The use of all-women shortlists (AWS) is the political practice intended to increase the proportion of female Members of Parliament (MPs) in the United Kingdom by allowing only women to stand in particular constituencies for a particular political party. Only the Labour Party currently uses this practice. Political parties in additional countries, such as South Korea and Latin American countries have used practices analogous to AWS, especially in relation to government gender quotas. AWS and practices similar to it have had mixed impacts in terms of the percentage of candidacies and offices women hold as a result of their use.
In the 1990s in the United Kingdom, women constituted less than 10% of parliamentary MPs. Political parties used various strategies to increase female representation, including encouraging women to stand and constituency associations to select them, and providing special training for potential women candidates. Another strategy, the creation of all-women shortlists, is an affirmative action strategy making compulsory the selection of women candidates in some constituencies.
The strategy has been criticised as undemocratic, as "bypassing competitive principles and hence as ignoring the merit principle," and as "a form of discrimination against men." For the 1992 General Election the Labour Party had a policy of ensuring there was at least one statutory female candidate on each of its shortlists, however few of these women were successful in being selected in winnable seats (seats within a 6% swing). Following polling that suggested women were less likely to vote Labour than men, the party introduced All-women shortlists at its 1993 annual conference.
Labour used all-women shortlists to select candidates in half of all winnable seats for the 1997 general election, with the aim of reaching 100 women MPs post-election, a goal that was reached. The shortlists provoked controversy, however. In 1996 Labour party branches in Croydon Central, Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney, Bishop Auckland and Slough all submitted hostile motions criticising the policy.