spanning 10 model families and five countries of origin. We find systematic asymmetries in political expressivity: open-source LLMs are typically more willing to generate left-leaning social media content, OWs tend to contract inversely to model size, and regional differences are substantial despite uneven representation in the open-source ecosystem. Jailbreak potency also varies sharply across model families, motivating a workflow for identifying effective combinations of jailbreak techniques. Taken together, our results establish a practical framework for auditing the political steerability of open-source LLMs and for helping future researchers design stronger countermeasures against LLM-enabled influence campaigns.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic political biases in voter simulations, but their underlying mechanisms and cross-lingual generalizations remain poorly understood. We introduce Dynamo-K, a census-grounded simulation framework evaluating Korean-language LLM political behavior across four models on six Korean elections (2017-2025). Using this framework, we identify three systematic failure modes: (1) progressive bias in moderate agents, where explicit mitigation reduces Mean Absolute Error (MAE) by 5.2 times; (2) model-dependent third-party salience collapse, distinguishing between salience failure and decision bias; and (3) regional polarization collapse, where models bidirectionally under-predict historical party strongholds. To address these failures, we demonstrate that scenario reframing recovers 62% of 2017 MAE by restoring third-party visibility. Furthermore, we introduce a learned reweighting adapter that successfully calibrates opposing-valence models without relying on candidate names at train or test time. Validating our diagnostic framework, Dynamo-K accurately predicts 3/3 presidential winners - including a 2.1%p MAE on the highly contested 0.73%p-margin 2022 race - and correctly identifies the dominant party in a held-out local election. The pipeline is open-source and provides a scalable, cost-effective method for diagnosing LLM political behavior.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into the online platforms where humans exchange opinions; large language models (LLMs) now polish users' posts on LinkedIn and provide context for content shared on X. While prior work has shown that AI can express biased opinions and shape individuals' opinions during human-AI interactions, less attention has been paid to its influence on collective opinion formation when mediating human-to-human communication. We address this gap via a combination of empirical and theoretical analyses. We show empirically that LLMs from multiple popular families introduce directional biases when instructed to edit human-written texts on contested topics, for example, nudging texts in favor of gun control and against atheism. Building on this observation, we introduce a mathematical model of opinion dynamics in which an AI system sits between users on a social network, transforming the opinions they express and perceive. By analytically characterizing the equilibrium of this model and performing simulations on real social network data, we show that biases introduced by AI in human-to-human communication can be amplified through the network and shift collective opinion in their direction. In light of these findings, we investigate whether such biases are controllable by online platforms. We audit the "Explain this post" feature on X and find evidence of pro-life bias in Grok's outputs on abortion-related content, which we trace back to specific design choices. We conclude with a discussion of the broader implications of our findings in relation to ongoing legislative efforts in the European Union.

Since the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), a significant area of research has focused on their intrinsic biases, particularly in political discourse. This study investigates a different but related concept, "political plasticity", which is defined as the capacity of models to adapt their responses based on the user supplied context. To analyze this, a testing framework was developed using an expanded corpus of 200 politically-oriented questions across economic and personal freedom axes, based on a prior framework by Lester (1996). The study explored several methods to induce political bias, including simplified and topic-based system prompts, as well as user prompts with few-shot examples. The results show that while system prompts were largely ineffective, user prompts successfully elicited significant ideological shifts, particularly along the Economic Freedom axis in larger and newer models. Through a validation experiment, we examined whether models answer questionnaires by recognizing the underlying question format. Inverting the sense of the questions revealed unexpected, counter-intuitive shifts in most models, suggesting potential data leakage. Finally, we also analyzed how model plasticity varies when the experiment is conducted in different languages. The results reveal subtle yet notable shifts across each of the analyzed languages. Overall, our results indicate that small and older LLMs exhibit limited or unstable political plasticity, whereas newer frontier models display reliable, expected adaptability.

Prior research has established that instruction-tuned large language models exhibit left-of-center political bias, measured exclusively through abstract political questionnaires. We show that this finding does not generalize to concrete policy decisions. We introduce a dual-instrument methodology grounded in Swiss democratic reality. The Smartvote questionnaire (75 abstract policy questions) is administered to 66 LLMs from 27 model families and compared to 184 elected members of the Swiss National Council, replicating the established leftward convergence (Cohen's d = 3.64, p = 0.0002). Then, novel to this work, 9 flagship LLMs are confronted with 48 real federal referenda (Volksabstimmungen) in four national languages (German, French, Italian, Romansh) under three information conditions, comparing votes to actual outcomes and party recommendations (Parolen). Three findings challenge the prevailing narrative. (1) Abstract questionnaires do not predict concrete behavior: the left-to-right agreement gradient on Smartvote shifts from left-peaked to center-peaked on Volksabstimmungen, where models align most with centrist Die Mitte and FDP rather than leftist SP and Gruene (Wilcoxon p = 0.008). (2) For some models, the language of a political question changes the answer more than the political content does: cross-linguistic consistency ranges from 50% (Mistral) to 98% (GPT-5.4). (3) Two models exhibit systematic change-aversion rather than political bias, voting Nein on 83-94% of referenda regardless of direction (binomial p < 0.0001). What prior work measured as "leftward bias" may not generalize beyond abstract instruments. On concrete policy decisions, LLMs behave less like coalition partners of the left and more like cautious civil servants: centrist, status-quo-favoring, and inconsistent across languages.

Partisan news media erode cross-partisan trust, but large language models (LLMs) offer a potential means of debiasing such content at scale. Across two pre-registered experiments, we tested whether LLM-generated debiasing of liberal news headlines could improve conservative readers' trust-relevant judgments. Study 1 found that subtle lexical debiasing (replacing emotive words with more moderate synonyms) had no effect on any outcome. Study 2 found that a more substantive reframing intervention significantly increased conservatives' perceived trustworthiness, completeness, and willingness to engage with liberal news headlines, without producing a backfire effect among a sample of liberals. In Study 1, the intervention produced robust effects among LLM-simulated silicon participants, whereas it had no impact on human readers. In Study 2, the intervention's effects among silicon participants aligned directionally with human responses but were significantly larger in magnitude for some outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed that the model's implicit theory of who responds to debiasing diverged from the psychological profile that actually predicted human responsiveness. These findings demonstrate that LLM-based debiasing can improve cross-partisan receptivity when targeting ideological framing rather than surface-level language, but that current models lack both the quantitative accuracy and qualitative psychological fidelity to evaluate their own interventions without human oversight.

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires, which typically place frontier models on the political left. A parallel literature shows that LLMs are sycophantic: they adapt their answers to the views, identities, and expectations of the user. We show that these findings are linked: standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor. We employ a factorial experiment across three major audit instruments--the Political Compass Test, the Pew Political Typology, and 1,540 partisan-benchmarked Pew American Trends Panel items--administered to six frontier LLMs while varying only the asker's stated identity (N = 30,990 responses). At baseline, all six models lean left. When the asker identifies as a conservative Republican, responses shift sharply: the share of items closer to Democrats falls by 28-62 percentage points, and all six models move right of center. A mirror-image progressive-Democrat cue produces little change; rightward accommodation is 8.0$\times$ larger than leftward. When asked who the default asker is, models identify an auditor, researcher, or academic; when asked what answer that asker expects, they select the Democrat-coded option 75% of the time, nearly the rate under an explicit progressive cue. These patterns are inconsistent with a purely fixed model ideology and indicate that single-prompt audits capture an interaction between model and inferred interlocutor. Political bias in LLMs is therefore not a fixed point on an ideological scale but a response profile that must be mapped across realistic interlocutors.

As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) spreads across various industries, there are increasing concerns about the potential for their misuse, especially in sensitive areas such as political discourse. Deliberately aligning LLMs with specific political ideologies, through prompt engineering or fine-tuning techniques, can be advantageous in use cases such as political campaigns, but requires careful consideration due to heightened risks of performance degradation, misinformation, or increased biased behavior. In this work, we propose a multi-dimensional framework inspired by Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action to audit politically aligned language models across four dimensions: effectiveness, fairness, truthfulness, and persuasiveness using automated, quantitative metrics. Applying this to nine popular LLMs aligned via fine-tuning or role-playing revealed consistent trade-offs: while larger models tend to be more effective at role-playing political ideologies and truthful in their responses, they were also less fair, exhibiting higher levels of bias in the form of angry and toxic language towards people of different ideologies. Fine-tuned models exhibited lower bias and more effective alignment than the corresponding role-playing models, but also saw a decline in performance reasoning tasks and an increase in hallucinations. Overall, all of the models tested exhibited some deficiency in at least one of the four metrics, highlighting the need for more balanced and robust alignment strategies. Ultimately, this work aims to ensure politically-aligned LLMs generate legitimate, harmless arguments, offering a framework to evaluate the responsible political alignment of these models.

Do large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic ideological bias when reasoning about economic causal effects? As LLMs are increasingly used in policy analysis and economic reporting, where directionally correct causal judgments are essential, this question has direct practical stakes. We present a systematic evaluation by extending the EconCausal benchmark with ideology-contested cases - instances where intervention-oriented (pro-government) and market-oriented (pro-market) perspectives predict divergent causal signs. From 10,490 causal triplets (treatment-outcome pairs with empirically verified effect directions) derived from top-tier economics and finance journals, we identify 1,056 ideology-contested instances and evaluate 20 state-of-the-art LLMs on their ability to predict empirically supported causal directions. We find that ideology-contested items are consistently harder than non-contested ones, and that across 18 of 20 models, accuracy is systematically higher when the empirically verified causal sign aligns with intervention-oriented expectations than with market-oriented ones. Moreover, when models err, their incorrect predictions disproportionately lean intervention-oriented, and this directional skew is not eliminated by one-shot in-context prompting. These results highlight that LLMs are not only less accurate on ideologically contested economic questions, but systematically less reliable in one ideological direction than the other, underscoring the need for direction-aware evaluation in high-stakes economic and policy settings.

Multi-document news summarisation systems are increasingly adopted for their convenience in processing vast daily news content, making fairness across diverse political perspectives critical. However, these systems can exhibit political bias through unequal representation of viewpoints, disproportionate emphasis on certain perspectives, and systematic underrepresentation of minority voices. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of such bias in multi-document news summarisation using FairNews, a dataset of complete news articles with political orientation labels, examining how large language models (LLMs) handle sources with varying political leanings across 13 models and five fairness metrics. We investigate both baseline model performance and effectiveness of various debiasing interventions, including prompt-based and judge-based approaches. Our findings challenge the assumption that larger models yield fairer outputs, as mid-sized variants consistently outperform their larger counterparts, offering the best balance of fairness and efficiency. Prompt-based debiasing proves highly model dependent, while entity sentiment emerges as the most stubborn fairness dimension, resisting all intervention strategies tested. These results demonstrate that fairness in multi-document news summarisation requires multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks and targeted, architecture-aware debiasing rather than simply scaling up.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to curate and rank human-created content, yet the nature and structure of their biases in these tasks remains poorly understood: which biases are robust across providers and platforms, and which can be mitigated through prompt design. We present a controlled simulation study mapping content selection biases across three major LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) on real social media datasets from Twitter/X, Bluesky, and Reddit, using six prompting strategies (\textit{general}, \textit{popular}, \textit{engaging}, \textit{informative}, \textit{controversial}, \textit{neutral}). Through 540,000 simulated top-10 selections from pools of 100 posts across 54 experimental conditions, we find that biases differ substantially in how structural and how prompt-sensitive they are. Polarization is amplified across all configurations, toxicity handling shows a strong inversion between engagement- and information-focused prompts, and sentiment biases are predominantly negative. Provider comparisons reveal distinct trade-offs: GPT-4o Mini shows the most consistent behavior across prompts; Claude and Gemini exhibit high adaptivity in toxicity handling; Gemini shows the strongest negative sentiment preference. On Twitter/X, where author demographics can be inferred from profile bios, political leaning bias is the clearest demographic signal: left-leaning authors are systematically over-represented despite right-leaning authors forming the pool plurality in the dataset, and this pattern largely persists across prompts.

Existing approaches to bias evaluation in large language models (LLMs) trade ecological validity for statistical control, relying either on artificial prompts that poorly reflect real-world use or on naturalistic tasks that lack scale and rigor. We introduce a scalable bias-auditing framework that uses named entities as controlled probes to measure systematic disparities in model behavior. Synthetic data enables us to construct diverse, controlled inputs, and we show that it reliably reproduces bias patterns observed in natural text, supporting its use for large-scale analysis. Using this framework, we conduct the largest bias audit to date, comprising 1.9 billion data points across multiple entity types, tasks, languages, models, and prompting strategies. We find consistent patterns: models penalize right-wing politicians and favor left-wing politicians, prefer Western and wealthier countries over the Global South, favor Western companies, and penalize firms in the defense and pharmaceutical sectors. While instruction tuning reduces bias, increasing model scale amplifies it, and prompting in Chinese or Russian does not mitigate Western-aligned preferences. These findings highlight the need for systematic bias auditing before deploying LLMs in high-stakes applications. Our framework is extensible to other domains and tasks, and we make it publicly available to support future work.

Large language models are increasingly used to interpret politically contested questions, value-laden material on which there is no single correct answer, only competing interpretive traditions. We ask whether a model's choice among those traditions can turn on the language of the prompt rather than the content. Comparing two frontier models, ChatGPT 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.5, on one contested Ukrainian civil-society document under semantically matched Russian and Ukrainian prompts, we find that both shift along the same axis on identical source text: Russian prompts elicit delegitimizing readings of the document's authors and Ukrainian prompts legitimating ones. The magnitude is model-dependent but neither model is neutral: each adopts a language-dependent stance, and the difference is one of degree. Because contested political questions admit no correct reading against which to measure, we read this as language-conditioned variation in which interpretive tradition a model activates: the model neither holds a single stance nor surfaces the plurality of available ones, but silently adopts the dominant frame of the prompt's language. We draw out the consequences for pluralism-aware evaluation, which must probe the same content across the languages a model serves, and for pluralistic alignment in multilingual settings.

Large language models (LLMs) reflect politically-slanted opinions in their generated text. Even though it is widely assumed that model behavior stem from training data, there has been no study quantifying the extent to which political content is part of the training data. To bridge this gap, we aim to directly estimate (1)~the proportion of politically engaged texts in training data, (2)~respective data imbalance, (3)~cross-dataset similarity, and (4)~correlations between data composition and model behaviour. We analyze the political content of pre- and post-training datasets of open-source LLMs, combining large-scale sampling, political-leaning classification, and stance detection. We find that all LLM training datasets are systematically skewed towards left-leaning content, with pre-training containing more politically engaged than post-training corpora. We further observe a strong correlation between political stances in training data and model behavior, which is present already in most base models and persists across post-training stages. These findings highlight the role of data composition in correlating with model behavior and motivate the need for greater data transparency as a means to understand and monitor model behavior.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in politically sensitive contexts, raising concerns about their susceptibility to ideological biases. In this work, we examine how synthetic persona conditioning shapes ideological expression across seven open-weight instruction-tuned models (7B-72B parameters) using the Political Compass Test (62 statements) as a standardized behavioral probe. Across three studies involving 200,000 synthetic personas and more than 260 million model responses, we analyze implicit and explicit malleability, as well as theme-associated variations. We find that: (i) larger models exhibit broader implicit ideological coverage, increasing from 14-35% for 7-8B models to up to 49% for 70B+ models; (ii) explicit ideological priming induces large and statistically significant shifts, with right-authoritarian cues moving all models in the intended direction and producing larger effects in most model-axis comparisons; (iii) left-libertarian priming produces more heterogeneous responses, including counter-directional economic shifts in three of four 7-8B models, while all 70B+ models move in the intended direction; and (iv) theme-associated semantic content in persona descriptions is linked to systematic and interpretable directional shifts in ideological space. While our results identify an upstream mechanism through which persona conditioning can alter model responses under a standardized ideological probe, we do not test whether such shifts affect users beliefs, decisions, or political behavior. Our findings are best understood as evidence of ideological malleability at the generation layer, highlighting the need to account for interactional factors when evaluating political neutrality, fairness, and safety in English-prompted, persona-conditioned language models.