# The Language You Ask In: Language-Conditioned Ideological Divergence in LLM Analysis of Contested Political Documents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12164 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.12164/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 22 of its 88 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02116/) (2019)
- [BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.05100/) (2022)
- [mT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11934/) (2020)
- [Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14050/) (2020)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15217/) (2023)
- [Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00770/) (2023)
- [Assessing Cross-Cultural Alignment between ChatGPT and Human Societies: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17466/) (2023)
- [The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.01768/) (2023)
- [Generative Language Models and Automated Influence Operations: Emerging Threats and Potential Mitigations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.04246/) (2023)
- [Probing Pre-Trained Language Models for Cross-Cultural Differences in Values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.13722/) (2022)
- [Measuring Political Bias in Large Language Models: What Is Said and How It Is Said](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18932/) (2024)
- [Mitigating Language-Dependent Ethnic Bias in BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.05704/) (2021)
- [A Survey on Multilingual Large Language Models: Corpora, Alignment, and Bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.00929/) (2024)
- [Gender Bias in Multilingual Embeddings and Cross-Lingual Transfer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00699/) (2020)
- [Assessing Political Bias in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.13041/) (2024)
- [How malicious AI swarms can threaten democracy: The fusion of agentic AI and LLMs marks a new frontier in information warfare](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06299/) (2025)
- [Implicit Personalization in Language Models: A Systematic Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14808/) (2024)
- [Artificial Intelligence in Deliberation: The AI Penalty and the Emergence of a New Deliberative Divide](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.07690/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [The Shibboleth Effect: Auditing the Cross-Lingual Distributional Skew of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.11082/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models are increasingly used to interpret politically contested questions, value-laden material on which there is no single correct answer, only competing interpretive traditions. We ask whether a model's choice among those traditions can turn on the language of the prompt rather than the content. Comparing two frontier models, ChatGPT 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.5, on one contested Ukrainian civil-society document under semantically matched Russian and Ukrainian prompts, we find that both shift along the same axis on identical source text: Russian prompts elicit delegitimizing readings of the document's authors and Ukrainian prompts legitimating ones. The magnitude is model-dependent but neither model is neutral: each adopts a language-dependent stance, and the difference is one of degree. Because contested political questions admit no correct reading against which to measure, we read this as language-conditioned variation in which interpretive tradition a model activates: the model neither holds a single stance nor surfaces the plurality of available ones, but silently adopts the dominant frame of the prompt's language. We draw out the consequences for pluralism-aware evaluation, which must probe the same content across the languages a model serves, and for pluralistic alignment in multilingual settings.