Related papers: Evidence of political bias in search engines and language models before major elections

Evidence of political bias in search engines and language models before major elections

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23474v1
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 17:39:34 GMT
Title: Evidence of political bias in search engines and language models before major elections
Abstract summary: We audit four search engines (SEs) and two large language models (LLMs)<n>We collected answers to approximately 4,360 queries related to elections in five EU countries and 15 US counties.<n>In Europe, SE results disproportionately mentioned far-right entities beyond levels expected from polls, past elections, or media salience.<n>In the US, Google strongly favored topics more important to Republican voters, while other search engines favored issues more relevant to Democrats.
Score: 2.491394372671857
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: Search engines (SEs) and large language models (LLMs) are central to political information access, yet their algorithmic decisions and potential underlying biases remain underexplored. We developed a standardized, privacy-preserving, bot-and-proxy methodology to audit four SEs and two LLMs before the 2024 European Parliament and US presidential elections. We collected answers to approximately 4,360 queries related to elections in five EU countries and 15 US counties, identified political entities and topics in those answers, and mapped them to ideological positions (EU) or issue associations (US). In Europe, SE results disproportionately mentioned far-right entities beyond levels expected from polls, past elections, or media salience. In the US, Google strongly favored topics more important to Republican voters, while other search engines favored issues more relevant to Democrats. LLMs responses were more balanced, although there is evidence of overrepresentation of far-right (and Green) entities. These results show evidence of bias and open important discussions on how even small skews in widely used platforms may influence democratic processes, calling for systematic audits of their outputs.

Related papers

Latent Topic Synthesis: Leveraging LLMs for Electoral Ad Analysis [51.95395936342771]
We introduce an end-to-end framework for automatically generating an interpretable topic taxonomy from an unlabeled corpus.<n>We apply this framework to a large corpus of Meta political ads from the month ahead of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.<n>Our approach uncovers latent discourse structures, synthesizes semantically rich topic labels, and annotates topics with moral framing dimensions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-16T20:30:20Z)
From Keywords to Clusters: AI-Driven Analysis of YouTube Comments to Reveal Election Issue Salience in 2024 [1.521610318673192]
Immigration and democracy were the most frequently and consistently invoked issues in user comments on the analyzed YouTube videos.<n>These results corroborate certain findings of post-election surveys but also refute the supposed importance of inflation as an election issue.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-09T06:02:10Z)
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)
Large Means Left: Political Bias in Large Language Models Increases with Their Number of Parameters [0.571853823214391]
Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly used by many as a primary source of information for various topics.<n>LLMs frequently make factual errors, fabricate data (hallucinations), or present biases, exposing users to misinformation and influencing opinions.<n>We quantify the political bias of popular LLMs in the context of the recent vote of the German Bundestag using the score produced by the Wahl-O-Mat.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-07T13:18:41Z)
Search engines in polarized media environment: Auditing political information curation on Google and Bing prior to 2024 US elections [0.0]
We audit the two largest Western search engines, Google and Bing, prior to the 2024 US presidential elections.<n>Our findings indicate that both search engines tend to prioritize left-leaning media sources, with the exact scope of search results' ideological slant varying between Democrat- and Republican-focused queries.<n>We also observe limited effects of location- and time-based factors on organic search results, whereas results for additional interface elements were more volatile over time and specific US states.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-08T18:18:03Z)
When Neutral Summaries are not that Neutral: Quantifying Political Neutrality in LLM-Generated News Summaries [0.0]
This study presents a fresh perspective on quantifying the political neutrality of LLMs. We consider five pressing issues in current US politics: abortion, gun control/rights, healthcare, immigration, and LGBTQ+ rights. Our study reveals a consistent trend towards pro-Democratic biases in several well-known LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-13T19:44:39Z)
Who Would Chatbots Vote For? Political Preferences of ChatGPT and Gemini in the 2024 European Union Elections [0.0]
The research focused on the evaluation of political parties represented in the European Parliament across 27 EU Member States by these generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The results revealed a stark contrast: while Gemini mostly refused to answer political questions, ChatGPT provided consistent ratings. The study identified key factors influencing the ratings, including attitudes toward European integration and perceptions of democratic values.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-01T13:40:13Z)
Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models [54.48283690603358]
This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao dataset, and China Family Panel Studies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-16T05:52:26Z)
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)
Novelty in news search: a longitudinal study of the 2020 US elections [62.997667081978825]
We analyze novelty, a measurement of new items that emerge in the top news search results. We find more new items emerging for election related queries compared to topical or stable queries. We argue that such imbalances affect the visibility of political candidates in news searches during electoral periods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-09T08:42:37Z)
The Matter of Chance: Auditing Web Search Results Related to the 2020 U.S. Presidential Primary Elections Across Six Search Engines [68.8204255655161]
We look at the text search results for "us elections", "donald trump", "joe biden" and "bernie sanders" queries on Google, Baidu, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, and Yandex. Our findings indicate substantial differences in the search results between search engines and multiple discrepancies within the results generated for different agents.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-03T11:18:19Z)

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