Our knowledge about the role of genetics in influencing key socioeconomic outcomes like income and education has grown rapidly. However, scholars across several decades have expressed concerns about the potentially negative socio-political implications of this line of research. Genetic explanations for such outcomes, it is argued, may cause individuals to view inequality as immutable and fair. This could in turn cause them to gravitate towards more economically liberal policies, seeing redistributive politics as ineffectual and unfair. Surprisingly, research into whether and how genetic explanations for inequality affects the attitudes of citizens in democratic societies is highly limited. This study reports the findings from two pre-registered survey experiments that were conducted simultaneously in the United States (N=2003) and Sweden (N=2005). The experiments test whether partial genetic explanations for individual-level differences in income and education do in fact lead to increased fatalism and fairness views with regards to inequality. Overall, the results do not provide any clear evidence that citizens become more fatalistic when presented with partial genetic explanations. In Sweden in particular, but partly in the US as well, the results instead suggest that citizens became less fatalistic about differences in income and education, and that they saw these differences as less fair. Although more research is needed on this topic, this study suggests that genetically informed research relating to inequality does not necessarily have to cause citizens to become more naturalistic about inequality. Indeed, they may instead adopt more redistributive and overall egalitarian political attitudes.