2026 Sapphic Fiction Reader Survey: How Readers Find, Buy and Enjoy Books

More sapphic fiction readers say they’re reading more books than they did a few years ago, yet finding the next one can take more effort. That’s one of the tensions in this survey of 2,825 readers: the audience is engaged, but its habits are shifting toward audio, subscriptions and libraries, while concern about AI-generated books has made some readers wary of unfamiliar authors.

The survey ran from August 27 to September 25, 2026. This first part looks at reader demographics, reading and buying habits, formats, and book discovery. A second part will examine readers’ views on generative AI in books, covers, translations and audiobooks.

Who answered the survey?

Readers from 72 countries took part, though the results aren’t a representative portrait of every sapphic fiction reader. The survey was shared through the author’s newsletter, social media, Facebook and Goodreads groups, Reddit, and fellow authors’ readers. That distribution likely favored people who participate in reader and author communities or follow authors directly. Readers who rely mainly on retailer recommendations may have different habits and views.

Even with that limitation, 2,825 responses provide a detailed account of readers who are active in the sapphic book community. The age range was broad, with the largest groups between 25 and 44:

• Under 18: 0.2%
• 18–24: 5%
• 25–34: 20%
• 35–44: 24%
• 45–54: 18%
• 55–64: 15%
• 65 or older: 17%
• Prefer not to say: 1%

Readers aged 18–24 were a relatively small share of responses. The author suggests that the survey may have reached more younger readers if more authors had shared it on TikTok. The age profile broadly resembles the results of Nora Phoenix’s 2022 MM romance reader survey, which had 5,715 participants. Younger readers appeared at similar levels in the two surveys, while readers aged 65 and older made up a larger share of the sapphic survey.

The largest share of respondents lived in the United States. The 20 most represented countries were:

• United States: 57%
• United Kingdom: 10%
• Canada: 6%
• Germany: 5%
• Australia: 5%
• Netherlands: 2%
• France: 2%
• Brazil: 1%
• New Zealand: 1%
• Sweden: 1%
• Ireland: 1%
• Italy: 1%
• South Africa: 1%
• Spain: 1%
• Denmark: 1%
• Norway: 1%
• Austria: 1%
• Belgium: 1%
• Poland: 1%
• Philippines: 0.5%

The international range is notable, even as the US accounts for more than half of responses. Readers in the UK and Canada were the next largest groups, at 10% and 6%.

A committed readership, with more readers increasing than cutting back

These respondents read frequently: 72% said they typically read or listen to at least three sapphic books each month. The largest group, 36%, reported three to five books. Another 28% read one or two, while 18% read six to ten. Seven percent read 11 to 15 books, 5% read 16 to 20, and another 5% said they read more than 20.

Those numbers point to a survey audience with regular reading habits. They also help explain why changes in access and discovery matter: for frequent readers, a new format, subscription or recommendation source can affect a steady stream of choices.

Compared with two or three years earlier, 51% said they now read more sapphic books. A third reported reading much more, and 18% somewhat more. Twenty-nine percent said their reading had stayed about the same; 15% were reading somewhat less, and 5% considerably less.

The increase sits alongside a separate finding from the author survey: more than half of sapphic fiction authors reported a decline in writing-related income. The reader results don’t explain that gap on their own. The author points readers interested in possible reasons to a Sapphic Quill post.

Time, attention and trust shape the slowdown

Among readers who said they were reading fewer sapphic books, the most common explanation was having less time to read, selected by 50%. Difficulty finding books they like came next, at 38%. Other forms of entertainment competing for attention were cited by 24%, and 22% mentioned difficulty focusing. Financial circumstances and trouble finding books that aren’t AI-generated each accounted for 16%. Respondents could select more than one reason.

The time pressures are familiar: readers mentioned television, streaming, games, podcasts and social media as alternatives competing for hours once spent with books. Some compared their current reading with the pandemic years, when they had more time. Audiobooks can help fit stories into activities such as commuting, exercise and chores, a shift reflected elsewhere in the survey.

Finding books that feel appealing and trustworthy is another issue. Readers described spending time “playing detective” or having to “weed through” AI-generated titles. For some, uncertainty about how to identify AI-generated work adds friction to trying an unfamiliar author.

Open-ended answers added smaller but revealing reasons for reading less:

• Reading more books that aren’t sapphic: 5%
• Concerns that the quality of sapphic books is declining: 4%
• Health or mental health issues: 3%
• Feeling that sapphic books are becoming too formulaic: 3%
• Re-reading or re-listening to favorite books for comfort: 2%
• Reading less after an initial burst of discovery: 1%
• Writing a book of their own: 1%
• Wanting more representation of older, BIPOC, neurodivergent or asexual characters: 1%
• The state of the world: 1%
• Disagreements within the sapphic fiction community: 1%
• Difficulty finding sapphic books through libraries or library apps: 1%

The 5% reading more non-sapphic books aren’t necessarily reading less in general. Some said they were turning to other genres, including speculative fiction, fantasy, romantasy, science fiction, thrillers, crime and mystery. A few felt they had already read much of the sapphic fiction available in those areas, or that its quality didn’t match mainstream books they were finding.

Some respondents also described dissatisfaction with the books themselves. Four percent raised concerns about quality or editing, while 3% felt stories were becoming too formulaic or similar to one another. A smaller group wanted more varied representation, particularly of BIPOC and older characters.

Audio and flexible access are growing

Ninety percent of respondents said their reading habits had changed over the past few years. The most frequently reported shifts involved how they read or get books: 33% listen to more audiobooks, 29% read more through subscription services such as Kindle Unlimited, and 25% make greater use of libraries or library apps.

Other changes were more mixed. Twenty-four percent said they were increasingly sticking to authors they know, or feeling more hesitant about books by new-to-them authors. Twenty-one percent said they buy more books, while 12% buy fewer. Another 12% purchase more physical books. Ten percent said their habits hadn’t changed, and 7% had cancelled a Kindle Unlimited subscription.

The rise in audio may help readers find time for stories amid competing demands. The increased use of subscriptions and libraries points to readers choosing flexible or lower-cost routes to books. These shifts don’t all move in the same direction: some readers buy more, while others borrow more or rely on subscriptions.

The survey author suggests that a preference for physical books could, for some readers, reflect a desire to own a copy outright. That explanation is presented as a possibility, rather than a reason measured directly by the survey.

Readers’ reluctance to try unfamiliar authors deserves attention. Many of those who reported becoming more cautious connected that change to AI: they weren’t sure how to distinguish AI-generated books or didn’t have the time and energy to investigate. Others cited the cost of taking a chance on an author whose work they didn’t yet know. Some felt newer authors’ books didn’t always meet the quality they expected from more established writers.

Readers also volunteered other changes. Two percent said they spent more time checking authors and books for AI use; 2% relied more on recommendations from trusted sources; 2% re-read or re-listened more often; and 2% sought free or discounted books. One percent read more ebooks, while 0.5% read more review copies. Smaller shares mentioned avoiding Amazon (0.4%), being more selective about quality (0.4%), and reading more fan fiction (0.4%).

Those open-ended responses came without a list of suggested answers, so small percentages can still identify concerns that matter to particular readers. AI-related checking came up repeatedly. Some respondents said the time spent researching authors and reading reviews made trying new books feel like work; a few said it had reduced their reading altogether.

Several readers responded by leaning more on sources they trust. The most frequently named included I Heart SapphFic, Sapphic Book Bingo, Facebook groups with strict rules against generative AI, and newsletters from favorite authors. Others described ways to keep reading affordable, such as free and discounted books, re-reading owned favorites, and fan fiction. Comfort was another reason to return to familiar books, with some readers using re-reading to ease anxiety.

Readers mix formats and platforms

Most respondents don’t depend on one format or access method: 77% use several, while 23% stick to one. Buying ebooks was the most commonly selected route, at 65%. Forty-three percent buy print books, and 41% read ebooks through services such as Kindle Unlimited or Kobo Plus. Thirty-nine percent borrow from libraries or apps such as Libby and Hoopla. Thirty-five percent listen to audiobooks through a subscription, and 31% buy audiobooks.

Looking at formats more broadly, 81% read ebooks, 47% read physical books and 44% listen to audiobooks. Sapphic readers’ ebook and print habits are in the same general range as the 2026 Written Word Media reader survey, where 76% reported regularly reading ebooks and 51% print books. Audio use was higher among this survey’s sapphic readers: 44%, compared with 22% in Written Word Media’s survey. Kindle Unlimited use was also higher, at 41% versus 25%.

A smaller group relies on just one route. Eleven percent read only purchased ebooks; 4% use only a subscription service. Three percent read only purchased print books, and another 3% rely exclusively on libraries or library apps. One percent listen only to purchased audiobooks, and another 1% use only audiobook subscriptions. Six percent are audiobook-only readers, with no print or ebook reading.

Amazon leads, while direct buying is common

Amazon was the most-used source for sapphic books, named by 75% of respondents. Libraries and library apps came next, at 36%, followed closely by authors’ or publishers’ webstores at 35%. Audible was used by 33%; 26% named independent bookstores, 12% major chain bookstores and 9% Barnes & Noble. Spotify accounted for 8%, Kobo 7%, Bookshop.org 6%, Apple Books 5% and Google Play 2%.

In open-ended responses, readers also mentioned Libro.fm (2%), Storytel (1%), used and second-hand shops (1%), Chirp (0.5%), Everand (0.4%), book fairs and literary conferences (0.3%), and itch.io (0.2%).

Amazon’s lead doesn’t mean readers depend on a single retailer. Seventy-nine percent use more than one platform or source, compared with 21% who use just one. Fifteen percent get their sapphic books exclusively from Amazon. Two percent rely only on Audible, 2% only on libraries or library apps, and 1% buy only through author or publisher webstores.

Direct purchasing is already part of many readers’ routines. Asked whether they buy from authors’ or publishers’ webstores, 20% said they do whenever possible and 39% said they do occasionally. Another 32% haven’t tried it but are open to the option. Nine percent prefer major retailers such as Amazon, Apple or Kobo. Taken together, 59% buy direct at least some of the time.

That willingness appears higher than in the Written Word Media survey: 35% of its respondents said they preferred major retailers, while 9% preferred buying from authors. The comparison describes preferences across two surveys, rather than identical groups of readers.

Among readers who never or rarely buy directly, convenience was the most common reason for choosing a major retailer, at 20%. Direct purchasing can require an extra account, payment details and a way to move an ebook onto a device. Some respondents said they weren’t comfortable with those steps or weren’t sure how to transfer a book outside Amazon or Kobo.

Seventeen percent of this group don’t buy books at all, relying instead on subscriptions or libraries. Cost was another factor: 14% said direct purchases were more expensive, while 9% cited shipping costs or lack of shipping to their country. For international readers, exchange rates and possible shipping charges can make the price difference especially relevant.

Other barriers included preferring to keep a library in one app or platform (6%) and not knowing that direct purchasing was an option (6%). Five percent said author and publisher stores seldom carry audiobooks. Smaller shares mentioned payment security (4%), ebook compatibility (3%), difficulty finding webstores (3%), supporting a local independent bookstore (2%), or wanting one place to browse books by many authors (2%). One percent said most authors they read didn’t have a store, and 1% found websites difficult to use. Another 1% valued the discounted audiobook option available with some Amazon ebook purchases.

Community channels lead book discovery

Author newsletters were the most commonly named discovery source, used by 52% of respondents. I Heart SapphFic followed at 46%, ahead of Amazon at 43%. Instagram came in at 33%, Goodreads at 32%, recommendations from friends or fellow readers at 30%, and Facebook at 26%. Sapphic Book Bingo was named by 25%, Reddit by 22%, publisher newsletters by 17%, TikTok by 14%, and Storygraph by 9%. Two percent cited ChatGPT or other AI tools, and 2% Threads.

I Heart SapphFic offers a new releases newsletter and a BookFinder database that, at the time of the survey report, listed 11,000 sapphic books. The survey’s leading discovery sources suggest that readers find value in channels built around authors and sapphic fiction communities, alongside general retail platforms.

Among social media services, Instagram and Facebook were the most frequently mentioned. TikTok’s 14% share should be read with the survey’s distribution in mind: the author notes that few participating authors shared the questionnaire with readers there, so people who discover books through TikTok may be underrepresented.

Open-ended answers brought in a longer tail of discovery routes:

• Bluesky: 2%
• The Lesbian Review: 1%
• Libby: 1%
• Publisher websites: 1%
• Audible: 1%
• YouTube: 1%
• Romance.io: 1%
• Jae’s events, including the Sapphic Book Advent Calendar: 1%
• Discord: 1%
• PageBound: 1%
• Tumblr: 0.5%
• X/Twitter: 0.5%
• NetGalley: 0.5%
• Libraries: 0.5%
• Local bookstores: 0.5%
• Sapphic or queer book clubs: 0.5%
• GCLS award winners: 0.5%
• Google: 0.4%
• Fable app: 0.4%
• BookBub: 0.4%

Ninety-five percent of respondents use multiple sources to find books. The 5% who rely on just one most often named Reddit, recommendations from friends, I Heart SapphFic or Amazon.

The difference from the broader Written Word Media audience is striking. In that survey, Amazon was the leading discovery source at 68%, compared with 43% here. Goodreads was used by 46% of Written Word Media respondents and 32% of sapphic readers; recommendations from family and friends were cited by 45% and 30%, respectively. Bookstores and libraries appeared as discovery sources for 27% and 29% of the broader audience, compared with 0.5% in this survey.

The author reads the difference as evidence that sapphic readers rely more on community-based discovery, particularly author newsletters, I Heart SapphFic and Sapphic Book Bingo. These networks can help readers find titles they might not encounter through general retail recommendations or local book services.

The author and the story are the strongest signals

When asked to choose the three factors that matter most in deciding whether to read or get a sapphic book, respondents most often chose the author (70%). The blurb or description came next at 47%, followed by tropes at 38%. Reviews mattered to 28%, and recommendations from friends or fellow readers to 25%. Twenty-one percent named the audiobook narrator; 17% cited a sample or excerpt.

Subscription availability mattered to 15%, the cover to 14%, price to 11%, and publisher to 5%. These figures show which factors respondents most often put in their top three; they don’t mean the less frequently selected details have no effect.

For the survey author, the prominence of the author’s name suggests that readers place particular weight on a known reading experience. Description and tropes then give a sense of the story, while reviews and personal recommendations offer another kind of reassurance. That pattern also helps put the reported hesitation around new-to-them authors in context: when trust in the author matters most, concerns about AI or quality can have a direct effect on discovery.

Price played a larger role for readers who buy books: 16% of that group named it among their top three factors. Among readers who borrow through a subscription service such as Kindle Unlimited or a library, the figure was 9%.

Audiobook listeners weighed the author, narrator and blurb most heavily. The author was named by 74%, with the narrator and blurb each at 42%. For people who listen exclusively to audiobooks, the author still led at 81%, while the narrator rose to 71% and the blurb was named by 33%.

The survey author suggests that mixed-format readers can switch to print or ebook if a narrator doesn’t suit them, while audiobook-only readers have fewer alternatives. That may help explain why narration carries more weight for the audio-only group.

What the results suggest

This survey depicts a highly engaged readership, with more respondents reading sapphic fiction than they did two or three years ago. At the same time, readers are changing how they make room for books and where they get them. Audio, subscription services and libraries are important parts of that mix, and most readers combine several formats or platforms.

Discovery is closely tied to communities and trusted recommendations. Author newsletters, I Heart SapphFic and Sapphic Book Bingo stand alongside Amazon as significant ways to find new titles. Direct buying is also established: 59% of respondents say they purchase from authors’ or publishers’ stores at least occasionally, even though convenience and cost can steer others toward major retailers.

The most persistent challenge in the responses is the work involved in finding books readers trust and want to read. Some have less time; others struggle to find appealing titles or feel they must investigate whether a book was AI-generated. The result is a practical tension for readers and new authors alike: recommendations from trusted sources matter more when uncertainty makes it harder to take a chance.

Part 2 of the survey will turn directly to reader attitudes toward generative AI in books, covers, translations and audiobooks. To follow the next installment, readers can subscribe to the blog.

The original post, The 2026 sapphic fiction reader survey (Part 1), appeared on Jae.