Does public support for positive action to improve gender equality depend on the type of measure introduced? Over the last few decades, the number of countries taking positive action measures to increase women’s political representation, including gender quotas and gender parity measures, has increased significantly. These positive action measures work – research shows that they increase women’s representation, and lead to policy changes in the direction of women’s preferences. However, they are often controversial. Public support for positive action measures varies widely across countries and over time, and emerging literature also points to potential negative impacts of quotas on trust in government. Thus far, we lack an understanding of how the framing and normative justification of these measures affects public support. To answer this question, we use a survey experiment to identify the causal effect of the framing of gender equality measures on public support, and to provide initial evidence on the causal mechanisms driving public support. We assess how support differs depending on whether the positive action measures are described as 1) gender quotas to increase women’s underrepresentation, or 2) gender parity laws to achieve gender balance. Our expectation is that respondents will be more likely to support parity than quotas, given that the latter tend to have negative connotations regarding candidate merit. We also evaluate heterogeneous effects, arguing that sex, gender, social status, and attitudes towards individual responsibility condition support. The findings will shed important light on the conditions under which positive action measures achieve public legitimacy.