DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED IT
IT FACULTY
Gendered Challenges in the
FemTech Landscape
An Exploration of Funding Inequities and
Communication Strategies in Female
Entrepreneurship
Manon Henn and Tsvetelina Mihaylova
Essay/Thesis: 30 hp
Program: Master in Communication
Level: Second Cycle
Year: 2024
Academic Supervisor: Alice Srugies
Practical Supervisor: Jenny Lundkvist
Examiners: Ylva Hård af Segerstad and John Currie
Word count: 15,615
Abstract
The present study zooms into the FemTech sector, an emerging field dedicated to
addressing women's health issues. The FemTech sphere mirrors the gender-specific funding
challenges observed in the broader tech landscape, in which female-only founder teams
receive less financing than their male or mixed-team counterparts. Thus, this master’s thesis
explores the challenges faced by female entrepreneurs in acquiring funding for their
venture, either through collecting capital from investors or employing alternative funding
methods, while also examining the communication strategies used to tackle said challenges.
Drawing on the gender role congruity theory, the study investigates the gender biases
encountered by female leaders occupying a traditionally masculine position, namely
entrepreneurship. Furthermore, Men et al.’s (2018) framework on communication strategies
informs the study by zooming into visionary communication as a main approach employed
by founders. The research design incorporates in-depth interviews with FemTech
entrepreneurs, employing thematic analysis to inspect the collected data. The findings
revealed pervasive gender biases and a mismatch between FemTech business models and
VC expectations in the investment ecosystem, affecting female entrepreneurs’ interactions
with investors and hindering their access to funding. Successful communication strategies
employed by female founders involved conveying enthusiasm, charisma, and a compelling
vision, along with transparent communication, personalized pitches, and substantiation of
claims through market research and customer testimonials, facilitating trust-building and
long-term stakeholder engagement. Ultimately, from a socioeconomic standpoint, the
research contributes towards narrowing the gender gap in European startup financing, while
2
also filling the research gap in the field of communication by applying a gendered
perspective to the topic and exclusively focusing on the Swedish startup environment.
Keywords: Communication Strategies, Funding Disparities, Women Entrepreneurs,
FemTech, Gender Role Congruity Theory
3
Acknowledgements
We extend our heartfelt thanks to Alice Srugies, our academic supervisor at the
University of Gothenburg, for her unwavering support throughout the process of writing this
thesis. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Jenny Lundkvist, our practical
supervisor, and the rest of the DAYA team, for their invaluable feedback and guidance.
Additionally, we are immensely grateful for all the inspiring women who agreed to
participate in our research, sharing their vital experiences and practical insights with us.
Finally, we express our appreciation to all the faculty in the Master in Communication
program for generously imparting their knowledge over the past two years, which will
undoubtedly influence our professional journey in the future.
4
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 7
Literature Review............................................................................................................. 12
The Swedish Entrepreneurial Landscape...........................................................................13
Startup Funding Sources................................................................................................... 14
Gender Dynamics in Funding............................................................................................ 17
Gender Bias in Acquiring Funding............................................................................... 17
Combating Gender-related Challenges....................................................................... 19
Gender Role Congruity Theory.................................................................................... 20
Communication Strategies................................................................................................ 24
Research Gaps and Limitations......................................................................................... 29
The Purpose of the Study.................................................................................................. 30
Research Design............................................................................................................... 32
Participant Sampling......................................................................................................... 34
Data Set and Collection..................................................................................................... 37
Interview Guide.................................................................................................................38
Data Analysis..................................................................................................................... 41
Ethical Considerations....................................................................................................... 44
Findings............................................................................................................................46
Funding Challenges Encountered...................................................................................... 48
Communication Strategies Identified................................................................................54
Relationships between Themes........................................................................................ 58
Discussion........................................................................................................................ 61
Conclusion........................................................................................................................66
Summary of Findings.........................................................................................................66
Limitations and Directions for Future Research................................................................ 68
5
References....................................................................................................................... 71
Appendices...................................................................................................................... 86
Appendix I: Research Instrument...................................................................................... 86
General Interview Guide............................................................................................. 86
Tailored Interview Guide............................................................................................. 88
Appendix II: Consent Form................................................................................................ 91
Appendix III: Statement of Division of Work..................................................................... 93
6
Introduction
In recent times, the tech startup landscape has experienced a significant downturn,
with the Financial Times revealing a startling 50% decrease in funding over the past year
(Hammond & Kinder, 2023). This decline, however, has cast a disproportionately heavy
shadow on female-led startups, as a mere 3% of European market funding is invested into
female-only founder teams (State of European Tech, 2023). Indeed, research indicates that
one in three female entrepreneurs seeking funding face gender bias from financiers
(O’Connor, 2021). Gender bias is hereby defined as “prejudiced actions or thoughts based on
the gender-based perception that women are not equal to men in rights and dignity”
(European Institute for Gender Equality, 2016). This bias also impacts the funding amount,
with female business owners typically receiving less capital on average compared to their
male counterparts (O’Connor, 2021).
An investigation of the European Investment Bank into why women entrepreneurs
miss out on financing has concluded that the persistent lack of women in investment
decision making roles compounds the funding gap (Fackelmann & De Concini, 2020).
Moreover, the report shows evidence of higher risk aversion when it comes to female-led
companies, hindering startups to scale their business more aggressively as opposed to
male-led ventures. Ewens and Townsend (2020) further point out that gender bias and
stereotypes continue to stand in the way of women’s career advancement, signaling a
systemic issue where gender imbalances obstruct equitable economic participation.
A sector that magnifies these challenges is FemTech, short for female technology,
dedicated to addressing women's health issues like fertility, menopause, and menstruation.
7
The emergence of FemTech companies stems from a pervasive societal issue known as the
gender health gap. Throughout history, women have been notably absent from clinical trials,
resulting in medical treatments and practices predominantly catering to the needs of white
males aged over 40, neglecting inclusivity (Galea & Parekh, 2023). Research and
investigation into sex-based disparities have been minimal, led by a false assumption that
beyond reproductive functions, there are minimal differences in organ and system
functionalities between men and women. Thus, FemTech holds promise in narrowing the
gender health gap by shedding light on women-specific health issues, emphasizing the
urgency for increased research and funding in this domain. According to McKinsey, bridging
this gap could potentially inject USD 1 trillion into the global economy annually by 2040,
provided its value is fully realized (Ellingrud et al., 2024).
The FemTech industry consists of six key pillars within the HealthTech space, including
reproductive health, pregnancy and nursing, general health and wellness, oncology,
gynecological health, and nutrition and health supplements (Niftyhontas, 2023). It is
important to note, however, that the term itself causes controversies in the industry.
Folkendt (2019) concludes that critical voices believe the term to be “not inclusive, sexist
and per definition excludes trans-men”, as well as encouraging pink tax, “a phenomenon
often attributed as a form of gender-based price discrimination, with the name stemming
from the observation that many of the affected products are pink” (Folkendt, 2019, Femtech
Criticism section, para 1-2). So while FemTech is currently the most accurate term to
describe focus on women’s health issues compared to men’s, the term should be
approached with appropriate skepticism. The present researchers are aware of this problem,
8
but have decided to move forward with the term FemTech, as it is most widely used and
best describes the industry to be investigated.
Despite FemTech’s sole focus on women-centered issues, the majority of investor
capital in the sector is still funneled to male-founded or mixed-gender teams (Bucak, 2023).
Practically, the study thus aims to shed light on the hurdles faced by female FemTech
founders in the investment process, as well as to pinpoint effective communication
strategies used to address these challenges. Studying communication strategies in relation
to funding challenges is crucial for several reasons, such as identifying barriers female
founders encounter when seeking funding, illuminating the differences they face compared
to their male counterparts, and emphasizing the importance of utilizing communication
skills to establish trust with investors or the broader public (Browne, 2018). Efficient
communication is a vital skill for founders seeking funding, as claimed by Manzanera-Román
and Brändle (2016). However, a lack of diversity in the venture capital (VC) industry makes it
difficult for founders to effectively communicate their value proposition if the target
customers are minorities, as VCs are unable to identify with the product or the customer
base (Browne, 2018). Therefore, analyzing communication strategies in context reveals how
these biases manifest. Further, by understanding the barriers encountered by female
entrepreneurs, effective measures can be implemented to address them in professional
practice.
From an academic standpoint, this thesis contributes to the current body of research
in several ways. First, it follows calls by Ahl and Marlow (2012) for applying a feminist
perspective to the field of entrepreneurship overall, in order to “enable us to analytically
engage with how gender as a construct reflexively interfaces with our understanding and
9
presumptions of entrepreneurial activities, behaviours and ambitions” (p. 558). Second,
admittedly plenty of previous research has been published on the topic of female
leadership, including the impact of national policies and varying macro-economic contexts
on female entrepreneurship (Callerstig et al., 2024; Franzke et al., 2022; Laing et al., 2022),
gender biases in startup funding (Alsos & Ljunggren, 2017; Balachandra et al., 2019;
Becker-Blease & Sohl, 2007; Kanze et al., 2018), and other entrepreneurial barriers faced by
female leaders (Neumeyer et al., 2019; Pistilli et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2019). However, as Men
et al. (2017) have brought up, the majority of scholarship approaches the topic from a
managerial or public relations perspective, tackling topics such as brand management and
relationship cultivation in a broader context. By contrast, the present study investigates the
key role of communication in fundraising, including VC funding, a topic which so far has been
largely ignored by scholars (Parhankangas & Renko, 2017). Lastly, few studies have solely
focused on the Swedish startup context, with the latter typically being discussed in short
alongside other countries in Europe or worldwide (e.g., Callerstig et al., 2024). Thus, the
present thesis enriches the field of communication research by expanding the study scope to
a specific organizational context, namely Swedish startups in the field of FemTech, while at
the same time taking on a gendered perspective on the issue.
The paper is structured as follows. First, the literature review provides an overview of
the current state of the Swedish entrepreneurial landscape and sources of funding for
startups in order to provide a common understanding of the research problem. Then,
gender dynamics in funding are discussed, touching on gender bias in the funding process,
ways to combat gender-related funding challenges, and gender role congruity theory, which
serves as the theoretical framework for this study. This is followed by a discussion of
10
previous literature on communication strategies in an organizational setting, focusing
specifically on Men et al.’s (2018) framework, which further informs the theoretical
foundation of this thesis. The chosen methodology is then explained, including the approach
to sampling and data analysis, as well as ethical considerations. The results of the study are
summarized in the findings section and related to previous work in the discussion chapter.
Finally, the conclusion summarizes the key points and outlines directions for future research.
The present study has been conducted in collaboration with DAYA, a Swedish FemTech
innovation hub. No financial compensation was provided as part of this collaboration.
11
Literature Review
The literature review begins with a brief overview of the entrepreneurial environment
in Sweden, with a specific focus on the FemTech sector. Subsequently, different sources of
startup financing are identified and discussed. The exploration of these chapters is crucial as
it aims to deepen the understanding of entrepreneurship in Sweden and the types of
funding available in order to create a more holistic picture, which is essential for interpreting
the results of the study. The literature review is then divided into two sections: (1) gender
dynamics in funding and (2) communication strategies in an organizational setting. Within
the chapter on gender dynamics in funding, several subsections discuss the relevance of
gender bias in acquiring funding, zooming in on gender-related challenges and proposing the
first part of the theoretical framework, the gender role congruity theory. The review of the
literature on communication strategies outlines Men et al.’s (2018) framework of
communication strategies, which, alongside the gender role congruity theory, forms the
theoretical basis of this study. The communication strategies are purposefully introduced
later in the paper to serve as a point of further examination and propose solutions to
combat the gender challenges laid out in the opening chapters of the literature review. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of the communication strategies employed by women
entrepreneurs, combining the two main strands of research. The body of research is
approached from a critical perspective, evaluating previous studies in terms of methodology,
findings, and implications, which in turn shapes the approach of the current paper.
Furthermore, the existing research gap is identified, as well as the limitations of earlier
scholarship. The literature review concludes with the research questions guiding this study.
12
The Swedish Entrepreneurial Landscape
The present research is situated in Sweden, a country renowned for its rich tradition of
innovation and a flourishing entrepreneurial environment (Swedish Institute, 2023). The
following chapter is designed to provide context for the entrepreneurial landscape in
Sweden, which is necessary to understand the multifaceted challenges present. In the past,
multinational giants like IKEA and Volvo have flourished within the Swedish economy,
alongside emerging startups such as Klarna in the Fintech industry and Voi among the
leaders in the shared mobility sector. In fact, despite the challenges caused by the COVID-19
pandemic, early entrepreneurship in Sweden has increased to 9% in 2021, and the country
currently ranks second in the overall Global Innovation Index, after Switzerland (Global
Innovation Index, 2023).
There are several reasons behind Sweden’s favorable entrepreneurial landscape.
According to statistics provided by the Swedish Institute (2023), over 3% of the country's
GDP is annually directed towards research and development, with the life sciences sector
prominently featured among the leading beneficiaries. Additionally, Sweden offers
substantial tax incentives for initiating and operating businesses (Semuels, 2017). The
accessibility of funding is widely regarded as the primary catalyst driving entrepreneurs to
pursue their business ventures, which, in combination with Sweden’s robust safety net,
encourages entrepreneurs to take risks (Broström et al., 2022). Presently, an impressive
79.6% of Swedes perceive favorable opportunities for launching a business within the
country, ranking 9th out of 134 countries globally in terms of entrepreneurial activity, before
industry giants like Germany, Japan, and Israel (Lanvin & Monteiro, 2023).
13
In this context, the Swedish FemTech sector also presents a promising market
opportunity (Invest Stockholm, 2022). Both investors and the Swedish authorities are now
recognizing the potential in the field and the importance of prioritizing women’s healthcare.
This commitment has been articulated in the Statement of Government Policy in October
2022, which states that “a greater emphasis will be placed on more equitable health care,
women’s diseases and research on women’s diseases and health” (Regeringskansliet, 2022,
p. 17). Nevertheless, despite these encouraging advancements, more work is still needed to
achieve gender equality in the FemTech sector, where women still have a tougher time
financing their ventures than male founders. A 2021 report by Unconventional Ventures
revealed that in the Nordic region, enterprises founded by women received only 1.1% of
investment (Bavey & Messel, 2022). Furthermore, according to Dealroom (2023) data,
Sweden is not a top player in terms of FemTech investment globally, magnifying the need for
further research into the Swedish market. Additionally, despite past efforts by the Swedish
authorities to encourage women to start and grow their own firms, the norm about the ideal
technology entrepreneur remains masculine and the amount of female-founded ventures in
the sector remains low (Callerstig et al., 2024). As the field is projected to grow, more recent
data is required to conclude to which extent gender biases still persist in funding, and how
the issue can be counteracted.
Startup Funding Sources
In order to grasp the challenges within the fundraising process and evaluate them
appropriately, it is vital to recognize the different types of funding available to early-stage
startups. Generally, businesses can choose between equity financing, which involves selling a
stake in the organization, and debt financing in the form of bank loans, bonds, and leases
14
(Dudley, 2021). Typically, equity providers are preferred in the early and mid-stages of the
startup’s life cycle, when the company is not yet profitable (Bauer et al., 2023). As the
startup develops, debt financing becomes increasingly more accessible, since organizations
are more likely to pass the extensive reviews of their past performance and credit risk
required by debt providers.
In their recent review of funding sources available to newly-established businesses,
Bauer et al. (2023) identify the following equity providers preferred by early-stage startups.
The most common form of financing, according to the researchers, involves borrowing
money from family and friend networks. While easily obtainable, this type of funding can
limit the entrepreneur’s autonomy, since every business decision has a direct effect on the
wealth of their friends and family (Chua et al., 2011). Another reliable source is equity
crowdfunding, involving a large group of individual, non-professional investors who provide
financing in exchange for an ownership stake (Schwienbacher & Larralde, 2010). Bauer et al.
(2023) argue that crowdfunding is a preferred source in early-stage startups, because it
enables them “to overcome the disadvantage of the liability of newness” (Berns et al., 2020,
p. 171). In addition, entrepreneurs have the opportunity to access broad feedback from
investors and a global target audience, which contributes to crowdfunding becoming an
ever-growing segment of business financing.
Further, funding is often obtained through venture capitalist firms (VCs) who make
large, long-term investments in the form of a significant stake in the company. The decision
to invest is preceded by a careful investigation of the startup, and is usually accompanied by
consulting services (Baum & Silverman, 2004). Thus, VCs are traditionally seen as both adept
“scouts” able to identify promising startups, and good “coaches” ensuring that the venture is
15
well-managed in order to achieve its business goals (Baum & Silverman, 2004, p. 4). Besides
standalone firms, VC funding can be obtained through both governmental initiatives, such as
Sweden’s Vinnova agency, and as part of corporate investments, like those undertaken by
Google or Samsung, among others (Bauer et al., 2023; Regeringskansliet, 2014). While both
forms of financing can ensure the survival of the startup, Bauer et al. (2023) warn that
political agendas and conflicts of interest can affect the organization’s autonomy, which is
why these sources have a rather ambivalent reputation.
On a similar note, angel capital stems from well-situated entrepreneurs and executives
who invest some of their wealth in the organization based on both its potential for success
and their own social or personal motives (Becker-Blease & Sohl, 2007). Similarly to VCs,
angel investors can provide guidance due to their previous entrepreneurial experience, but
they generally follow more informal investment procedures with fewer control mechanisms
in place. Finally, accelerator and incubator programs have become a popular source of
financing in the years following the 2008-2009 financial crisis. These programs involve “a
collective of experienced managers who offer consultancy services, physical space, personal
guidance, contacts, and expertise to support startups’ survival and success” (Bauer et al.,
2023, Accelerator and incubator programs section, para 1). Notably, funding often has a
secondary role for accelerators and incubators, who are more focused on scanning the
market for startups to collaborate with and improve their skills.
In regard to debt providers, Bauer et al. (2023) argue that bank loans, one of the most
frequently used financial instruments, are often inaccessible to startups in the early stage of
their life cycle, since such companies have not yet become profitable. Rather, early-stage
businesses are more likely to resort to lending-based crowdfunding, in which individual
16
investors provide short- and medium-term loans at fixed interest rates, or venture debt
lenders, offering financing services to companies with limited past performance data (Block
et al., 2018).
Gender Dynamics in Funding
Gender Bias in Acquiring Funding
Recent scholarship on the topic of venture funding has emphasized the so-called
“gender penalty” in acquiring capital, implying that female founders are penalized while
trying to attract investor funding because of their gender (Huang et al., 2021). One recent
paper by Huang et al. (2021) came to this conclusion after conducting three separate studies
to explore communication patterns in a U.S. entrepreneurial context. Ultimately, the results
revealed that more abstract speech was associated with “greater perceived growth potential
and a higher likelihood of making it to the next round of consideration” (p. 728). As male
entrepreneurs tended to describe their ventures more abstractly than women, they were
thus “more likely to be assumed to be creating long-term, high-growth firms” worth
investing in (p. 732).
Indeed, securing capital is one of the primary concerns of women-owned businesses
(Wiesenberg et al., 2020). In VC financing, only a small fraction of capital is directed at
women-led firms, with similar disparities being observed in the angel capital market as well
(Becker-Blease & Sohl, 2007; Johnson et al., 2018). Becker-Blease and Sohl (2007) and
Karlstrøm et al. (2023) have shown that female-owned businesses receive only a small
fraction of overall angel funding due to entrepreneurs’ strong preference to seek funding
from investors of the same sex. Since most angel investors are men, female-owned
17
businesses comprise only 8.9% of all funding proposals. According to Karlstrøm et al. (2023),
this suggests that a greater number of women angels will encourage more female-owned
businesses to seek funding and thus ensure greater participation of women entrepreneurs in
the high-growth, high-return industries typically financed by private equity.
Research has highlighted several possible explanations for the existing gender bias
towards women in startup funding. Some of the most important ones, as concluded by
Raghuvanshi et al. (2017), include lacking the right knowledge to proceed through a first
round without future negative consequences; difficulties in developing an effective
management team; and encountering gender-related stereotypes. Differences in education
appear to have a particular impact on female founders’ inclination to seek financing, since
women typically are a minority in high-growth industries preferred by investors, such as
STEM1 (Becker-Blease & Sohl, 2007). These barriers to education and the resulting lack of
relevant work experience prevent female entrepreneurs from proceeding through a first
round of funding. Hence, women are more likely to establish businesses that require less
capital and therefore seek less funding. Johnson et al. (2018) corroborate this point,
concluding that “female-led firms tend to be less profitable, smaller in size, and slower to
grow than male-led firms” (p. 814). Karlstrøm et al. (2023) explain this phenomenon with
the fact that women tend to create startups in industries that do not typically receive VC
funding.
Related to these findings is the perceived incongruence between the characteristics of
women and those of successful business founders. Indeed, Taparia and Lenka (2022) argue
that women face greater challenges in becoming successful leaders since they are typically
1 Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
18
expected to be nurturing and are only given consideration for leadership roles when they
exhibit more aggressive, task-oriented behaviors. Additionally, Buttner and Rosen (1988) and
more recently Karlstrøm et al. (2023) insist that women are generally perceived as being
overly cautious, less skilled, and as lacking the ability to develop a founding strategy, which
leads to investors expecting more qualifications from women than their male counterparts
(Amatucci & Sohl, 2004; Huang et al., 2021; Johnson et al., 2018). In combination with the
issues laid out earlier, this results in women being generally underrepresented in the startup
sphere, and female-led startups raising less money overall compared to startups with male
founders (Färber & Klein, 2021; Huang et al., 2021).
Combating Gender-related Challenges
Amatucci and Sohl (2004) have identified several effective strategies to tackle the
challenges encountered by women entrepreneurs. These include open, honest, and direct
communication with stakeholders; reliance on family and friend networks; and developing
trust early in the investment process. Likewise, Wang et al. (2023) have demonstrated that
social media have the potential for closing the gender gap in VC financing to some degree,
since they provide a much-needed channel for entrepreneurs to reach out to investors. This
effect is strongest for first-time entrepreneurs who lack an established network. Additionally,
Färber and Klein (2021) have concluded that previous entrepreneurial experience offsets the
gender bias in seeking funding at least to some extent.
Looking away from the VC market, some research has explored the potential of equity
crowdfunding for female-founded ventures. For example, Johnson et al. (2018) have
suggested that female entrepreneurs might have a funding advantage in a crowdfunding
context, in which amateur investors usually lack reliable and credible information or access
19
to the entrepreneur, and are therefore more likely to rely upon their initial impressions.
Johnson et al. (2018) drew on stereotypical perceptions of women as more trustworthy,
concluding that when a particular investor holds high levels of implicit gender bias, they are
more likely to invest in a female-led project since female entrepreneurs are seen as unlikely
to take advantage of the investor. Cicchiello et al. (2020) support these findings, adding that
the presence of women might signal the trustworthiness of the entrepreneurial team and
thereby attract a greater number of investors. Cicchiello et al.’s (2020) conclusions were
based on quantitative data from equity crowdfunding platforms in Latin America, which
revealed that the gender of the founders is significantly related to the venture’s success.
Notably, gender was pinpointed as the key factor over other variables such as company age,
the size of the founders’ networks, the use of visual marketing to promote the product, and
the presence of mentors. In practice, these findings thus signal that female entrepreneurs
who have a hard time obtaining funding in traditional entrepreneurial markets might have
higher chances to raise funds by crowdfunding, especially in mixed entrepreneurial teams.
Gender Role Congruity Theory
Previous research on gender bias in the workplace, particularly with respect to
leadership roles, has utilized the gender role congruity theory proposed by Eagly and Karau
(2002). More recently, it has been applied by, among others, Balachandra et al. (2019) and
Karlstrøm et al. (2023) in their studies of gender imbalance in investor relations, testifying to
its continued relevance. According to the theory, some occupations that are dominated by
men or women can be perceived as stereotypically masculine or feminine due to the societal
roles associated with each gender. A mismatch between being a woman and occupying a
role perceived as masculine can thus lead to biases against women. Indeed, Eagly and Karau
20
(2002) have found evidence of prejudice towards women in leadership positions; this has
been picked up by Balachandra et al. (2019), who explain that female leaders displaying
masculine behavior might be “considered overly assertive, viewed negatively, and
experience career backlash” (p. 117).
However, findings on the topic are inconclusive. For example, Balachandra et al. (2019)
further argue that at least during the pitch stage, women have equal chances to men in
receiving investor interest in their ventures. According to the researchers, investors are not
biased against female entrepreneurs “who act in contrast to their gender stereotype” (p.
128), but rather against founders who display more feminine-stereotyped behaviors (such as
being affectionate, kind, sympathetic, and gentle), regardless of their gender. These results
are explained with the fact that entrepreneurship is still seen as a masculine domain
(Kacperczyk & Younkin, 2022; Rocha & van Praag, 2020), which leads to the negative
association between feminine-stereotyped behaviors and an entrepreneur's perceived
business competence, preparedness, and leadership.
Practically speaking, this means that “women seeking funding should ensure they are
not demonstrating strong feminine behaviors that may be more natural to their presentation
style” (Balachandra et al., 2019, p. 130). To identify such behaviors, Balachandra et al. (2019)
and previously Choi et al. (2009) have utilized the Bem Sex-Role Inventory model (Bem,
1974), a masculinity-femininity scale involving personality characteristics classified as either
masculine, feminine, or neutral with respect to sex. The model is based on earlier work
associating masculinity with an instrumental orientation – i.e., a focus on “getting the job
done” – and femininity with an expressive orientation, involving an “affective concern” for
the well-being of others (Bem, 1974, p. 156). Thus, it pinpoints several personality traits
21
perceived as more desirable in Western society for women, such as warmth, sensitiveness,
expressiveness, and emotiveness; as well as personality characteristics deemed more
desirable for men, including forcefulness, dominance, aggressiveness, and assertiveness
(Balachandra et al., 2019). In the context of investor relations, demonstrating
feminine-stereotyped behavior, according to the researchers, should hence be avoided,
since it might have a negative effect on funding outcomes. As a matter of fact, a recent study
by Karlstrøm et al. (2023) has highlighted that investors tend to view women as overly
cautious, not aggressive enough, and risk-averse, affecting the way conversations between
investors and entrepreneurs evolve, with similar arguments being previously brought
forward by Kanze et al. (2018).
On the other hand, female leaders can attempt to appear more masculine by acting
assertively, defending their beliefs and position, and displaying willingness to take risks
(Bem, 1974). Additionally, Karlstrøm et al. (2023) point to the importance of networking for
investment decisions, emphasizing that VCs have a tendency to invest in entrepreneurs
already in their network. According to their findings, female entrepreneurs would benefit
from reaching out to investors more consistently, which, in turn, would also help them
appear more assertive and masculine.
However, it should be noted that the gender role congruity theory is not without its
shortcomings. One major limitation lies in the evolution of societal roles of both men and
women, as well as the perceived erosion of gender differences over the past several
decades. As increasingly more women obtain higher education degrees and participate in
the workforce at a rate approaching that of men, societal beliefs about typically masculine or
feminine character traits have changed (Eagly et al., 2020). Lopez-Zafra and Garcia-Retamero
22
(2021) note that this phenomenon has been observed in several countries, with studies
being carried out in the U.S., Germany, and Spain, among others. Notably, societal
perceptions are changing in varying directions in each country, emphasizing the key
influence of culture and demographic characteristics on gender stereotypes.
In the case of Sweden, a recent study on changing gender stereotypes carried out by
Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2019) has revealed that at present, women rank equal to men in
terms of perceived masculinity. Men, however, are not seen as more feminine compared to
the past, despite their increased engagement in communal roles such as child-rearing and
care-taking. In other words, women continue to be associated with stereotypically feminine
traits to a larger degree than men.
Additionally, social scientists have called for a rethinking of the dominant binary way of
measuring gender, arguing that traditional approaches to gender completely exclude
individuals who identify as non-binary, i.e., whose gender identity is neither male nor
female, or is a combination of the two (Webb et al., 2016). Furthermore, a binary perception
of gender fails to capture any differences within groups of men or women (Markstedt et al.,
2021). For example, Wängnerud et al. (2019) have utilized a continuous gender rating scale
to conclude that women who perceive themselves as having more feminine traits report
higher levels of anxiety than men and women with few feminine characteristics. In the
context of the present study, it is thus possible that while controlling for gender, the
individual characteristics of the participants have further influenced their experiences with
acquiring funding and the challenges encountered. Despite these limitations, research
projects drawing on the gender role congruity theory have concluded that gender-related
biases toward female leaders have remained fairly constant, in line with Eagly and Karau’s
23
(2002) initial observations. This signals that the theory remains a suitable starting point for
gendered communication research, providing a useful framework for analysis. With that in
mind, caution should be exercised in order to achieve a complete understanding of the issue
and not overlook valuable insights which are not sufficiently represented in earlier
scholarship.
Within this study, the gender role congruity theory serves as part of the theoretical
basis, informing the research instrument and the in-depth data analysis. The second part of
the theoretical framework, focusing on communication strategies, is introduced in the
following subsection.
Communication Strategies
Effective communication and networking have repeatedly been identified as key
factors for entrepreneurs, male and female alike, who aim to sustain and grow their business
(Amatucci & Sohl, 2004; Kanze et al., 2018; Karlstrøm et al., 2023; Men et al., 2017; Wang et
al., 2023). As noted by scholars such as Men et al. (2018) and Wiesenberg et al. (2020),
communication practices displayed by entrepreneurs directly impact the venture’s relations
to stakeholders and, consequently, access to funding. Thus, entrepreneurial literature has
brought forward several communication strategies employed by business leaders to
exchange information and develop professional contacts. The term communication strategy
has been defined by Falkheimer and Heide (2018) as a comprehensive, long-term
perspective on the business’ communication goals, which involves planning and directing
overall operations while being aware of “where an organization is now and how it can win
over other players” (p. 45).
24
One notable work by Men et al. (2018) examines communication strategies employed
specifically by startups, classifying them into four groups. First, symmetrical communication
“embraces co-orientation”, meaning that leaders engage in dialogue and collaboration to
reach mutual goals (p. 40). According to the paper, symmetrical communication is
particularly useful for startup founders who regularly engage with stakeholders, including
investors, in order to find common ground. Further, transparent communication implies that
leaders promptly disseminate all available information to stakeholders, demonstrating
honesty and accountability. Somewhat related to this is authentic communication, which
requires that leaders remain transparent, genuine, and true to their beliefs. This style has
been shown to improve public trust and satisfaction with the organization (Men & Stacks,
2014). Finally, visionary communication highlights “the value and contributions of the
company for high purpose in a broad social, cultural, economic, or political context” in order
to instill confidence in investors (Men et al., 2018, pp. 48–49). Figure 1 presents a
visualization of the four strategies.
25
Figure 1
Communication Strategies
Note. Adapted from Men et al. (2018).
Of the four strategies, visionary communication is especially useful for early-stage
startups, although, as Men et al. point out, a combination of all four strategies is what is
often applied in practice. Sashkin (1992) and later Taylor et al. (2014) pinpoint visionary
communication as a key characteristic of visionary leadership, which involves creating and
conveying clear visions for the venture in order to “empower” stakeholders to act (Taylor et
al., 2014, p. 567). Visionary leaders display behaviors such as confidence and organizational
capabilities to build trust and motivation, foster innovation, and enhance performance.
26
Additionally, they often hold strong ideological values and demonstrate self-sacrifice in the
name of the long-term goal (Galvin et al., 2010).
Van Balen et al. (2019) elaborate on the topic by introducing the concept of disruptive
visions, promoting “a fundamental change, disturbance, or re-ordering of the ways in which
organizations, markets, and ecosystems operate” (p. 303). According to the researchers,
disruptive visions can be seen as narratives of what the venture will become and achieve;
the entrepreneur defines deficiencies in the current market, and frames them as an
opportunity for innovation, emphasizing “a [considerable] difference or break from the
previous business models and products in an industry or market” (Cornelissen, 2013, p.
708). Achieving these visions is thus contingent on entrepreneurs’ ability to convince
potential customers, suppliers, and investors to back the venture, which they do by
attempting to set themselves apart from other market players and showcasing their
potential (Ansari et al., 2016; van Balen et al., 2019).
According to van Balen et al. (2019), disruptive visions are an example of so-called
future-oriented communication. In combination with backward-looking communication,
which showcases the entrepreneur’s track record, their resource base, and thought
leadership, disruptive visions build trust in investors and have the potential to convince
them to support the venture. Here, Parhankangas and Ehrlich (2014) underscore the crucial
role of the entrepreneur’s mission statement, as well as the importance of elements such as
aggressiveness, assertiveness, and competitiveness for distinguishing the venture in the eyes
of investors. On the other hand, van Balen et al. (2019) warn that while visionary
communication is more likely to attract stakeholders, more disruptive business ideas might
actually raise lower funds, since they convey “uncertainty regarding a venture's potential for
27
success, deterring investors from making large speculative investments into the venture” (p.
304).
Notably, the above classifications do not take into account the gender of the
entrepreneur, likely due to the long-lasting perception of entrepreneurship as male normed
(Devnew & Storberg-Walker, 2018). Other scholars have attempted to outline the
communication styles preferred by female leaders. For example, Tannen (2007) and later
Zeler et al. (2022) have concluded that women demonstrate a direct, clear, and transparent
approach to communication, while also showing empathy to encourage stakeholders to
engage in collaboration. Similar findings have been reported by Hopkins and O’Neil (2015)
and Antunes et al. (2020), who conclude that female leaders value respect, equality, and
participation, characteristics associated with the so-called transformational leadership style,
rather than traditional authoritarian and hierarchical styles. In Men et al.’s (2018) terms,
these practices can be related to the symmetrical, transparent, and authentic
communication strategies, and less so to visionary communication. It is evident, however,
that the majority of scholarship has approached the topic from a broader angle, providing a
holistic view of leadership and not zooming in on communication strategies specifically. This
signals a need for further research situated within the communication domain, which also
takes into account the gender aspect of the issue. The following subsection summarizes the
research gaps identified in earlier work, which then serve as grounds for the present
research.
28
Research Gaps and Limitations
The literature review outlined earlier reveals several shortcomings in previous
academic work. To begin with, most research (e.g., Becker-Blease & Sohl, 2007; Huang et al.,
2021; Johnson et al., 2018) focuses on U.S. entrepreneurs, typically due to the abundance of
data from platforms such as Kickstarter and Crunchbase. While undoubtedly useful, these
findings may not necessarily hold true for Swedish entrepreneurs or the broader European
economy, where the differing economic and cultural contexts might have an impact. For
example, the U.S. proves to be a much more mature investment economy in terms of access
to VC, while Sweden has to deal with a smaller quantity of VCs and less available capital. In
numbers, that means that the U.S. VC market size is projected to reach USD 264.5bn, as
opposed to Sweden’s USD 964.9m in 2024 (Statista Search Department, 2024b, 2024a).
Additionally, when examining cultural differences, the U.S. tends to have a much more
entrepreneurial culture with greater tolerance for risk, while Swedish entrepreneurs,
especially women, are often held back by their fear of failure (Gatewood et al., 2014).
Further, a high number of studies have employed a quantitative rather than
qualitative approach, which allows for identifying correlations between gender and funding
outcomes based on a large amount of raw data. However, this method does not dive deeply
into possible root causes or contextual factors leading to such outcomes. Qualitative work is
therefore necessary to capture the complexities of the startup funding landscape and
conclude whether other unexplored factors, such as the nature of business ideas,
presentation skills, or access to networking opportunities, could impact funding outcomes.
29
More specific shortcomings include, in the case of Johnson et al. (2018), the use of a
simulated experiment environment, which does not by definition replicate the emotional
and cognitive processes involved in real-life investment scenarios and therefore might not
fully capture the complexities of the funding process. Other research, such as the one
carried out by Becker-Blease and Sohl (2007) and Karlstrøm et al. (2023), focuses on
individual VC or angel investing organizations within a specific time frame, which limits the
general applicability of findings to broader entrepreneurial contexts. Finally, in some cases,
the chosen research instrument might not be fully suitable to answer the research question.
For example, Huang et al. (2021) utilize the Brysbaert Concreteness Index (BCI), which
includes concreteness ratings for 40,000 commonly used English words, to evaluate the level
of abstractness in both male and female investment pitches. This approach has potential in
that it confirms earlier theoretical propositions that women’s tendency to speak concretely
prevents them from demonstrating a propensity for large-scale growth. However, as
entrepreneurial language varies across different contexts due to the varying nature of the
work (e.g., FemTech as opposed to FinTech2), the BCI should not be fully relied on to draw
generalizing conclusions about all entrepreneurs seeking funding.
The Purpose of the Study
Building on earlier findings and the research gaps identified in previous scholarship,
the present study investigates the funding challenges faced by female FemTech
entrepreneurs in Sweden. Drawing on the gender role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau,
2002), the thesis delves into perceived gender biases in the fundraising process. Further, the
study zooms in on the communication strategies employed by female founders to counteract
2 Financial technology (Van Loo, 2018).
30
the identified challenges, elaborating on earlier scholarship by Men et al. (2018) and van
Balen et al. (2019), among others. The thesis thus contributes to the field of communication
research by enriching existing knowledge on the communication process in an organizational
setting, in particular by applying a gender perspective on the issue. From a practical
standpoint, the study illuminates the challenges encountered by female founders as
opposed to their male counterparts, identifying effective measures that can be applied to
combat it. The research questions guiding this thesis formulate as follows:
(1) What challenges do women FemTech entrepreneurs in Sweden encounter when
trying to attract funding?
(2) What communication strategies do they employ to secure funding for their
startup ventures?
31
Research Design
The study utilizes an in-depth, explorative research design to capture the complexities
behind the existing gender bias in venture funding, and to identify successful
communication strategies that could be employed to counteract it. This decision was
motivated by several reasons. First, the researchers recognized the complexity inherent in
the challenges faced by female FemTech entrepreneurs. Given this complexity, the
researchers opted for a thorough exploration of the issue in order to capture the nuances of
their experiences, which a quantitative data approach could not have provided a full picture
of (cf. Johnson et al., 2018; Treadwell, 2020).
Second, the researchers sought to collect rich and detailed data that could generate
comprehensive insights into the phenomenon investigated in the study. Conducting
semi-structured interviews allowed the researchers to gather in-depth information, enabling
a deeper understanding of the topic at hand (Bryman, 2016). In comparison, applying a
larger-scale quantitative approach such as a survey would undermine this goal, due to the
very nature of the method. Additionally, by adopting an explorative research design, the
researchers aimed not only to describe the challenges and communication strategies, but
also to uncover underlying patterns and relationships within the data. This enabled the
generation of new insights, enriching current understanding of the issue (Treadwell, 2020).
The researchers deemed other qualitative methods, such as focus groups or
observational studies, as not appropriate. While focus groups can provide insights into group
dynamics and collective perspectives, they may not capture the depth of individual
experiences or allow for in-depth exploration of complex issues, as mentioned by Treadwell
32
(2020). On an issue as sensitive and multifaceted as gender bias in venture funding,
individual experiences and nuances may be overshadowed by dominant voices within the
group. Further, while observational studies can provide valuable insights into real-world
behaviors and interactions, they may not capture participants' underlying motivations,
perceptions, and emotions, and run a high risk of bias being established (Hess &
Abd-Elsayed, 2019; Treadwell, 2020). In addition, observing venture funding processes can
be challenging due to the confidentiality and sensitivity of financial negotiations. Finally, the
decision was also driven by a desire to address specific gaps in existing research, such as the
shortage of context-specific and field-specific scholarship and the lack of feminist
perspective on the field of entrepreneurship (Ahl & Marlow, 2012). Thus, the researchers
aimed to provide valuable insights that could inform both academia and industry practice.
While both of these shortcomings also would have been feasible using a quantitative
method, the study opted to prioritize depth over breadth and qualitative richness over
numerical precision.
As mentioned earlier, the present research has been supported by DAYA, a FemTech
innovation hub headquartered in Gothenburg, Sweden. As a thesis partner, DAYA assisted
with providing knowledge about the FemTech market, more specifically regarding
fundraising, and offered access to a broader network of female entrepreneurs, some of
whom were contacted as potential interviewees. Neither the researchers nor DAYA received
any financial compensation as part of this collaboration.
33
Participant Sampling
To answer the research questions guiding this thesis, 13 female FemTech founders
were interviewed. The study focused specifically on entrepreneurs who have founded a
startup in Sweden and attempted, either successfully or unsuccessfully, to secure funding for
their venture. It is important to note that there is no unanimous definition of the term
‘startup’ in entrepreneurial literature. For the purpose of this study, the researchers opted to
define a startup in line with Kollmann et al.’s (2016) conception, which proclaims that
startups (1) are younger than 10 years; (2) feature (highly) innovative technologies and/or
business models; and (3) strive for significant employee and/or sales growth. This definition
further served as an inclusion/exclusion criteria for potential participants, which is why
Participant 9 was subsequently excluded from the sample, sharpening the focus of the study
on a more recent startup environment. Nevertheless, the researchers opted to include the
interviewee in the participant table to maintain the transparency of the process. An
overview of all participants can be found in Table 1 below.
34
Table 1
List of participants
ID Current Company size Year founded Funding type FemTech
position (employees) domain
Co-founder General health
1 5 2021 A; VC
and CEO and wellness
Co-founder Gynecological
2 4 2020 A; I; VC
and CEO health
General health
3 Founder 1 2022 O
and wellness
General health
4 Founder 3 2021 A; G; O
and wellness
4 General health
5 CEO 2019 G; O
(part-time) and wellness
1 Reproductive
6 Founder 2023 A; O
(+ freelancers) health
Co-founder General health
7 11-50 2023 O
and CIO and wellness
Pregnancy and
8 Founder 3 2021 I; O
nursing
a Pregnancy and9 COO 11-50 2010 O
nursing
Co-founder General health
10 3 2019 G; VC; O
and CMO and wellness
Founder 5-7 Reproductive
11 2021 G; I
and CEO (1 full-time) health
Founder Gynecological
12 5 2015 O
and CEO health
3 Reproductive
13 Founder 2020 G; I
(2 full-time) health
35
Note. A denotes angel funding; G – government grants and loans; I – incubator and
accelerator grants; VC – venture capital; O – other funding methods, including personal
funds and crowdfunding.
a Participant 9 has been removed from the final sample as per the inclusion/exclusion
criteria for the study.
A combination of purposive and snowball sampling method was employed, in which
only participants with previous experience in trying to acquire any kind of funding, whether
successful or not, were considered (Hennink et al., 2020; Treadwell, 2020). In addition,
owing to the cooperation with DAYA, some of the interviewees recommended other
potential candidates in their network, which diversified the participant pool and enabled the
researchers to access a broad spectrum of opinions, experiences, and perspectives. Thus,
the approach directly addressed the need to uncover the challenges faced by women
FemTech entrepreneurs in their attempts to secure financing.
The decision to solely work with female founders, rather than include male
entrepreneurs or investors, was influenced by several key factors. To begin with, the very
nature of the FemTech sphere, devoted to women-specific health issues, means that it is
comprised primarily of female-led businesses (Coyote Ventures & FemTech Focus, 2021).
Thus, the approach contributed to a concentrated exploration of the unique challenges
faced by female founders in securing funding, as well as their outlook on communication
during the investment process. The study hence complemented earlier scholarship on the
topic, which has highlighted the investor perspective (e.g., Alsos & Ljunggren, 2017;
Balachandra et al., 2019; Karlstrøm et al., 2023). Furthermore, as a master's thesis, the
36
researchers faced limitations in terms of time, resources, and scope. Focusing exclusively on
female founders allowed for a more manageable and focused investigation, ensuring depth
in the analysis.
Data Set and Collection
The chosen methodology for the study involved semi-structured interviews combined
with a short review of participants’ pitch decks, employed to aid questioning and explore
each interviewee’s personal experience in greater detail. The approach was guided by two
main arguments. First, conducting in-depth interviews allowed for exploring specific
challenges encountered by participants within the fundraising process, the communication
strategies employed during pitches, personal experiences with fundraising, as well as
perceptions of gender-related dynamics in fundraising. The researchers were able to vary
the questioning in order to probe for additional information, justify previous answers, and
establish a connection between several topics (Bryman, 2016; Hennink et al., 2020). This
way, useful and relevant insights could be gathered with fewer participants (Queirós et al.,
2017).
Second, the decision to also include investment pitches was taken on the grounds that
such documents have previously been successfully used in studies of venture funding, as
they give “the advantage of data produced in real time, chronological data, and data that
reflect the information available to decision makers in the decision-making process” (Alsos &
Ljunggren, 2017, p. 574). The comparison of interview responses with observed practices in
pitch decks was undertaken to substantiate claims made in the interviews and vice versa,
supporting the exploratory nature of this study (Spinuzzi et al., 2015). The approach was
37
further motivated by recent calls by Henry et al. (2016) and Ozkazanc-Pan and Clark
Muntean (2018) for more sector-specific, qualitative research that tackles persisting
gendered assumptions and practices and entrepreneurship.
The interviews were conducted in English either through Zoom or over the phone,
depending on what was preferred by the participants, between February and April 2024. The
researchers acknowledge a slight difference in communication when talking on the phone as
opposed to video conferencing, as the lack of visual cues sometimes resulted in overlapping
questions and answers or longer pauses between sections. However, the researchers still
opted for phone interviews in certain cases, due to time constraints and the need to
accommodate participants’ schedules. The interviews lasted between 20 and 45 minutes.
Interview Guide
The interview questions drew inspiration from Karlstrøm et al.’s (2023) recent paper
on gendered perceptions in the VC market. The questionnaire was structured into distinct
sections. The first part was designed to gather key introductory information such as the
participants’ background, their business, and their experiences in securing funding.
Following this, a dedicated segment focused on communication strategies. A short analysis
of each startup’s pitch deck was carried out prior to the interviews, if one was provided,
resulting in a more tailored questioning. To relate the present study to earlier scholarship,
the interview guide drew from Men et al.’s (2018) taxonomy of communication strategies to
examine whether female entrepreneurs attempted to convey clear visions for their ventures
in order to showcase the potential of their businesses and convince stakeholders. The
analysis focused on behaviors such as confidence, aggressiveness, assertiveness, and
38
competitiveness, as identified by Parhankangas and Ehrlich (2014). An emphasis was put on
the degree to which the entrepreneurs presented their ideas as new ways of doing business,
fulfilling market gaps and fostering innovation, as well as on whether they highlighted their
advantages to other market players (Ansari et al., 2016; van Balen et al., 2019). Drawing on
the notion of backward-looking communication described by van Balen et al. (2019), the
interviews further zoomed in on whether female founders’ chose to highlight their
professional and academic qualifications, their previous experience as entrepreneurs, as well
as the venture’s achievements. As noted in earlier research, such behaviors could be
employed to foster trust early in the investment process (Amatucci & Sohl, 2004).
The subsequent section of the interview guide delved into either the challenges
encountered during the fundraising process, including an examination of the participants’
preparedness for seeking funding, their perception of investor receptivity, and the influence
of their personal network; or the challenges faced as an alternatively funded venture,
focusing on the differentiation between the two. The researchers drew from the gender role
congruity theory to address topics such as the mismatch between gender and the
entrepreneurial domain, potential bias against feminine-stereotyped behaviors, perceptions
of assertiveness, aggressiveness, and risk-aversion. The personality characteristics classified
in the Bem Sex-Role Inventory model served as suggestions for the researchers’ own
categorization of the interviewees’ behaviors (Bem, 1974; Choi et al., 2009). Additionally,
attention was paid to whether the style and manner in which entrepreneurs pitch their
ventures might impact funding outcomes. This decision was informed by Huang et al.’s
(2021) study of investor attitudes toward male and female founders , which has concluded
that male entrepreneurs often use abstract language to describe their ventures, thereby
39
implying a larger vision for the business and becoming more likely to be considered for the
next round in the investment process. On the other hand, women’s tendency to speak more
concretely, often driven by a desire to demonstrate competence, robs them of the possibility
to be perceived as bigger-picture thinkers worth investing in (Fiske et al., 2002). The
interviews thus sought to confirm or reject these findings by examining whether female
founders made additional explicit efforts to convey their long-term orientation and
propensity for large-scale growth. In the concluding segment, the interviewees were invited
to share any additional thoughts they wished to discuss, ensuring a comprehensive
exploration of relevant themes.
The interview guide was pre-tested several times with a small set of participants who
did not fit the sampling criteria fully, but had experience within startup funding (cf. Bryman,
2016). This allowed the researchers to estimate the response time, removing any questions
which were deemed to be unclear for participants or which did not yield relevant and
comprehensive answers. To be more specific, a question on the business idea behind the
venture was excluded from the initial section. Further, a question asking how the
entrepreneurs advocated for their companies’ potential was removed from the
communication strategies section, and another one inquiring about any mistakes the
founders made when pitching was reformulated to focus on unsuccessful interactions with
investors more broadly. The structure of the interview guide was also evaluated, and some
questions were re-ordered so as to not influence participants’ answers. For example, a
question inquiring whether participants believed they have encountered gender bias from
investors was moved to the very end of the guide, in order to avoid directing the discussion
40
in the researchers’ preferred direction. The final interview guide and an example of a
tailored guide adapted for one of the participants are available in Appendix I.
Data Analysis
The data analysis process was split into two parts. First, participant interviews were
transcribed using the software Otter.ai and manually reviewed for accuracy. Then, the
interviews were examined using the thematic analysis method proposed by Braun and
Clarke (2006), with a focus on identifying both recurring challenges encountered by
participants when communicating with investors, and effective communication strategies
employed to tackle said challenges. The process followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step
thematic analysis model, consisting of (1) data familiarization, (2) development of initial
codes, (3) development of themes and subthemes, (4) reviewing of themes, (5) theme
definition, and lastly, (6) the production of the report.
The coding process sought to identify important features within the dataset, relating
them to prior research and the theoretical framework informing the study. First, a
comprehensive review of the entire dataset was conducted, and an initial analysis was
performed on each transcript to develop a preliminary coding scheme. This process involved
data reduction, where irrelevant codes were discarded, aligning with systematic data
compensation principles (Malterud, 2012; Namey et al., 2008). Subsequently, potentially
relevant data points were organized into themes, offering structure and coherence to
patterns that were observed in the data. Themes were categorized into main and
sub-themes, establishing a hierarchical structure as advocated by Braun and Clarke (2006).
41
Furthermore, a rigorous process of revising codes and themes was undertaken to
refine and establish coherent coding categories, ensuring clear differentiation between
topics. Themes that did not entirely align with the research question were discarded to
maintain focus and relevance. Finally, each theme was analyzed individually, and the findings
were synthesized into a comprehensive report, providing insights into the challenges faced
by female FemTech entrepreneurs in acquiring funding and the efficacy of their investment
communication strategies. The identified themes are discussed in greater detail in the
findings section of the study. A visualization of the data analysis process can be found in
Figure 2.
42
Figure 2
Data Analysis Process
Note. Inspired by Braun & Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis method.
The thematic analysis approach was utilized as it proves particularly advantageous
when the research question seeks to delve into the experiences, perceptions, and
understandings of individuals or groups (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The method offers the
benefit of capturing diverse perspectives on a given phenomenon, thereby illuminating both
similarities and differences in perception. Further, this approach plays a critical role in
visualizing data, breaking down complex themes into manageable units, and facilitating the
identification of patterns that directly contribute to investigating and addressing the first
research question (Malterud, 2012; Nowell et al., 2017).
43
To ensure the credibility and dependability of the findings, the coding process was
kept transparent, and both researchers were involved in analyzing the data, thus reducing
the potential for bias (Hennink et al., 2020). ATLAS.ti was utilized as a tool to guide the
structuring of the data and coding process. With regard to interpreting the collected data,
thematic analysis involves subjective interpretation, meaning that different scholars may
identify varying themes or patterns within the same data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006). To
account for that, the present researchers opted to examine each interview transcript at least
twice, continuously discussing the identified themes in order to maintain objectivity
(Treadwell, 2020). Ultimately, the themes and perspectives which emerged through the
analysis allowed for a comparison of coded segments across cases and for concluding how
the different dimensions were linked to each other (Treadwell, 2020).
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations were an ongoing priority throughout the study. Participation
was entirely voluntary and the option to withdraw or stop the interviewing process was
offered to participants before the interview. Before commencement, participants were
provided with comprehensive information regarding the purpose, procedures, potential
risks, and benefits of the study, including that the interviews would be conducted in English.
Informed consent was obtained, and interviewees were assured that their decision to
participate or withdraw will have no consequences for their relationship with the
researchers or any potential funding opportunities (Swedish Research Council, 2017). To
protect the privacy of participants, all collected data was anonymized, and participant
identities were safeguarded. Confidentiality was maintained throughout the study, with
44
strict controls on access to sensitive information (Treadwell, 2020). Commitment was made
to transparently report findings. This adherence to openness and honesty contributed to the
integrity of the research process and enhanced the overall body of knowledge in a
responsible manner (Treadwell, 2020).
45
Findings
The following chapter lays out the key findings derived from an in-depth analysis of the
collected data. Several prominent themes were identified, including specific funding
challenges faced by female entrepreneurs in FemTech, funding strategies employed,
utilization of communications strategies, use of non-traditional funding methods, and
proposed solutions to close the gender funding gap. In order to maintain focus, the codes
centering on funding strategies, use of non-traditional funding methods, and proposed
solutions for the future were discarded, since they did not directly contribute to answering
the research questions. Consequently, the remaining themes were reviewed and
sub-themes were identified, establishing a hierarchical structure. Thus, the chapter is
organized into three subsections, two of each address one of the research questions guiding
this study. More specifically, the first sub-chapter delves into the funding challenges faced by
female FemTech founders, with special attention on the perceived gender bias in the
investing ecosystem. Then, the second sub-chapter focuses on the communication strategies
utilized by the entrepreneurs, as found in the data. Finally, the concluding subsection
outlines existing relationships between the identified codes. A summary of the final themes
and sub-themes can be found in Table 2.
46
Table 2
List of themes and sub-themes
Main theme Sub-theme
Funding challenges 1. Perceived gender bias in investing
2. Perceived incompatibility between feminine
traits and leadership roles
3. Lack of understanding for female-oriented
products
4. Gender bias in legislation
5. Need to contextualize FemTech solutions in
order to prove their societal relevance
6. Mismatch between FemTech business models
and traditional VC expectations on ROIa
7. Difficulties in securing financing following wars
and economic slowdown
8. “The ask” not being high enough
9. Difficulties in communicating the value of the
venture
10. Lack of industry-specific network
Communication strategies 11. Displaying enthusiasm and charisma
12. Communicating a vision for the future
13. Personalizing and contextualizing the pitch by
appealing to investors’ personal experiences
14. Using market research data
15. Displaying masculine behavior
16. Proving expertise
17. Consistent communication with investors
18. Accepting criticism and feedback
a Return on Investment.
47
Funding Challenges Encountered
When discussing challenges faced by female FemTech entrepreneurs in Sweden, one
of the most prevalent challenges identified by participants was the perceived gender bias
within the investment landscape. Several interviewees noted the prejudice surrounding how
women conduct their businesses in Sweden, including women entrepreneurs facing different
and more challenging questions compared to their male counterparts, despite the country
being regarded as a leader in gender equality efforts (Participants 8, 11, 13).
You'd think it's like, especially Sweden, people think that you know, gender
equality, we're almost there. Blah, blah, blah. That's just bullshit. Because I mean,
every female founder I've ever met has ran into some sort of prejudice about the
way they run their business. They always have to answer way trickier questions. If
you are a 22-year-old guy who comes up with this brilliant idea, it's so much
easier to just get funding, whilst if you have a female founder who's actually
proven her business model, it’s still much harder.3 (Participant 8)
Additionally, participants highlighted the issue of feminine traits being seen as
incompatible with leadership roles due to gender stereotypes (Participants 5, 6, 13). One
interviewee further observed that displaying emotional investment in FemTech, particularly
by women, can negatively influence the perception of the business case, whereas male
advocates for female health are more readily trusted by investors because of their bigger
emotional distance to the cause (Participant 13). In more general terms, another
interviewee echoed this sentiment, stating that “a lot of men in investor seats, when they
recognize themselves, are more likely to see the potential; when it’s a woman, they are
3 This and the following quotes have been slightly edited for clarity.
48
more distrusting” (Participant 2). The discrepancy in treatment also manifests already in the
setting of the pitch. Participant 7 suggested that when men present ideas to investors, they
are evaluated as interesting business cases, whereas ideas pitched by women are degraded
to “initiatives” or “charity”.
On that note, Participant 4 emphasized that women need to “go the extra mile”,
especially in traditionally masculine professions, to prove their expert status on a topic. In
addition, they have to be perceived as charismatic, while men tend to have an easier time
claiming expertise and gaining investors’ trust.
I think a male founder just says, I'm an expert, I've worked here and here, I have a
CV and I studied here. Everyone's like, okay, you're an expert, I trust you. [...] But
if you say I'm an expert in a [traditionally masculine profession] [as a female
founder], I think you need to kind of really, really back that up. Just showing your
CV, that's not going to be enough. (Participant 4)
This general fight for being acknowledged was also picked up by another participant,
who concluded that “whatever you do, you have to do 10 times better than your male
equivalent” (Participant 8). Furthermore, female entrepreneurs are often held accountable
for failed FemTech ventures in the past, which contributes to investors’ reluctance to invest.
On the topic of why gender bias is still so persistent in the investment ecosystem and
society as a whole, one participant noted that even at present, people still downgrade
women’s intelligence, leading to distrust in their ability to build and scale a company
successfully.
49
But I do think the bottom line is that most of the time people underestimate a
woman's intelligence. They really automatically do, my husband underestimates
my intelligence and he really looks up to me [...]. But still in the day to day, he
gives me suggestions that are like okay, wow, you don't even understand I'm
building a full business. I have global partners. (Participant 7)
In contrast to previous statements, however, a handful of participants also spoke out
about the gender bias in the industry not being directed at them as women, but rather at
the market and the product itself, hypothesizing that they might have had an easier time
acquiring capital in an industry less focused on social and gender equality (Participants 4,
12).
With regard to the relationship between male founders and investors, as opposed to
female founders, several participants described the investment landscape as a “boys’ club,”
indicating a lack of support for women entrepreneurs (Participants 1, 6). Overall, there was a
general skepticism that male VCs would extend the same level of support to female founders
than their female counterparts would. Moreover, participants highlighted not only gender
bias in the investing world, but also legislative barriers that influence the success of women’s
businesses (Participants 1, 3, 5, 7). One notable challenge mentioned involved the UK
government’s recent decision to raise the income threshold for angel investors, effectively
excluding many female angels who would be more inclined to invest in female-led ventures4.
More specifically to Sweden, one participant mentioned the reducing availability of
innovation grants such as those provided by Vinnova, which sends a discouraging message
to founders who fail to fit into a specific field of business (Participant 3). Additionally,
4 This decision was subsequently reversed due to industry backlash (Mersinoglu, 2024).
50
according to the interviewees, funding in Sweden is often tied up in university-connected
startup incubators, making it challenging for independently founded companies to access
government grants (Participant 7).
Due to the perceived inherent bias in investing, participants emphasized the necessity
of contextualizing their ideas to prove societal relevance (Participants 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12).
Especially in industries considered feminine or taboo, a substantial amount of time was
required to create an environment where both the founder and investors felt comfortable
discussing female-oriented products, such as those related to gynecological or reproductive
health. Participant 4 highlighted the high threshold one has to overcome in order to pique
people's interest in the pitched product, as investors often struggle to grasp the full picture
from both a technical and societal perspective. Participant 3 echoed this sentiment, adding
that this lack of understanding might stem from outdated gender stereotypes. This proved to
be a challenge especially in pitching environments, where founders were asked to “boil
down the context into [...] one slide in 30 seconds”, which was not sufficient to foster
enthusiasm in investors and convey the value of the business idea. Furthermore, participants
perceived a lack of knowledge among investors about the actual target group.
A majority of [the investors we met] were men. And they just did not understand
what we were doing. And they I mean, they would just [say] no this is not a
market, I don't understand that, so it cannot be a business. It's like [...] ‘women
want this’, like you're a man, how would you know? (Participant 10)
Another recurring theme in the data proved to be the mismatch between FemTech
business models and VC expectations. According to several participants, the present funding
51
system is rooted in old beliefs, requiring new startups to follow a very specific development
strategy in order to succeed in raising capital, hindering innovation and ultimately leading to
poor investments (Participants 1, 3, 7, 10). More specifically, the interviewees emphasized
that the traditional method of funding through VCs often does not align well with FemTech
business models, which are frequently not clearly defined due to the industry’s novelty and
a lack of proven business cases (Participant 2). They suggested that this influenced potential
VC investors, as they typically operate with a 10-year return on investment (ROI) policy.
According to the interviewees, this timeframe is unrealistic in the FemTech field, since the
industry first needs further establishment and acceptance by the general public to be
profitable (Participants 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 13). This issue appeared to be particularly prevalent in
the healthcare sector, where products require longer testing periods before reaching the
market, in order to prove effectiveness and ensure customer safety.
It's the way the system is rigged at the moment. It's not premiering great
innovations or good or startups at all. Most funding, even public funding, wants
you to have traction already, wants you to [...] be in the market already. And
they want you to be mature – how are you gonna get new ideas off the ground?
How are you going to innovate society? How are you going to progress
humanity, if you can't, like help the early ideas? So this is something that we're
not doing in the world right now. (Participant 7)
Further, the interviewees drew attention to their desire to grow their venture
sustainably, rather than scaling the business at all costs, and criticized the lack of flexibility
and unrealistic standards associated with high ROI percentages (Participants 1, 3, 4, 7, 10,
52
13). According to the participants, these issues seem to prevail in incubator environments,
which onboard a lot of early-stage startups but fail to help them progress in their journey.
[V]enture capital seems to be such a specific journey, like you're expected to grow
really really really fast. It's like one in a thousand companies succeed and the rest
of them fail. (Participant 10)
Indeed, as pointed out by one of the interviewees, such settings usually cater to a very
particular type of product, which renders them unsuitable for many FemTech startups.
Similarly, Participant 6 shared that her venture succeeded precisely because she decided to
drop out of an incubator program and instead build her business “brick by brick”. Participant
8 echoed this statement, adding that pitching competitions could sometimes act as a
distraction, requiring entrepreneurs to spend a considerable amount of time on their
business strategy and future development plans and preventing them from working on
product development.
In more general terms, the interviewees highlighted the altered funding landscape
from 2021 onwards, noting that previously, revenue was not as important and growth was
considered the primary measurement of success. However, following the war in Ukraine and
the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, as well as their economic consequences, VCs are paying
closer attention to unit economics and revenue, making free-flowing capital hard to come by
and pushing founders to collect funding through different revenue streams, such as
self-funding and crowdfunding, among others (Participant 1).
When asked about the amount of funding that they requested from investors, some
interviewees shared that they have previously been told they are not ambitious enough, and
53
that they should aim for a larger sum (Participants 2, 6, 12). In response, they all argued that
they were being realistic when talking about growth projections and expansion plans, with
one entrepreneur explaining:
And they told me that the numbers were too small. And I said that, well, isn't,
isn't it better that I have realistic numbers that I can actually reach? Rather than I
make up numbers that I will never reach? (Participant 12)
Related to the specifics of the FemTech sphere was the perceived difficulty in
communicating the value of the venture, not only because of the novelty of the field, but
also due to the innovative character of the products. Some participants admitted that part of
the problem stemmed from their lack of a communication strategy, which prevented them
from attracting attention to their ventures and connecting with potential stakeholders.
Finally, a topic that frequently emerged in the interviews concerned the lack of a large
entrepreneurial network, which was perceived as a crucial prerequisite for connecting with
investors and garnering support for the business. Indeed, one participant compared the
investing landscape as “a closed door”, emphasizing that “this is definitely an industry where
networks matter immensely” (Participant 1). The interviewees further suggested that
investors often preferred to support entrepreneurs who were already in their network, with
several of them recalling instances of successfully acquiring funding owing only to their
professional connections (Participants 6, 8).
Communication Strategies Identified
On the topic of how female entrepreneurs present their venture to investors, a great
54
deal of participants shared that since their decision to start a business was often motivated
by their personal experiences with a given issue, they made an effort to demonstrate their
enthusiasm for the solutions they were creating. Participant 1, for example, noted that
investors often choose to support founders who themselves have felt the problem they are
trying to solve, since this serves as an extra layer of motivation. The entrepreneurs’ personal
experiences were often presented as part of the bigger story behind the venture, with the
aim of motivating investors to be part of the startup’s journey (Participant 6). Furthermore,
charisma was identified as a winning strategy employed to get investors to see the potential
of the product. However, as Participant 13 pointed out, this tactic was more useful in
interactions with business angels who have more financial freedom and can afford to invest
for more personal reasons, as opposed to VCs who are required to follow very specific
guidelines and perform due diligence.
Both enthusiasm and charisma were utilized by entrepreneurs as part of their efforts
to communicate their vision to investors, especially in the early stages of the startup when
the founders lacked substantial financial data to demonstrate their good market
performance. Many participants emphasized the need to be “able to sell your vision all the
time, to everyone” (Participant 4). Building up on this point, another interviewee saw it as
necessary to highlight the market opportunity for her product, not least because of the
relative novelty of the FemTech sphere, in which older, established businesses are a rarity
and new startups have to demonstrate ambitious projections for the future and winning
strategies for long-term development.
I want to weave in the vision more now. Because I think that's really important,
because compared to other, maybe other FemTech areas [my niche] is I would say
55
it's, it's not a mature business [...], maybe you have to have a horizon of more
than five years before exit. I think it will take a bit longer because also the
research and science about [this condition] is, it's really [lacking]. (Participant 11)
One major challenge, as noted earlier, concerned investors’ difficulty in understanding
female-specific health issues and, consequently, their decision not to invest in products
tackling said issues. Some participants succeeded in overcoming this barrier by asking
investors to think about their female family members and thus personalizing the pitch.
Because we have a very female-specific problem that we're solving, we want to
start by drawing attention and including even men, because mostly men are
sitting in the investor seats. We want the men to connect with the problem that
we're solving because we're solving problems for women that experience a lot of
pains, a lot of emotional struggles. So we always connect those struggles to yes,
this can be your wife, this can be your daughter. And that's when they’re like,
okay, I need to listen to this. (Participant 2)
Another successful strategy, as mentioned by Participant 4, involved providing context
in the beginning of the pitch, emphasizing the societal relevance of the issue at hand, how
the venture would solve it, and why the timing was right. Additionally, many of the
entrepreneurs did extensive market research before pitching their business in order to
demonstrate the potential of their product and customers’ interest (Participants 1, 3, 10,
12). To further substantiate their claims, some interviewees chose to include customer
testimonials in their pitch decks, “proving that, yes, customers want this, need this, [...] yes,
customers want to pay for this” (Participant 2).
56
When asked about how they defined a successful entrepreneur, several participants
brought up personality characteristics such as willingness to take risks, self-confidence,
assertiveness, and not being afraid to stand one’s ground (Participants 4, 9, 11, 12, 13).
Language was also identified as a powerful tool in pitching environments; Participant 6, for
example, opted to only include headlines in her pitch deck, as opposed to complementing
them with detailed information, demonstrating confidence in her vision and thereby
appearing more powerful. Participant 3 added that she is always very conscious in her
choice of words, explaining that a more daring communication style can “spook people” and
cause them to lose interest.
Similarly, Participant 4 highlighted the importance of demonstrating expertise in the
field, which helped them establish trust and foster investor relations. One possible way to do
this was by showcasing the entrepreneur’s professional background and previous experience
as a founder, although some participants opted to call attention to the startup’s earlier
achievements instead. Consistent communication with investors emerged as another
recurring theme in the interviews, with some entrepreneurs sharing that they meet
investors and other interested parties on a regular basis, updating them on the business’
development and financial performance (Participants 2, 10). In some cases, this was done as
part of a long-term strategy to sell the business in the future.
Further, interviewees noted the importance of listening to criticism and accepting
feedback, from investors and mentors alike. For example, Participant 13 pointed out that all
investor meetings pose a learning opportunity, which helps her continuously improve her
communication strategy. More specifically, the interviewee shared that she always strives to
make her presentation more understandable, changing or taking out aspects which do not
57
resonate with investors. This way, she has succeeded in gradually building trust around her
brand, gaining ground within the industry.
Relationships between Themes
Several of the codes identified above were interrelated. To establish relationships
among themes, the researcher employed Adu's (2019) framework, which encompasses
causal, concurrent, embedded, overlapping, explanatory, and chronological relationships
among qualitative data. Causal relationships, according to Adu (2019), describe a case in
which one theme is a direct cause of another one, while concurrent relationships signify that
a code affects another. Embedded relationships, on the other hand, indicate that one theme
embeds itself within another theme. An overlapping relationship includes two concepts that
share at least some characteristics in terms of explaining a phenomenon. Finally, an
explanatory relationship occurs when one concept clarifies and elaborates on another, while
a chronological relationship occurs when one theme precedes or follows the other in time.
In the case of the present study, only causal, concurrent and embedded relationships
were established within the collected material. With regard to causal relationships,
Participants 2, 4, and 10 identified the necessity of contextualizing the startup idea to foster
a shared understanding of the product among investors (theme 5), particularly in the case of
female health-related solutions. This challenge prompted the entrepreneurs to place extra
emphasis on personalizing and contextualizing their pitch as part of their communication
strategy in pitch environments (theme 13). Participant 4 further noted that owing to the
gender bias she perceived while trying to acquire funding (theme 1), she was more inclined
58
to try to prove her expert status in the field (theme 16) and employ charisma to attract
investors’ interest (theme 11).
Concurrent relationships were identified between theme 6, involving the discrepancy
between FemTech business models and traditional VC expectations, and theme 8, regarding
“the ask” not being ambitious enough. According to Participant 12, the unrealistic
development trajectory set by (male) investors (theme 6) also leads to female founders
being perceived as unequipped for a leadership role, in that they are seen as more
risk-averse and as lacking a long-term vision (theme 2). With regard to theme 6, the
interviewees specifically emphasized the fast-paced, pressuring environment of startup
incubators, where “founders are running around at event after event [...] taking meetings
after meetings” (Participant 8). While these environments offer benefits for networking,
entrepreneurs also believed they ran the risk of getting “distracted” and not dedicating
enough time to developing their business strategy (Participants 6, 8).
As previously mentioned, some of the communication strategies employed by female
entrepreneurs involved displaying enthusiasm and charisma, proving one’s expert status in
the field, and communicating a vision for the venture. The interviewees emphasized that
these strategies often go hand in hand, in that having expertise within a certain area (theme
16) allows entrepreneurs to be more enthusiastic about the product they are developing
(theme 11) and enables them to “walk a mile” in their target customers’ shoes (Participant
4). Furthermore, displaying enthusiasm was perceived as related to being charismatic
(theme 11), which in turn assisted in “selling the vision” to potential stakeholders (theme 12)
(Participants 4, 7).
59
A concurrent relationship was identified between the challenges posed by the
mismatch between FemTech business models and VC expectations (theme 6), on the one
hand, and the use of a visionary communication strategy (theme 12), on the other hand.
More specifically, Participant 11 highlighted that given the relative novelty of the sector,
entrepreneurs are required to “weave in the vision more” than they would in more
established spheres, in order to convince investors of their startup’s potential and exit
strategy. Participant 10 further insisted that consistently maintaining relationships with
interested stakeholders (theme 17) led to establishing trust and getting through to investors
on a more personal level, which also proved beneficial for communicating the vision for the
startup and securing funding.
In terms of embedded relationships, in which one theme is contained within another,
the gender bias persistent in the investing ecosystem (theme 1) was related to investors’ lack
of understanding of the FemTech sphere, with female-oriented products being perceived as
not profitable enough (theme 3). Indeed, Participant 2 highlighted that “because we’re
FemTech founders, [investors’] default mode is like, I don’t understand this”. Participants 4
and 12 corroborated this statement, speculating that they might have more success raising
funds in a different economic sector. Similarly, Participant 7 believed that the gender bias
prevalent in investing stems from societal gender bias, which leads to women being
perceived as incompatible with leadership roles and unequipped to manage a successful
business (theme 2).
60
Discussion
In relation to the first research question, focusing on the challenges faced by female
FemTech entrepreneurs in Sweden, it can be said that recent scholarship on venture funding,
particularly regarding the gender biases prevalent in the investment ecosystem, holds true.
The experiences shared by participants confirm Wiesenberg et al.’s (2020) conclusions that
securing capital continues to be one of the top concerns for women-owned businesses. In
line with Huang et al.’s (2021) concept of the gender penalty, several interviewees reported
having encountered prejudice and stereotyping, as well as having faced more challenging
questions from investors compared to their male counterparts (cf. Kanze et al., 2018).
Similarly, the data reflects findings by Buttner and Rosen (1988) and more recently Karlstrøm
et al. (2023), who explain that women are penalized in acquiring capital due to their gender,
as investors tend to expect more qualifications and exhibit skepticism towards their business
ventures. In other words, female entrepreneurs are often held to higher standards and
expected to prove their expertise and the viability of their startups to a greater extent than
male entrepreneurs do.
Further, participants expressed frustration with the present state of the investment
landscape, which they perceived as incompatible with FemTech business models. These
experiences prompted several participants to pursue different funding methods, such as
impact ventures or crowdfunding, rather than VC financing. Earlier, similar findings have
been reported by, among others, Cicchiello et al. (2020) and Johnson et al. (2018), who have
suggested that female founders may have better chances of raising money through
crowdfunding if they struggle to secure investment in traditional entrepreneurial markets.
Consequently, Karlstrøm et al. (2023) and Becker-Blease and Sohl (2007) have concluded
61
that these systemic barriers in the entrepreneurial landscape prompt women to establish
businesses in industries which do not typically receive VC financing, such as the FemTech
sphere. Indeed, some participants admitted that the gender bias they experienced might
have had less to do with their gender, but rather with the nature of the industry, whose
primary focus is on pervasive social and gender issues. To a certain extent, the results thus
provide an explanation as to why the gender gap in startup funding still persists.
Confirming earlier research by Karlstrøm et al. (2023), interviewees further reported
that the lack of female investors posed another challenge, since entrepreneurs often
preferred to seek funding from investors of the same sex. A great deal of participants
admitted that they exclusively approached female business angels, foreseeing a lack of
understanding for their products on behalf of male investors. Insufficient knowledge as to
how to approach fundraising was also addressed briefly within the data, corroborating
previous research by Raghuvanshi et al. (2017). In this case, the findings suggested that
having a background in entrepreneurship offsets the problem at least partially, with several
participants noting that their previous experience helped them build a better business case
and motivate investors to support their venture (Färber & Klein, 2021). Building connections
with other entrepreneurs in the field also proved beneficial, as earlier put forward by
Karlstrøm et al. (2023), as it allowed the interviewees to obtain valuable insights about the
fundraising process and connected them to suitable investors. Notably, though, lack of
experience proved not to be the prevailing issue in the process of acquiring capital.
With regard to the second research question, concerning the communication
strategies employed by female entrepreneurs to secure funding, the findings were in line
with previous literature on visionary communication (Men et al., 2018), as well as the notion
62
of disruptive visions described by van Balen et al. (2019). Participants highlighted the
importance of conveying the market opportunity created by their product in order to
motivate investors to support the venture, as earlier theorized by Taylor et al. (2014). As part
of this strategy, the entrepreneurs identified deficiencies in the current market, emphasizing
the potential of their business to disrupt the status quo and foster innovation. To
substantiate their claims, they performed thorough market research, sometimes also
including customer testimonials in their pitch decks, and demonstrated confidence and
enthusiasm, going as far as to sacrifice aspects of their personal lives in order to succeed (cf.
Galvin et al., 2010). Moreover, backward-looking communication, such as showcasing the
startup’s earlier achievements and the entrepreneur’s expertise in the field, was utilized to
build trust during investor interactions (van Balen et al., 2019).
Some of the participants also relied on a symmetrical communication strategy,
engaging with investors on a regular basis in order to foster investor relations and maintain
stakeholder interest in the company (Men et al., 2018). Elements of transparent
communication were also present in the data, in that interviewees reported disseminating
relevant information to investors in due time, demonstrating honesty and trustworthiness.
Ultimately, the findings support arguments brought forward by Men et al. (2018), suggesting
that entrepreneurs often utilize a combination of different communication strategies in
practice.
Finally, the study found partial support for the gender role congruity theory, in that
participants associated stereotypically masculine personality characteristics (e.g., ambition,
assertiveness, willingness to take risks) with the image of a successful entrepreneur. In line
with earlier research by Huang et al. (2021) and Parhankangas and Ehrlich (2014),
63
interviewees testified to the importance of language in pitching environments, insisting that
more abstract, visionary statements, traditionally utilized by male entrepreneurs, helped
them motivate potential investors and garner support for their business. However, some of
the findings contradicted the theory. Both Eagly and Karau’s original formulation (2002) and
later research by Balachandra et al. (2019), among others, have suggested that
feminine-stereotyped behaviors such as expressiveness, emotiveness, or displaying affection
have a negative effect in a funding environment due to entrepreneurship still being
perceived as a masculine domain. Indeed, the findings suggested that displaying
feminine-stereotyped traits such as risk aversion, emotional investment in the product, and
a tendency to set more realistic expectations about the venture’s future market
performance resulted in a negative perception on investors’ part, at least to some extent.
However, the results did not suggest that female entrepreneurs faced challenges solely
because of an incongruence between their occupation and their gender. In other words, the
findings concluded that while the interviewees did experience gender bias, the challenges
they encountered cannot be attributed exclusively to their behavioral characteristics being
either incongruent or in line with their gender.
In fact, some participants insisted that feminine traits proved useful in investor
interactions. More specifically, the results suggested that empathy and communicativeness,
including the ability to listen and actively take in feedback, can assist entrepreneurs in
improving their communication strategy and attracting stakeholders to the business. As
noted in earlier scholarship, such behavior has often been seen as typically feminine (Bem,
1974); following the gender role congruity theory, one would expect that this would hinder
entrepreneurs in their efforts acquiring funding. The fact that participants testified to the
64
opposite, however, suggests that traditional perceptions of what constitutes a successful
entrepreneur might be changing, signaling a need for further research in this area.
Moreover, the findings did not suggest that female entrepreneurs had a clear tendency
to use more concrete language in their investment pitches, contrary to previous studies such
as the one conducted by Huang et al. (2021). As mentioned earlier, some participants
utilized bold, visionary statements to convey the potential of their businesses and motivate
investors to support their ventures, an approach traditionally attributed to male founders.
Additionally, the interviews did not provide any insight in support of previous claims that
stereotypical perceptions of female founders as more trustworthy gives them an advantage
in a crowdfunding environment (Cicchiello et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2018). Indeed, not
many participants reported having utilized crowdfunding for their ventures, and those who
did speculated that amateur investors, as opposed to angels or VCs, chose to support their
businesses because they were personally drawn to the product and identified with the
target group.
Nevertheless, the findings of this study highlight the complex interplay between
gender stereotypes and societal expectations, female entrepreneurs’ access to capital, and
the role of communication in investor relations. While the gender role congruity theory
served as a useful framework for understanding gender biases in entrepreneurship, it also
underscored the need for more nuanced approaches that take into account the evolving
nature of gender roles and identities in contemporary Western society.
65
Conclusion
Summary of Findings
In summary, this thesis draws on the gender role congruity theory and earlier research
on communication strategies to provide comprehensive insights into the challenges faced by
female FemTech entrepreneurs in Sweden when seeking funding, while also delving into the
communication strategies they employ while trying to acquire capital. Regarding the first
research question, the study found that the challenges encountered primarily revolved
around pervasive gender biases evident in the investment ecosystem, confirming previous
scholarship by Färber and Klein (2021), Johnson et al. (2018), and Karlstrøm et al. (2023),
among others. Participants reported facing higher scrutiny and prejudice and more often
than not experienced unequal treatment, specifically during investor interactions. Perceived
gender bias manifested in various forms, including skepticism towards female-oriented
products, stereotypes regarding women in leadership roles, and higher standards imposed
on women entrepreneurs. Additionally, the traditional funding landscape often failed to
align with the innovative nature of FemTech business models, resulting in difficulties
securing investment through conventional channels and pushing entrepreneurs to seek out
alternative financing methods (cf. Cicchiello et al., 2020). Acquiring funding was further
hindered by the exaggerated need to contextualize FemTech solutions to be understandable
for (male) investors, as well as the difficulties of a shifting VC landscape following the recent
economic challenges brought on by the war in Ukraine and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Given the key role of communication in building investor relations, especially in
early-stage startups, the researchers also opted to investigate successful communication
66
strategies employed by female founders. Catering to the second research question, ‘What
communication strategies do [female FemTech founders] employ to secure funding for their
startup ventures?’, participants reported conveying enthusiasm, charisma, and a compelling
vision for their ventures to bridge the gap between investors’ perceptions and the societal
significance of FemTech solutions, in line with Men et al.’s (2018) notion of visionary
communication. Transparent and symmetrical communication with investors further
facilitated trust-building and long-term stakeholder engagement. Moreover, entrepreneurs
personalized their pitches by sharing their personal experiences and connecting with
investors on a personal level. They also leveraged market research and customer
testimonials to substantiate their claims and demonstrate the potential of their products
(van Balen et al., 2019).
The findings of this study hold significant relevance beyond the scope of FemTech
entrepreneurship in Sweden, offering insights that resonate with broader themes such as
gender equity, innovation, and access to capital in the entrepreneurial landscape. By
illuminating the challenges faced by female founders in attracting funding and the
communication strategies they employ to overcome these challenges, the study contributes
to a deeper understanding of the systemic barriers that hinder diversity and inclusion in
entrepreneurial ecosystems. From an academic standpoint, the research furthers current
understanding of communication strategies in an organizational context by approaching the
topic from a gendered perspective, and by highlighting the key role of communication in
startup funding. Ultimately, the findings underscore the importance of addressing gender
disparities in entrepreneurship to unlock the full potential of innovation and economic
growth.
67
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Some of the limitations of the study concerned interviewees’ limited availability or
reluctance to participate, which could have impacted the representation of perspectives
within the FemTech sector. Additionally, the qualitative nature of the research implied the
potential for interviewer bias, defined as the “distortion of response related to the person
questioning informants” (‘Interviewer Bias’, n.d.). The researchers’ own perspectives and
preconceptions could influence the framing of questions and interpretation of responses,
possibly impacting the objectivity of the study (Adams-Quackenbush et al., 2019). To
minimize the risk of this occurring, the researchers adhered to the general interview guide,
with small adjustments, for each particular interview, not allowing any personal assumptions
to inform the questioning (Bryman, 2016). Potential leading questions were identified and
taken out during the pre-testing stage, so as to not encourage participants to respond in a
way that is preferred by the researchers.
Further, the reliance on participants’ self-reports introduced the possibility of recall
bias, “a systematic error that occurs when participants do not remember previous events or
experiences accurately or omit details” or social desirability bias, describing “a tendency to
present reality to align with what is perceived to be socially acceptable” (Bergen & Labonté,
2020, p. 783). The researchers sought to counteract these biases by requesting that each
participant provide access to their most recent pitch deck ahead of the interview, which
served to both inform the questioning and assist the interviewee in remembering their past
experiences. Additionally, concerns about privacy might have resulted in underreporting or
limited depth in certain areas. Indeed, some participants were reluctant to share their pitch
decks, which might have led to certain themes and codes being overlooked. To account for
68
these limitations, future researchers can carry out a detailed analysis of female founders’
pitch decks on a broader scope, substantiating the findings of the present study and/or
providing alternative explanations for the observed phenomena.
In addition, as the research questions guiding this thesis centered exclusively on the
experiences of female entrepreneurs and not on investors’ perspectives on the gender
funding gap, future scholarship can focus on male-founded and mix-gender startup teams in
the FemTech sphere, as well as investors in the sector, in order to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing funding decisions. This would also
allow future researchers to approach the gender funding gap from the opposite angle,
namely by examining why male founders have better chances of securing capital for their
ventures. Moreover, in response to some of the insights provided by participants, upcoming
studies could inspect government initiatives for small businesses, identifying any
shortcomings and suggesting areas of improvement.
Finally, participants suggested a variety of potential solutions to the challenges
identified in this research, thereby providing practical recommendations for industry
professionals. While these insights fall outside the scope of the present research, it is worth
noting that some of the key themes focused on the need for education around patient
capital and establishing benchmarks for innovation rather than relying on traditional
measures such as ROI. Moreover, participants emphasized the importance of having more
women in financially powerful positions, who have a larger potential of identifying with
products targeted at women. There was also a shared sentiment among interviewees
regarding the importance of addressing biases in the VC landscape through training
initiatives, as well as the potential of non-traditional funding methods such as crowdfunding
69
to alleviate funding inequities. Crowdfunding, in particular, comprises a fruitful area of
investigation also from an academic standpoint, especially since it has rarely been the sole
focus of earlier studies. By shining further light on these and other possible solutions, future
scholars can contribute to advancing knowledge and provide evidence-based
recommendations for women entrepreneurs. In turn, female founders can benefit from
these and other successful strategies in order to access the funding they need to thrive in
the FemTech industry.
70
References
Adams-Quackenbush, N. M., Horselenberg, R., Hubert, J., Vrij, A., & van Koppen, P. (2019).
Interview expectancies: Awareness of potential biases influences behaviour in
interviewees. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 26(1), 150–166.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1485522
Adu, P. (2019). A step-by-step guide to qualitative data coding. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351044516
Ahl, H., & Marlow, S. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and
entrepreneurship: Advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization, 19(5),
543–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508412448695
Alsos, G. A., & Ljunggren, E. (2017). The role of gender in entrepreneur–investor
relationships: A signaling theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
41(4), 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/etp.12226
Amatucci, F. M., & Sohl, J. E. (2004). Women entrepreneurs securing business angel
financing: Tales from the field. Venture Capital, 6(2–3), 181–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369106042000223579
Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016). The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the U.S.
television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1829–1853.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2442
Antunes, L. G. R., Abreu, A. A. de, & Rodrigues, M. M. (2020). True heroines: Unveiling the
female management of startups’ entrepreneurs. Revista de Gestão e Secretariado
71
(Management and Administrative Professional Review), 11(2), 211–234.
https://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v11i2.1039
Balachandra, L., Briggs, T., Eddleston, K., & Brush, C. (2019). Don’t pitch like a girl!: How
gender stereotypes influence investor decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 43(1), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717728028
Bauer, D., Junge, S., & Reif, T. (2023). May the resources be with you: A systematic review
and framework of startup funding options. Management Review Quarterly.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00336-6
Baum, J. A. C., & Silverman, B. S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance,
intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and
performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3),
411–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00038-7
Bavey, N., & Messel, T. (2022). The untapped potential in the Nordic ecosystem and beyond.
Unconventional Ventures. http://report2022.unconventional.vc/p18076355/
Becker-Blease, J. R., & Sohl, J. E. (2007). Do women-owned businesses have equal access to
angel capital? Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 503–521.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.06.003
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
Bergen, N., & Labonté, R. (2020). “Everything is perfect, and we have no problems”:
Detecting and limiting social desirability bias in qualitative research. Qualitative
72
Health Research, 30(5), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319889354
Berns, J. P., Figueroa-Armijos, M., da Motta Veiga, S. P., & Dunne, T. C. (2020). Dynamics of
lending-based prosocial crowdfunding: Using a social responsibility lens. Journal of
Business Ethics, 161(1), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3932-0
Block, J. H., Colombo, M. G., Cumming, D. J., & Vismara, S. (2018). New players in
entrepreneurial finance and why they are there. Small Business Economics, 50(2),
239–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9826-6
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Broström, A., Eklund, J., Kardelo, M., Svensson, M., & Thulin, P. (2022). GEM Sweden
2021/2022 (978-91-89301-26–9). Entreprenörskapsforum.
https://entreprenorskapsforum.se/
Browne, T. P. (2018). Strategies of minority female technology entrepreneurs to obtain
venture capital funding. Walden University.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (Fifth edition).  Oxford University Press.
Bucak, S. (2023, October 18). Even in femtech, it still pays to be a male founder. Sifted.
https://sifted.eu/articles/even-in-femtech-it-still-pays-to-be-a-male-founder/
Buttner, E. H., & Rosen, B. (1988). Bank loan officers’ perceptions of the characteristics of
men, women, and successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(3),
249–258. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(88)90018-3
73
Callerstig, A.-C., Lindvert, M., Ljunggren, E. C., Breivik-Meyer, M., Alsos, G. A., & Balkmar, D.
(2024). Contextualising gender policy in tech entrepreneurship: A cross national and
multiple-level analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2023-0422
Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2009). Exploratory and confirmatory studies of the
structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory short form with two divergent samples.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(4), 696–705.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332218
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F., & Wu, Z. (2011). Family involvement and new
venture debt financing. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 472–488.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.11.002
Cicchiello, A. F., Kazemikhasragh, A., & Monferrà, S. (2020). Gender differences in new
venture financing: Evidence from equity crowdfunding in Latin America. International
Journal of Emerging Markets, 17(5), 1175–1197.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-03-2020-0302
Cornelissen, J. P. (2013). Portrait of an entrepreneur: Vincent van Gogh, Steve Jobs, and the
entrepreneurial imagination. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 700–709.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0068
Coyote Ventures, & FemTech Focus. (2021, September 1). Femtech, officially not niche by
$1T. Crunchbase.
https://about.crunchbase.com/blog/femtech-officially-not-niche-by-1t/
74
Dealroom. (2023). Femtech. Dealroom. https://dealroom.co/guides/femtech
Devnew, L. E., & Storberg-Walker, J. (2018). Women and leadership—How do differences
matter? Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(1), 38–41.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21562
Dudley, E. (2021). Social capital and entrepreneurial financing choice. Journal of Corporate
Finance, 70, 102068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.102068
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes
have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946
to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494
Ellingrud, K., Pérez, L., & Sartori, V. (2024). Closing the women’s health gap: A $1 trillion
opportunity to improve lives and economies. McKinsey Health Institute.
https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/closing-the-womens-health-gap-a-1-tril
lion-dollar-opportunity-to-improve-lives-and-economies
European Institute for Gender Equality. (2016). Gender equality glossary & thesaurus.
https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/thesaurus/overview
Ewens, M., & Townsend, R. R. (2020). Are early stage investors biased against women?
Journal of Financial Economics, 135(3), 653–677.
75
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.07.002
Fackelmann, S., & De Concini, A. (2020). Why are women entrepreneurs missing out on
funding? Reflections and considerations—Executive summary. European Investment
Bank. https://doi.org/10.2867/884404
Falkheimer, J., & Heide, M. (2018). Strategic communication: An introduction. Routledge.
http://ezproxy.ub.gu.se/login?url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/978131562
1555
Färber, M., & Klein, A. (2021). Are investors biased against women? Analyzing how gender
affects startup funding in Europe. arXiv.Org.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2112.00859
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and
competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
Folkendt, K. (2019, September 5). “So what is femtech, anyways?!” Femtech Insider.
https://femtechinsider.com/what-is-femtech/
Franzke, S., Wu, J., Froese, F. J., & Chan, Z. X. (2022). Female entrepreneurship in Asia: A
critical review and future directions. Asian Business & Management, 21(3), 343–372.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-022-00186-2
Galea, L. A., & Parekh, R. S. (2023, June 12). Ending the neglect of women’s health in
research. BMJ, 381, 1303.
76
Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary communication qualities as
mediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributions of leader
charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 509–537.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01179.x
Gatewood, E. J., Greene, P. G., & Thulin, P. (2014). Sweden and the United States: Differing
entrepreneurial conditions require different policies. In 20 years of Entrepreneurship
Research (p. 95). Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum Stockholm.
Global Innovation Index 2023: Innovation in the face of uncertainty. (2023). World
Intellectual Property Organization. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.48220
Gustafsson Sendén, M., Klysing, A., Lindqvist, A., & Renström, E. A. (2019). The (not so)
changing man: Dynamic gender stereotypes in Sweden. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00037
Hammond, G., & Kinder, T. (2023, April 5). Venture capital funding in start-ups halves as tech
downturn bites. Financial Times.
https://www.ft.com/content/47747e24-01a4-431f-8ab6-da5fae62e480
Hennink, M. M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2020). Qualitative research methods (Second
edition). SAGE.
Henry, C., Foss, L., & Ahl, H. (2016). Gender and entrepreneurship research: A review of
methodological approaches. International Small Business Journal, 34(3), 217–241.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242614549779
Hess, A. S., & Abd-Elsayed, A. (2019). Observational studies: Uses and limitations. In A.
77
Abd-Elsayed (Ed.), Pain: A Review Guide (pp. 123–125). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99124-5_31
Hopkins, M. M., & O’Neil, D. A. (2015). Authentic leadership: Application to women leaders.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00959
Huang, L., Joshi, P., Wakslak, C., & Wu, A. (2021). Sizing up entrepreneurial potential: Gender
differences in communication and investor perceptions of long-term growth and
scalability. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3), 716–740.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1417
Interviewer bias. (n.d.). In Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100008737
Invest Stockholm. (2022, December 13). Highlights of 2022: Top five Stockholm tech stories
of the year. The Local Sweden.
https://www.thelocal.se/20221213/highlights-of-2022-top-five-stockholm-tech-stori
es-of-the-year-invest-stockholm-tlccu
Johnson, M. A., Stevenson, R. M., & Letwin, C. R. (2018). A woman’s place is in the…
startup! Crowdfunder judgments, implicit bias, and the stereotype content model.
Journal of Business Venturing, 33(6), 813–831.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.04.003
Kacperczyk, O., & Younkin, P. (2022). A founding penalty: Evidence from an audit study on
gender, entrepreneurship, and future employment. Organization Science, 33(2),
716–745. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1456
78
Kanze, D., Huang, L., Conley, M. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2018). We ask men to win and women
not to lose: Closing the gender gap in startup funding. Academy of Management
Journal, 61(2), 586–614. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1215
Karlstrøm, B., Jansen, T. M., & Solheim, M. C. (2023). Talking with venture capitalists: Gender
perceptions in investment decisions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2022-0993
Kollmann, T., Stoeckmann, C., Hensellek, S., & Kensbock, J. (2016). European startup monitor
2016. http://europeanstartupmonitor.com/esm/esm-2016/
Laing, E., van Stel, A., & Storey, D. J. (2022). Formal and informal entrepreneurship: A
cross-country policy perspective. Small Business Economics, 59(3), 807–826.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00548-8
Lanvin, B., & Monteiro, F. (2023). The global talent competitiveness index 2023: What a
difference ten years make what to expect for the next decade. INSEAD, Descartes
Institute for the Future, and the Human Capital Leadership Institute.
Lopez-Zafra, E., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2021). Are gender stereotypes changing over time? A
cross-temporal analysis of perceptions about gender stereotypes in Spain (¿Están
cambiando los estereotipos de género con el tiempo? Un análisis transtemporal de
las percepciones sobre los estereotipos de género en España). International Journal
of Social Psychology, 36(2), 330–354.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2021.1882227
Malterud, K. (2012). Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis.
79
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 40(8), 795–805.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494812465030
Manzanera-Román, S., & Brändle, G. (2016). Abilities and skills as factors explaining the
differences in women entrepreneurship. Suma de Negocios, 7(15), 38–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sumneg.2016.02.001
Markstedt, E., Wängnerud, L., Solevid, M., & Djerf-Pierre, M. (2021). The subjective meaning
of gender: How survey designs affect perceptions of femininity and masculinity.
European Journal of Politics and Gender, 4(1), 51–70.
https://doi.org/10.1332/251510820X15978605298709
Men, L. R., Chen, Z. F., & Ji, Y. G. (2018). Walking the talk: An exploratory examination of
executive leadership communication at startups in China. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 30(1–2), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1455147
Men, L. R., Ji, Y. G., & Chen, Z. F. (2017). Dialogues with entrepreneurs in China: How start-up
companies cultivate relationships with strategic publics. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 29(2–3), 90–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2017.1329736
Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic internal
communication and employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 26(4), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908720
Mersinoglu, Y. C. (2024, March 6). UK reverses thresholds for promos to angel investors after
backlash. Financial Times.
https://www.ft.com/content/072ae6eb-e3cd-4c5d-b906-7c05436fa647
80
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large
qualitative data sets. Handbook for Team-Based Qualitative Research, 2(1), 137–161.
Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., Caetano, A., & Kalbfleisch, P. (2019). Entrepreneurship
ecosystems and women entrepreneurs: A social capital and network approach. Small
Business Economics, 53(2), 475–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9996-5
Niftyhontas, I. (2023). The femtech revolution: A deep dive into market growth, investment
patterns, and future disruptions. GoingVC.
https://www.goingvc.com/post/the-femtech-revolution-a-deep-dive-into-market-gro
wth-investment-patterns-and-future-disruptions
Nowell, L. S., Norris, N. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to
meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
O’Connor, E. (2021, March 8). One in three female entrepreneurs still face gender bias.
WeAreTheCity - Supporting Women in Business.
https://wearethecity.com/one-in-three-female-entrepreneurs-still-face-gender-bias/
Ozkazanc-Pan, B., & Clark Muntean, S. (2018). Networking towards (in)equality: Women
entrepreneurs in technology. Gender, Work & Organization, 25(4), 379–400.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12225
Parhankangas, A., & Ehrlich, M. (2014). How entrepreneurs seduce business angels: An
impression management approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 543–564.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.08.001
81
Parhankangas, A., & Renko, M. (2017). Linguistic style and crowdfunding success among
social and commercial entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(2), 215–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.11.001
Pistilli, L., Paccagnini, A., Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (2023). Gender bias in entrepreneurship:
What is the role of the founders’ entrepreneurial background? Journal of Business
Ethics, 187(2), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05275-y
Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and
quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9).
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.887089
Raghuvanshi, J., Agrawal, R., & Ghosh, P. K. (2017). Analysis of barriers to women
entrepreneurship: The DEMATEL approach. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 26(2),
220–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355717708848
Regeringskansliet. (2014, December 8). Verket för innovationssystem (Vinnova) [Text].
Regeringskansliet.
https://www.regeringen.se/myndigheter-med-flera/verket-for-innovationssystem-vin
nova/
Regeringskansliet. (2022, October 18). Statement of government policy. Regeringskansliet.
https://www.government.se/speeches/2022/10/statement-of-government-policy/
Rocha, V., & van Praag, M. (2020). Mind the gap: The role of gender in entrepreneurial
career choice and social influence by founders. Strategic Management Journal, 41(5),
841–866. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3135
82
Sashkin, M. (1992). Strategic leadership competencies: What are they? How do they
operate? What can be done to develop them? In R. L. Phillips & J. G. Hunt (Eds.),
Strategic leadership: A multiorganizational-level perspective (pp. 139–160). Quorum
Books/Greenwood Publishing Group.
Schwienbacher, A., & Larralde, B. (2010). Crowdfunding of small entrepreneurial ventures
(SSRN Scholarly Paper 1699183). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1699183
Semuels, A. (2017, September 28). Why does Sweden have so many start-ups? The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/09/sweden-startups/541413/
Spinuzzi, C., Nelson, S., Thomson, K. S., Lorenzini, F., French, R. A., Pogue, G., Burback, S. D.,
& Momberger, J. (2015). Remaking the pitch: Reuse strategies in entrepreneurs’ pitch
decks. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 58(1), 45–68.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2015.2415277
State of European Tech. (2023). State of DEI.
https://stateofeuropeantech.com/reading-tracks/state-of-diversity
Statista Search Department. (2024a, March). Venture Capital—Sweden. Statista.
https://www.statista.com/outlook/fmo/capital-raising/traditional-capital-raising/ven
ture-capital/sweden
Statista Search Department. (2024b, March). Venture Capital—United States. Statista.
https://www.statista.com/outlook/fmo/capital-raising/traditional-capital-raising/ven
ture-capital/united-states
Swedish Institute. (2023, June 21). Innovation in Sweden. Sweden.Se.
83
https://sweden.se/work-business/business-in-sweden/a-country-of-innovation
Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice.
Tannen, D. (2007). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. William
Morrow Paperbacks. https://www.amazon.se/-/en/Deborah-Tannen/dp/0060959622
Taparia, M., & Lenka, U. (2022). An integrated conceptual framework of the glass ceiling
effect. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 9(3),
372–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2020-0098
Taylor, C. M., Cornelius, C. J., & Colvin, K. (2014). Visionary leadership and its relationship to
organizational effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(6),
566–583. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2012-0130
Treadwell, D. F. (2020). Introducing communication research: Paths of inquiry (Fourth
edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.
van Balen, T., Tarakci, M., & Sood, A. (2019). Do disruptive visions pay off? The impact of
disruptive entrepreneurial visions on venture funding. Journal of Management
Studies, 56(2), 303–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12390
Van Loo, R. (2018). Making innovation more competitive: The case of Fintech. UCLA Law
Review, 65(1), 232.
Wang, X., Wu, L., & Hitt, L. M. (2023). Social media alleviates venture capital funding
inequality for women and less connected entrepreneurs. Management Science,
70(2), 1093–1112. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4728
84
Wängnerud, L., Solevid, M., & Djerf-Pierre, M. (2019). Moving beyond categorical gender in
studies of risk aversion and anxiety. Politics & Gender, 15(4), 826–850.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X18000648
Webb, A., Matsuno, E., Budge, S., Krishnan, M., & Balsam, K. (2016). Non-binary gender
identities fact sheet (The Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
and Transgender Issues APA Division 44). The American Psychological Association.
Wiesenberg, M., Godulla, A., Tengler, K., Noelle, I.-M., Kloss, J., Klein, N., & Eeckhout, D.
(2020). Key challenges in strategic start-up communication: A systematic literature
review and an explorative study. Journal of Communication Management (London,
England), 24(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-10-2019-0129
Wu, J., Li, Y., & Zhang, D. (2019). Identifying women’s entrepreneurial barriers and
empowering female entrepreneurship worldwide: A fuzzy-set QCA approach.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(3), 905–928.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00570-z
Zeler, I., Fuentes-Lara, C., & Moreno, Á. (2022). Female leadership in communication
management in Spain: Making a difference in a sexist culture. Corporate
Communications, 27(5), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2022-0047
85
Appendices
Appendix I: Research Instrument
Below is the general interview guide, as well as an example of a tailored interview
guide. Ahead of each interview, the researchers went through the pitch deck shared by the
specific participant, if one was provided, and added more concrete questions to uncover
why they shaped their communication strategy the way they did.
General Interview Guide
1. Introduction
a. Introduce ourselves, thank the interviewee for their time and willingness to
participate
b. Explain the purpose of the study:
i. Emphasize that we aim to investigate the gender bias in startup
funding, focusing on the challenges faced by female FemTech
entrepreneurs in their interactions with investors.
ii. Explain that we want to examine the communication strategies female
leaders employ in order to secure funding for their startups, and that
we hope to contribute to closing the gender gap.
iii. Upon completion of the study, we will create a practical report
outlining the problems identified and strategies to tackle said
problems. The report will be shared with DAYA, who are supporting us
in this study.
c. Ask for informed consent:
i. Explain that participation is voluntary, and that the interviewee has
the right to withdraw at any time.
ii. Ensure that all potentially identifying data will be anonymized and
handled confidentially, with only us and our supervisor having access.
86
iii. Request consent for recording the interview.
2. Background information on the interviewee
a. Could you briefly share your background and experience within the FemTech
sector? (company size, years of experience)
b. What was the business idea behind your venture?
c. Could you tell us about your experiences with seeking funding?
i. Can you describe the timeline of your fundraising efforts, from initial
planning to securing investment?
ii. What types of investors have you engaged with (e.g., angel investors,
venture capital, crowdfunding)?
iii. How did you identify potential investors for your venture? What type
of criteria did you consider when evaluating potential investors?
iv. How did you determine the amount of funding you needed for your
venture? How did you come up with the specific number? (e.g.
through previous experience, network, market research/reports)
3. Communication strategy
a. Can you briefly tell us how you pitched your startup to investors? Did you
have a specific strategy?
b. How did you build your pitch?
i. Did you have any goals with the pitch, outside of acquiring funding?
ii. Why did you decide to structure the pitch the way you did? Did you
explore any other ideas?
c. In your opinion, have you adapted your communication style as you gained
more experience and got feedback from investors?
d. In your opinion, what are the characteristics of a successful entrepreneur?
i. Do you think that, as a woman, you have to do things in a different
way than male startup founders?
ii. Why do you think it is like that?
4. Challenges faced
a. Did you have any unsuccessful interactions with investors? Can you share
some of the lessons you learned from them?
87
i. Do you believe you made some mistakes in your pitch that
discouraged investors from funding your startup?
b. Has your professional network influenced your ability to connect with
investors?
i. Have you received advice from other entrepreneurs or from investors
about how to better pitch your business idea?
ii. Have you faced any challenges in building that network?
c. To conclude this section: Do you believe you have encountered any gender
bias from investors?
i. What do you think needs to happen to resolve this?
5. Conclusion
a. Allow the interviewee to share any additional thoughts or experiences they
believe are relevant.
b. Thank them for their time and insights.
Tailored Interview Guide
1. Introduction
a. Introduce ourselves, thank the interviewee for their time and willingness to
participate
b. Explain the purpose of the study:
i. Emphasize that we aim to investigate the gender bias in startup
funding, focusing on the challenges faced by female FemTech
entrepreneurs in their interactions with investors.
ii. We want to examine the communication strategies female leaders
employ in order to secure funding for their startups.
iii. We hope to contribute to closing the gender gap.
iv. Upon completion of the study, we will create a practical report
outlining the problems identified and strategies to tackle said
problems. The report will be shared with DAYA, who are supporting us
in this study.
88
c. Ask for informed consent:
i. Explain that participation is voluntary, and that the interviewee has
the right to withdraw at any time.
ii. Ensure that all potentially identifying data will be anonymized and
handled confidentially, with only us and our supervisor having access.
iii. Request consent for recording the interview.
2. Background information on the interviewee
a. Could you briefly tell us the story behind [STARTUP]?
i. How far along are you in the startup development process?
ii. How big is the company now in terms of employees?
b. Can you briefly tell us how the company is funded?
i. Your pitch deck states that you are supported by [GOVERNMENT
AGENCY], [UNIVERSITY], [POLITICAL ENTITY] – what other types of
investors have you engaged with (e.g., angel investors, venture capital,
crowdfunding)?
ii. Are you planning to also reach out to other types of investors?
iii. How did you get involved with [ACCELERATOR PROGRAM]? Did you
contact them directly?
3. Communication strategy & tactics
a. Can you briefly tell us how you pitched [STARTUP] to investors? Did you have
a specific strategy?
i. The first slide in your pitch deck says [SENTENCE]. Why did you choose
to phrase it this way? Was there the possibility that investors might
not [agree with your statement]?
ii. Was this decision motivated by your previous experience?
iii. Did you change your communication style, as you gained more
experience?
b. (Relating to the wording of the pitch) Can you provide some more context on
the language used in your pitch deck?
i. Is there a difference between pitching to VCs and pitching to business
angels, in your opinion?
89
c. Do you think that, as a woman, you have to do things in a different way than
male startup founders?
i. Do you have some examples of personal qualities and characteristics
that investors look for?
4. Challenges faced
a. Have you received advice from other entrepreneurs or from investors about
how to better pitch your business idea?
b. Has your professional network influenced your ability to connect with
investors?
i. Have you faced any challenges in building that network?
c. To conclude: Do you believe you have encountered any gender bias from
investors?
i. What do you think needs to happen to resolve this?
5. Conclusion
a. Allow the interviewee to share any additional thoughts or experiences they
believe are relevant.
b. Thank them for their time and insights.
90
Appendix II: Consent Form
Consent to Participate in Research 
Gendered Challenges in the FemTech Landscape –
A Comprehensive Exploration of Funding Inequities
You have been invited to take part in a research study to explore the challenges faced
by female entrepreneurs in the FemTech sector when interacting with investors. This study,
part of the final degree project at the MSc in Communication at the University of
Gothenburg, is conducted by Manon Henn and Tsvetelina Mihaylova under the supervision of
Alice Srugies, Senior Lecturer (University of Gothenburg).
Project Description – Activities and Time Commitment: If you decide to take part
in this project, you will be asked to participate in an interview. Completing the interview will
take approximately 45-60 minutes. Additionally, you will be requested to provide access to
past pitch decks for analysis.
Benefits and Risks: There will not be any extra, direct benefits to you for taking part
in this project. The findings from this project may contribute to understanding and addressing
funding inequities in the FemTech sector. There is little risk to you in participating in this
project.
Confidentiality and Privacy: The interview will be recorded in a password-protected
format and stored in a password-protected dedicated computer. Consent to record will be
acquired prior to the interview. Manon Henn and Tsvetelina Mihaylova will be the only
persons who will know the passwords to access the files. The supervisor, Alice Srugies, and
the academic personnel appointed to control the quality of the thesis project, will be the only
individuals who can require access to those files for academic research purposes only. The
data collected during the study will be destroyed after the completion of the thesis project.
Your responses will be reported in the thesis in an anonymous manner. No names or other
identifying information will be used when discussing or reporting data.
91
Voluntary Participation: You can freely choose to take part or not in this study.
There will be no penalty or loss of benefits for either decision. Even if you agree to
participate, you can stop at any time.
Questions: If you have any questions about this study, please email Manon Henn
(gusmanohe@student.gu.se), Tsvetelina Mihaylova (gusmihts@student.gu.se), and/or Alice
Srugies (alice.srugies@ait.gu.se).
By agreeing to sign this consent form, you understand the purpose, risks, and benefits
of this research study and confirm that you are over 18 years old. Your questions and/or
concerns have been answered. You will receive a copy of this consent form for your own
records.
Name and last name of the participant: ___________________________ Date: __/__/2024
92
Appendix III: Statement of Division of Work
Both Manon Henn and Tsvetelina Mihaylova agree that they have contributed equally
to this master’s thesis, including carrying out a literature review, formulating the research
questions, choosing a suitable methodology and sampling criteria, reaching out to potential
study participants, conducting interviews, transcribing and anonymizing the collected data,
and analyzing the results. Both researchers were responsible for revising the finished text,
and discussed all potential changes and improvements.
93