Uncovering Political Bias in Large Language Models using Parliamentary Voting Records D
AI benchmark · Alignment
What is Uncovering Political Bias in Large Language Models using Parliamentary Voting Records?
As large language models (LLMs) become deeply embedded in digital platforms and decision-making systems, concerns about their political biases have grown. While substantial work has examined social biases such as gender and race, systematic studies of political bias remain limited, despite their direct societal impact. This paper introduces a general methodology for constructing political bias benchmarks by aligning model-generated voting predictions with verified parliamentary voting records. We instantiate this methodology in three national case studies: PoliBiasNL (2,701 Dutch parliamentary motions and votes from 15 political parties), PoliBiasNO (10,584 motions and votes from 9 Norwegian parties), and PoliBiasES (2,480 motions and votes from 10 Spanish parties). Across these benchmarks, we assess ideological tendencies and political entity bias in LLM behavior. As part of our evaluation framework, we also propose a method to visualize the ideology of LLMs and political parties in a shared two-dimensional CHES (Chapel Hill Expert Survey) space by linking their voting-based positions to the CHES dimensions, enabling direct and interpretable comparisons between models and real-world political actors. Our experiments reveal fine-grained ideological distinctions: state-of-the-art LLMs consistently display left-leaning or centrist tendencies, alongside clear negative biases toward right-conservative parties. These findings highlight the value of transparent, cross-national evaluation grounded in real parliamentary behavior for understanding and auditing political bias in modern LLMs.
Tier D
Long tail: little or no usage data yet.
How much stands behind a tier: usage, who backs it, a confirmed line from its own site or paper, and a clear read on X. High with three of the four, medium with two, low otherwise.
- 8 models scored
- no proper name (a paper title or description)
- in curated RL directories (1 pt)
How we got to tier D
- Adoption: 8 models scored; no proper name (a paper title or description). Tier D.
- Not yet read on X.
- In curated RL directories: 1 point, a floor of none.
- Not yet confirmed by a line from its own site or paper.
A clear view on X moves a tier one step up or down; most entries don't move. How tiers work.
Not on the map yet: no line from its own site or paper places it in a domain.
Next: browse all benchmarks. Entry from the RL Research daily scrape of public sources, 2026-10-11 snapshot.