Resource mobilization theory and, more recently, political process/opportunity theories dominate the study of social movements. The pioneering work of Jo Freeman and Anne Costain uses these theories to explain the emergence and mobilization of the contemporary U.S. women's movement. According to this perspective, women's movements have the incentive to act when their chances for success are high. They take advantage of new opportunities and open new ones for themselves. These opportunities are a function of their internal resources and of external factors, such as governmental structures and rules that provide access. Because the U.S. women's movement often has been more oriented toward changing gender role norms and practices, rather than achieving rights, it has received relatively little attention from political opportunity structure (POS) scholars.

Alana Jeydel provides an important corrective by examining two landmark policy goals, the Nineteenth Amendment to enfranchise women and the failed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to assure sex equality under the law. She examines the conditions under which political leaders (Congress and the president) are responsive to the women's movement and the timing of the movement's access to these institutions. She argues that an analysis of social movement–elite relations is crucial to understanding how the movement's agenda gains support from presidents and is introduced into Congress, given hearings, and reported out for floor votes. Resource mobilization theory is combined with political process/opportunity theories to demonstrate how social movements gain access with the help of external allies. According to this model, political leaders become more responsive when the POS is opening.

The author divides the women's movement into three waves: 1848–89, the dawn of suffrage demands; 1890–1928, the height of the suffrage movement with the formation of the National American Woman Suffrage Association and the first demands for the ERA; and 1960–85, the era of the ERA campaign. The waves are well justified, with the possible exception of the third wave, which begins with the election of John Kennedy and his establishment of a commission on the status of women and ends with failed attempts at congressional passage after the deadline for ERA ratification expired in 1982. Arguably, either 1982 or 1989, when the Webster decision provided a wake-up call for preserving legalized abortion and a new rallying cry to mobilize the movement's membership, could have been used as the end of the ERA wave.

Jeydel's major contribution is operationalizing the POS. An open POS in Congress is indicated by low party unity, high electoral instability, rules weakening party leaders' powers of appointment, and favorable public opinion toward movement goals. Similarly, an open POS in the presidency is marked by high electoral instability and supportive public opinion. Access to Congress is measured by hearings on suffrage or the ERA held in each Congress and by the number, type, and position of groups and individuals testifying in those hearings. Presidential access is indicated by women's planks in national party platforms, meetings with movement and women's groups, and establishment of women's bureaucracies. Measures of congressional response are bills introduced, reported, brought to the floor, and passed. Presidential response is indicated by statements on suffrage, the ERA, and women generally, and by the signing of legislation and executive orders on women. These measures are supplemented by archival materials of several women's groups. The study is very carefully done and the data are clearly displayed. Despite many problems of measurement, which the author notes, the model here generally describes changes in access to and response of Congress and the president to the women's movement during the periods covered.

Many will find this book excessively detailed in its description of access and response and the nature of the POS in each Congress and presidency covered. Several measures are missing or meaningless. For example, group endorsements are used as an indicator of mass opinion on suffrage, and polling on the ERA was only conducted after congressional passage in 1972. Electoral stability in the Senate is meaningless until the adoption of direct election. Congressional hearings were often customary and the number of pro-suffrage witnesses probably reflected those sent by the movement. The public papers of the presidents were not available until the Truman administration. Some of the measures, such as general attention to women's issues and women's groups, do not appear to be related to the women's movement, indicating that a more parsimonious model may be possible. Even so, the study fills a gap in our understanding of congressional passage of suffrage and the ERA and the role of the president in each campaign. There has been much greater attention paid to the state ratification campaigns by scholars. The study also clearly shows the lack of attention in Congress and by presidents to gender issues and women's groups during much of the last two centuries.

Despite some weaknesses, the model (or parts of it) is worth further testing. A comparative study of the abolition and suffrage movements during 1848–65 (with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment) might indicate the degree to which the POS is gendered (i.e., works better for women than for men, or the reverse). Or a study of elite access and response during the entire history of the ERA, 1923–82, might be undertaken, as was done here for woman suffrage. Alternatively, the application of this approach to an issue that is not a constitutional amendment might be considered inasmuch as an extraordinary congressional majority is required for the submission of an amendment, the president has no formal role, and further state action is needed for adoption. For example, abortion policy would afford an opportunity to compare the POS of both the pro-choice and pro-life movements and perhaps shift to the state level in a group of case studies. In summary, this is a welcome addition to the literature of women and politics, and scholars will find that it presents many new possibilities for further research.