When Bridgerton first debuted on Netflix in December 2020, it was celebrated as a breath of fresh air in the period drama genre. Created by Chris Van Dusen and produced by Shonda Rhimes, the series was praised for its vibrant visuals, engaging romance, and inclusive casting. Set in Regency-era England, Bridgerton reimagined the classic costume drama, introducing a modern twist with pop-culture references, diverse characters, and steamy love scenes. It quickly became a cultural phenomenon, amassing millions of viewers worldwide.
However, as the series progresses and audiences take a more critical look at its content, a number of significant issues have started to surface—issues that are increasingly hard to ignore. What was once seen as a refreshing take on the period drama genre now faces criticism for its handling of race, historical accuracy, character development, and storytelling. In this article, we’ll explore the various problems with Bridgerton that have become increasingly difficult to overlook and how they reflect deeper concerns within television and entertainment.
1. The Issue of Tokenism and Surface-Level Diversity
From the outset, Bridgerton was praised for its inclusive casting, particularly in its portrayal of Black and other minority characters in high society—a move that is uncommon in traditional period dramas. The show introduced characters like Simon Basset, the Duke of Hastings (played by Regé-Jean Page), and Queen Charlotte (played by Golda Rosheuvel), depicting them as wealthy, influential figures in Regency England. This race-blind approach, where characters of various ethnic backgrounds are cast in roles typically reserved for white actors, was initially heralded as groundbreaking.
However, as the series progressed, many viewers began to question the show’s depiction of race and the depth of its diversity. While Bridgerton makes a point of including people of color in prominent roles, critics argue that the show often fails to address the realities of race and class in the Regency era. The world of Bridgerton exists in a kind of alternate reality where race seemingly plays no role in societal dynamics, and Black characters are seamlessly integrated into aristocratic society without explanation or exploration of the historical context.
This approach has been criticized as tokenism—using diverse characters as a superficial gesture toward inclusion without providing meaningful depth or exploration of their experiences. For example, Simon Basset’s character is celebrated for his charisma and complexity, but his race is largely treated as incidental, with little discussion of how being a Black man in Regency-era England would impact his life, relationships, and position in society. The show also glosses over the broader implications of what it means for a Black queen (Queen Charlotte) to hold such a powerful position in a historically white-dominated setting.
While Bridgerton presents a racially diverse world, it often avoids confronting the deeper issues of race and racism. This leaves viewers with a fantasy version of history that feels disconnected from the real struggles and experiences of marginalized groups, making the show’s diversity feel more performative than substantive.
2. Historical Inaccuracy in Service of Modern Romance
Bridgerton is not a historical documentary, and the creators have made it clear that the show is meant to be a fun, escapist fantasy. However, the way in which the series bends and reshapes historical accuracy has drawn criticism for perpetuating a sanitized and overly romanticized version of the past.
One of the main appeals of Bridgerton is its mix of Regency-era aesthetics with modern sensibilities. The show uses contemporary pop music, fashion, and dialogue to create a fusion of past and present, which adds to its playful and accessible tone. However, this blending of eras has led to a significant departure from the realities of the time period. The series portrays a world where societal restrictions on women’s rights, class distinctions, and the brutalities of colonialism are either glossed over or ignored entirely.
For instance, the portrayal of women’s roles in Bridgerton is somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, the show highlights the restrictive gender norms of the Regency period, where women’s worth is largely tied to their ability to marry well. On the other hand, it introduces female characters, like Daphne Bridgerton and Eloise Bridgerton, who express a desire for independence and personal agency—sentiments that, while empowering, often feel anachronistic for the time.
While it’s possible to enjoy Bridgerton as a light-hearted romantic drama, the show’s selective historical inaccuracy raises questions about the broader messages it conveys. By romanticizing the past without addressing its darker realities, Bridgerton contributes to the ongoing trend of “period escapism” that overlooks the harsh inequalities and struggles of the time. For some viewers, this sanitized version of history, where oppressive systems like colonialism and patriarchy are merely background noise, can feel disingenuous and problematic.
3. Lack of Depth in Character Development
Another issue that has become increasingly apparent in Bridgerton is the lack of depth in its character development. While the show features a large ensemble cast, with multiple storylines and subplots, many characters remain one-dimensional, defined by their romantic entanglements rather than their individual growth or complexity.
For instance, Daphne Bridgerton, the heroine of the first season, is portrayed primarily as a naive young woman whose main goal is to secure a good marriage. While the show attempts to give her agency through her evolving relationship with Simon Basset, Daphne’s arc is largely defined by her role as a wife and mother. Similarly, other female characters, like Penelope Featherington and Marina Thompson, are given storylines centered on romance and marriage, with little exploration of their inner lives or ambitions beyond the societal expectations placed upon them.
Male characters, too, suffer from shallow development. Simon Basset, while initially compelling, quickly falls into the trope of the brooding, emotionally distant hero whose trauma defines his relationships. The complexities of his character are often reduced to his inability to communicate or overcome his past, making his journey feel repetitive and somewhat stagnant.
As the series progresses into its later seasons, the lack of growth and depth in these characters becomes more noticeable. While Bridgerton is primarily a romance series, it could benefit from a deeper exploration of its characters’ personal struggles, desires, and identities beyond their romantic pursuits.
4. Problematic Depictions of Consent and Power Dynamics
One of the most controversial moments in Bridgerton came in the first season, when the show depicted a non-consensual sexual encounter between Daphne and Simon. In this scene, Daphne takes advantage of Simon’s decision to pull out during sex, ensuring that he ejaculates inside her against his wishes. The moment sparked widespread debate, with many viewers criticizing the show for portraying the scene in a way that minimized the seriousness of the violation.
While the scene was adapted from Julia Quinn’s original novel, the show’s handling of the incident was problematic for several reasons. First, it downplayed the gravity of the situation by framing it as a minor conflict between a married couple, rather than a violation of Simon’s consent. Second, it failed to address the power dynamics at play—Daphne’s actions were motivated by her desire to conceive a child, and Simon’s refusal to have children stemmed from deep emotional trauma. By treating the incident as a misunderstanding rather than a serious breach of trust, the show glossed over the importance of consent in sexual relationships.
This moment in Bridgerton speaks to a larger issue in the series: its romanticization of power imbalances in relationships. Throughout the show, there are multiple instances where characters engage in manipulative or coercive behavior, yet these actions are often framed as part of the romantic tension or drama. In a time when conversations about consent and healthy relationships are more important than ever, Bridgerton’s handling of these themes feels outdated and irresponsible.
5. Overemphasis on Romance at the Expense of World-Building
At its core, Bridgerton is a romance series, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with focusing on love and relationships. However, as the show continues to churn out new seasons, there’s a growing sense that it relies too heavily on its romantic plotlines at the expense of world-building and narrative depth.
Regency-era England is a fascinating and complex historical setting, full of political intrigue, social hierarchies, and cultural tensions. Yet Bridgerton rarely delves into the larger societal context in which its characters exist. The series often feels more like a collection of romantic subplots, with little attention paid to the world outside of balls, parties, and marriage negotiations. The backdrop of the Napoleonic Wars, for example, is almost entirely absent from the show, despite its significant impact on British society at the time.
Additionally, the show’s approach to class dynamics is often superficial. While Bridgerton features characters from different social backgrounds, such as the working-class Featheringtons and the aristocratic Bridgertons, it rarely explores the complexities of class struggle or economic disparity. The show instead opts for a fairy-tale version of Regency England, where even the most financially disadvantaged characters enjoy a relatively comfortable existence.
This lack of world-building limits the scope of the series and prevents it from exploring more meaningful themes. By focusing almost exclusively on romance, Bridgerton misses an opportunity to engage with the political and social realities of the time, which could add layers of depth and richness to the story.
