POW: Political Overton Windows of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08853v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 17:57:54 GMT
• Title: POW: Political Overton Windows of Large Language Models
• Authors: Leif Azzopardi, Yashar Moshfeghi,
• Abstract summary: Political bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) presents a growing concern for the responsible deployment of AI systems.<n>Traditional audits attempt to locate a model's political position as a point estimate, masking the broader set of ideological boundaries that shape what a model is willing or unwilling to say.<n>In this paper, we draw upon the concept of the Overton Window as a framework for mapping these boundaries.
• Score: 15.998401166180388
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Political bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) presents a growing concern for the responsible deployment of AI systems. Traditional audits often attempt to locate a model's political position as a point estimate, masking the broader set of ideological boundaries that shape what a model is willing or unwilling to say. In this paper, we draw upon the concept of the Overton Window as a framework for mapping these boundaries: the range of political views that a given LLM will espouse, remain neutral on, or refuse to endorse. To uncover these windows, we applied an auditing-based methodology, called PRISM, that probes LLMs through task-driven prompts designed to elicit political stances indirectly. Using the Political Compass Test, we evaluated twenty-eight LLMs from eight providers to reveal their distinct Overton Windows. While many models default to economically left and socially liberal positions, we show that their willingness to express or reject certain positions varies considerably, where DeepSeek models tend to be very restrictive in what they will discuss and Gemini models tend to be most expansive. Our findings demonstrate that Overton Windows offer a richer, more nuanced view of political bias in LLMs and provide a new lens for auditing their normative boundaries.

Related papers

• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• Multilingual Political Views of Large Language Models: Identification and Steering [9.340686908318776]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in everyday tools and applications, raising concerns about their potential influence on political views.<n>We evaluate seven models across 14 languages using the Political Compass Test with 11 semantically equivalent paraphrases per statement to ensure robust measurement.<n>Our results reveal that larger models consistently shift toward libertarian-left positions, with significant variations across languages and model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T12:42:35Z)
• Identifying Fine-grained Forms of Populism in Political Discourse: A Case Study on Donald Trump's Presidential Campaigns [17.242754326635833]
  This paper examines whether Large Language Models can identify and classify fine-grained forms of populism.<n>We evaluate a range of pre-trained (large) language models, both open-weight and proprietary, across multiple prompting paradigms.<n>We find that a fine-tuned RoBERTa classifier vastly outperforms all new-era instruction-tuned LLMs, unless fine-tuned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T14:18:54Z)
• Democratic or Authoritarian? Probing a New Dimension of Political Biases in Large Language Models [72.89977583150748]
  We propose a novel methodology to assess how Large Language Models align with broader geopolitical value systems.<n>We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increases favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T07:52:07Z)
• Probing the Subtle Ideological Manipulation of Large Language Models [0.3745329282477067]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, but concerns have emerged about their susceptibility to ideological manipulation.<n>We introduce a novel multi-task dataset designed to reflect diverse ideological positions through tasks such as ideological QA, statement ranking, manifesto cloze completion, and Congress bill comprehension.<n>Our findings indicate that fine-tuning significantly enhances nuanced ideological alignment, while explicit prompts provide only minor refinements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-19T13:11:50Z)
• Mapping and Influencing the Political Ideology of Large Language Models using Synthetic Personas [5.237116285113809]
  We map the political distribution of persona-based prompted large language models using the Political Compass Test (PCT)<n>Our experiments reveal that synthetic personas predominantly cluster in the left-libertarian quadrant, with models demonstrating varying degrees of responsiveness when prompted with explicit ideological descriptors.<n>While all models demonstrate significant shifts towards right-authoritarian positions, they exhibit more limited shifts towards left-libertarian positions, suggesting an asymmetric response to ideological manipulation that may reflect inherent biases in model training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:36:18Z)
• Political-LLM: Large Language Models in Political Science [159.95299889946637]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in political science tasks.<n>Political-LLM aims to advance the comprehensive understanding of integrating LLMs into computational political science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T08:47:50Z)
• PRISM: A Methodology for Auditing Biases in Large Language Models [9.751718230639376]
  PRISM is a flexible, inquiry-based methodology for auditing Large Language Models. It seeks to illicit such positions indirectly through task-based inquiry prompting rather than direct inquiry of said preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T16:57:20Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.