When the Roseanne reboot aired in March, many fans of the original series tuned in eagerly, hoping the revival would recapture the humor and working-class authenticity that made the show a standout in the 90s. For over a decade, the original Roseanne (1988-1997) portrayed the struggles of the Conner family with a sharp sense of humor and grounded realism, bringing a different perspective from other popular sitcoms of the time like Friends and Seinfeld. With its working-class backdrop and willingness to address difficult issues, Roseanne struck a chord with audiences across the country.
But when I learned about ABC’s decision to bring Roseanne back—overlooking some significant moments from the original show like Dan’s death in the finale—I felt a mixture of excitement and worry. Could the reboot retain its original charm and cultural relevance, or would it falter? After watching the first few episodes, I concluded that I couldn’t continue watching, largely due to its treatment of LGBTQ+ issues and the often contradictory political messaging it conveyed.
Nostalgia Meets Reality
The first few episodes were, in some ways, a successful homage to the original Roseanne—the jokes were snappy, the family dynamic was as strong as ever, and the characters still struggled with financial issues that felt relevant in 2018. But the show’s engagement with current issues also felt uneven, particularly with respect to the portrayal of Darlene’s son, Mark. Mark is presented as a gender nonconforming child, and while the show attempts to address the issues he faces, the execution often falls short. Instead of allowing his character to feel fully realized, Mark’s gender nonconformity is often used for laughs, blurring the line between supportive representation and inadvertent mockery.
It’s true that Dan, the traditional patriarch, struggles to understand Mark’s fashion choices. He grapples with his discomfort, but the show’s intention isn’t always clear—are we laughing at Dan’s outdated views, or are we meant to see Mark as the punchline? The ambiguity here felt uncomfortable, as it left open the possibility that Mark’s gender expression was something odd or laughable, rather than merely one child’s unique sense of style. By the second episode, Dan’s unease is explained as concern for Mark’s safety, which allows for a bit more nuance. Dan’s reaction brings to light the challenge many families face when loving someone who doesn’t fit societal norms, yet his desire for Mark to “fit in” still sits uneasily with me.
For all its attempts at supporting Mark’s choices, the show sends a mixed message about what it means to accept people as they are. It celebrates Mark’s courage while implicitly criticizing anyone who chooses a more cautious path, suggesting that LGBTQ+ individuals who don’t openly embrace their identity are somehow weaker. This kind of message could be damaging for young LGBTQ+ viewers who may not feel safe or ready to come out, especially in environments where their identities might not be accepted.
Roseanne’s Reaction and Political Undertones
The way Roseanne Connor, as a character, reacts to her grandson’s gender expression reflects a level of ignorance about LGBTQ+ issues that feels outdated in 2018. At one point, she corners Mark, asking him bluntly whether he “feels like a boy or a girl.” Mark affirms that he identifies as male, but the question itself feels invasive and inappropriate, particularly as it doesn’t recognize that non-binary or gender nonconforming individuals don’t owe anyone an explanation of their identity. Such a question is not only invasive but can also reinforce harmful assumptions about what it means to conform to traditional gender norms.
For many fans, Roseanne Connor’s political views in the reboot sparked even more controversy, given the real-life political leanings of Roseanne Barr, the actress behind the character. While Roseanne in the original series represented a working-class woman who would protect her family at any cost, the reboot presents her as a staunch Trump supporter. This shift creates a disconnect for some fans, as her political stance is seemingly at odds with her acceptance of her grandson. How can Roseanne Connor, who so fiercely defends her grandson in school, still support a political figure associated with policies that could limit his rights? It’s difficult to reconcile her fierce loyalty to her family with her support for a politician whose policies could harm her grandson in the long run.
A Question of Representation
Part of my discomfort with the reboot stems from what feels like a selective understanding of representation. The original Roseanne worked because it brought to life the reality of a working-class family with a level of empathy and realism that was rare for television at the time. But in attempting to stay relevant to the political landscape of 2018, the reboot sometimes seems to gloss over issues, presenting a sanitized or simplified view of the complex identities and challenges people face today.
While Roseanne’s support for her grandson is admirable, the show’s treatment of Mark’s character leaves me uneasy. The frequent jokes at his expense, the way his choices are questioned, and the show’s overall ambivalence toward his gender expression send mixed signals. Representation matters, especially for young LGBTQ+ viewers, and while the reboot attempts to address these issues, it often misses the mark.
It’s clear that Roseanne Connor loves her grandson and would do anything to protect him, yet the show never fully addresses the cognitive dissonance of her supporting someone like Trump. In a country where many LGBTQ+ youth still face significant obstacles, including harassment, limited legal protections, and discrimination, Roseanne could have offered a much-needed message of support. Instead, it feels as though the show uses Mark’s gender expression as a device to make its characters appear open-minded without fully committing to an understanding of the issues at hand.
Choosing Not to Watch
Ultimately, I chose not to continue watching the Roseanne reboot because its treatment of LGBTQ+ issues and political undertones didn’t resonate with me. The reboot had the potential to be a powerful commentary on working-class families, identity, and acceptance in modern America, yet it often felt more like a missed opportunity. Representation in media is a powerful tool for shaping our society, and I hope future shows will take these issues to heart, providing authentic and thoughtful portrayals that resonate deeply with all viewers.
Roseanne will always hold a place in my memory as a groundbreaking show that offered a different perspective on the American family, but this reboot has not captured that same magic for me. Instead, I hope to find stories that offer a more inclusive and fully realized view of the challenges—and beauty—of modern family life.
