“Bridgerton” has become one of Netflix’s biggest hits since its release in 2020. The show is known for its inclusivity, yet the addition of a sapphic couple has caused rounds of controversy on the internet.
“Bridgerton,” for the past three seasons, has centered around a different romantic relationship. Speculation of the next lead has caused much debate within the world of period drama online circles. The debate between Eloise and Francesca being our main character was a strong one, but it all came to an end when Netflix posted their announcement with Masali Baduza (Michaela Stirling) and Hannah Dodd (Francesca Stirling) as love interests.
This announcement generated mixed reactions. Some were ecstatic at the notion of finally getting queer representation in something like a period drama. According to a post on X, “Franchaela’s Bridgerton season is everyone’s chance to show up for lesbians the same way they do for gay men. You care about love & queer/POC representation? Great! Here’s a queer romance with a black woman as one of the leads! That won’t be cancelled! Tune in!” Others, however, had a more negative outlook on the situation. According to a post on Threads, “I’ve been waiting for Bridgerton to cast a black woman as a love interest only for them to disappoint. I’m in no way homophobic, but I do not want to watch an entire season of women kissing each other either. Hard pass.”
This controversy is not particularly new within the Bridgerton fandom. The end of Season 3 also caused controversy, according to Slate, due to a key character being introduced to the audience as Michaela instead of Michael, as the original “Bridgerton” novels had it. The changing of the gender seems little to some viewers, but to many, this seemingly erases a larger plot point from the original text.
However, if the book’s integrity is the argument that is being used, has the show not veered from the source material before? Many of the stories told on screen have been far from what was originally written, and no one seemed to have an issue with the content then. Daphne was not a diamond and was on the shelf for several seasons. That should make the people who are angered about this for any sort of “book purist” reasons angry from the first episode of the first season. So why this story in particular? The outrage is not really about loyalty to the books, nor is it about preserving historical accuracy in a show that has never claimed to do so. It is about discomfort—about whose love stories those find worthy of grand ballrooms, sweeping scores and ultimately, that end-all be-all happily ever after. “Bridgerton” has always reimagined the past through a more inclusive lens, asking the audience to suspend belief in favor of possibility. Season 5 is simply continuing that tradition. The question is no longer whether the show has changed, but whether its audience is willing to grow with it. If love is meant to be the centerpiece of this world, it cannot be conditional.
