In partnership with
Every generation of queer kids deserves a love story that doesn't end in a lesson. Mine didn't get one. We got Buffy, which smuggled desire into subtext and then punished it. We got Dawson's Creek, which gave us Jack McPhee's coming out arc like a gift, then spent three seasons making sure he paid for it in loneliness. We got the occasional "very special episode" where someone was gay just long enough to make the straight characters more interesting, then quietly disappeared. What we were given, over and over, was the message that queer love was the kind of love that required justification. That it could exist, but only if it suffered first.
I didn't know I'd absorbed that message until I watched Heartstopper and felt it leave my body.
Alice Oseman's series is deceptively simple on its surface. Boy meets boy in a form class. They become friends. One of them realises, slowly, that friendship isn't quite the right word for what he's feeling. There are no villains. There's no tragedy waiting to drop. There's just two teenagers figuring out how to hold a feeling that's new and terrifying and, eventually, wonderful. It sounds small. It isn't.
What Heartstopper understands — what it insists on — is that the absence of catastrophe is not the absence of drama. Nick's bisexuality doesn't arrive as a crisis to be solved. It arrives as a door opening. Charlie's anxiety is real and the show doesn't minimise it, but it's also not used as the price of admission for his happiness. These aren't narrative choices made out of naivety. They're made out of conviction. Oseman knows exactly what she's refusing, and she refuses it with intent.
Two Theories of Joy
Compare that to Sex Education, which I love, genuinely, and which was doing important work at the same moment. Sex Education is frank and generous and stuffed with queer characters across the spectrum. It approached sexuality with a kind of bawdy, celebratory directness that felt genuinely radical on mainstream television. But it also consistently filtered its queer stories through comedy and chaos and mess. Otis and Maeve's will-they-won't-they dominated the emotional real estate. The queer characters were vivid and real and well-written, and they were also, more often than not, playing support in someone else's arc. Sex Education believed representation should be funny and frank and slightly chaotic. Heartstopper believed representation should be the whole point, quiet and centred and allowed to take up room.
Neither of those positions is wrong. They just produce very different television. And watching Heartstopper, I understood for the first time what it would have meant to have a show that wasn't making room for queerness, but was built entirely out of it.
"Don’t let anyone make you disappear, Charlie."
The Nick Question
Bisexuality has always had a particular problem on television, distinct from the problems faced by gay and lesbian representation. Gay characters, when they existed, were at least allowed to be legible. Their desire pointed in one direction and the narrative, however unkindly, knew what to do with it. Bisexual characters were something else — something television found genuinely uncomfortable, not because it couldn't accommodate same-sex desire but because it couldn't accommodate ambiguity. Bisexuality disrupted the either/or logic that drama runs on. It resisted the clean arc: the closet, the revelation, the new identity, the resolution. A bisexual character could fall in love with anyone, which meant the story never quite knew where to put them.
The solution, for decades, was erasure dressed up as inclusion. Bisexual characters who ended up in opposite-sex relationships were quietly re-coded as straight. Those who ended up in same-sex relationships got absorbed into gay identity. The label itself was treated as a phase — something young characters moved through on the way to a more legible destination. Willow Rosenberg on Buffy is the example that still stings. A character who loved Oz, who loved Tara, who by every reasonable measure was bisexual, and who the show spent years insisting was simply gay. As if acknowledging both were real would complicate her too much. As if complication was something to be avoided rather than inhabited.
Nick Nelson does not get absorbed. He is sixteen years old and he is trying to understand what it means that he has feelings for Charlie, and Heartstopper refuses to let that process end with Nick simply switching teams. He is attracted to girls. He has always been attracted to girls. That doesn't go away when he falls for Charlie, and the show holds both truths in the same hand without flinching. In season two, when Nick comes out to his friends, he names himself bisexual clearly and without apology. The world around him is less tidy. People assume he's gay. His brother dismisses it entirely, insisting the relationship just means Nick has been "turned." Nick corrects them, again and again — "I'm bi, actually" — until the phrase becomes something close to a refrain. The show understands that coming out as bisexual isn't a single event but a continuous maintenance project, a constant re-assertion of identity against a world that finds ambiguity inconvenient.
That might sound like a small thing. It is not a small thing.
For queer people who grew up watching television in the nineties and early 2000s, the absence of bisexual legibility had a specific cost. It meant that if you felt desire in more than one direction, the available narratives gave you two options: you were confused, or you were lying. Either you hadn't worked yourself out yet, or you were using ambiguity as cover. The idea that both could simply be true, simultaneously and without contradiction, was not a story television was telling. So a lot of people — a lot of us — spent years treating our own desire like a problem to be diagnosed rather than a fact to be lived.
Watching Nick work through his bisexuality with the kind of patience and gentleness the show extends to him is, for those of us who didn't have that, quietly devastating in the best possible way. Not because it's unrealistic — it's actually very carefully observed — but because it presents self-acceptance as something a teenager can access. As something that doesn't have to be preceded by years of armour-building and careful exits and the slow, private exhaustion of ruling everything else out first.
The Inventory
Here is what I didn't expect: I cried during the scene where Nick comes out to his mum. Not because it was sad. Because she was kind. Because she said, without hesitation, that she loved him. Because the camera stayed on his face while he let himself believe it. I sat on my couch at thirty-something and cried at a teenager being loved without condition, and then I had to sit quietly with what that meant.
"I’m sorry if I ever made you feel like you couldn’t tell me that."
I didn't come out until I was nineteen. By then I had enough armour that the process was less catastrophic than it might have been — I'd spent years building the scaffolding, stress-testing the friendships I suspected could hold the weight, preparing my exits. It still cost something. It always does. But what I hadn't realised, watching Heartstopper, was how much of that armour had been built in response to a story. Not my story. The story I'd been given, again and again, by television that told me queer love was the kind of love you had to earn through suffering. I'd internalised the toll booth without ever questioning who built it.
Watching Nick and Charlie hold hands in a school corridor, I thought: what if I'd seen this at fifteen? What if the first template I'd had wasn't tragedy but tenderness? Would I have moved more slowly into hiding? Carried myself differently? Let someone in sooner?
"My life is way better because I met you."
I don't know. Probably. It's an unanswerable question, and sitting with unanswerable questions is part of what watching Heartstopper asks of you, if you're queer and a certain age. You're holding two things at once: grief for the softness that wasn't available to you, and genuine joy that it exists now. They don't cancel each other out. They sit together, uncomfortable and necessary.
This is the strange work that Heartstopper does for adult queer viewers that it doesn't have to do for the teenagers it's made for. For a sixteen-year-old watching now, it's simply a love story. For those of us watching from thirty-something, it's a love story plus an inventory. You find yourself going through your own adolescence quietly while the show plays, tallying the things you did and didn't have, what you built in their absence, what you're still, in small ways, building. It is not comfortable. It is also not something you'd give back.
The Context It Arrived In
It's worth saying plainly what the political context is, because Heartstopper did not arrive in a vacuum, and pretending otherwise would be a kind of dishonesty.
The show launched in 2022. In the years since, the political climate around queer visibility — particularly queer youth visibility — has shifted in ways that are difficult to overstate. In the United States, hundreds of pieces of legislation targeting queer and trans youth have been introduced or passed at state level. Books featuring queer characters have been removed from school libraries. The phrase "parental rights" has been deployed, with increasing aggression, as a mechanism for erasing queer existence from the spaces children occupy. Don't Say Gay laws. Bathroom bills. The systematic dismantling of the administrative scaffolding that made trans youth healthcare possible. These are not abstract culture war skirmishes. They are coordinated efforts to make queer young people invisible, to tell them that their existence is inappropriate, their identities a contagion.
Australia is not immune. The debates feel different here — less legislatively brutal, more socially ambient — but the underlying pressure is recognisable. The sense that queer visibility in spaces involving children is inherently suspect. That it requires justification in a way that straight visibility never does.
Into this context, Heartstopper exists. A show about queer teenagers that is gentle and joyful and G-rated in its depictions of affection, that is explicitly aimed at young people, that has been watched by millions of teenagers around the world and been a lifeline for a significant number of them. The show does not make a political argument. It doesn't need to. Its existence is the argument. The fact of it — sweet, pastel, unashamed — is a direct refutation of the idea that queer young people need to be protected from their own reflections.
There's something clarifying about watching Heartstopper now, in this moment, rather than when it first aired. What felt like an act of creative generosity in 2022 feels, by 2025, more like an act of resistance. Not because the show changed, but because the context around it did. Nick and Charlie holding hands in a school corridor is the same image it always was. What it means to see it — what it costs, in some corners of the world, to let your kid watch it — that has shifted.
I think about the teenagers watching it right now in states where their existence is being actively legislated against. I think about what it means for them to have a show that treats them as the hero of their own story, without qualification, without a tragedy waiting to teach them something. The toll booth has been built higher in their direction than it was in mine. And Heartstopper just keeps quietly refusing to pay it.
Joy Withheld
Heartstopper made my chest ache in ways I hadn't anticipated. I rewatched it. I let myself feel the grief and the relief together, without trying to resolve them into something tidier. That's what the show earns, finally — not a grand statement about representation or the arc of progress, but something quieter. Permission to feel the loss and the joy simultaneously, without requiring one of them to win.
Joy withheld isn't joy lost forever. That's what I keep coming back to. Even arriving late, it finds you.
If You Want More…
Some places to go if the essay opened something up. Young Royals for the operatic version of the same ache — queerness under the weight of duty and inheritance. Love, Victor if you want the sweetness without the pastel. For books: Becky Albertalli's Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda if you want joy that doesn't cost you, Adam Silvera's They Both Die at the End if you want longing with a knife in it, Ocean Vuong's On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous if you want tenderness pushed to the edge of what prose can hold.
And the Heartstopper soundtrack is exactly what it sounds like — then follow the threads outward. Baby Queen, who appears across all three seasons and whose whole catalogue is essentially the show's emotional register in artist form. Beabadoobee for the quieter ache. CHVRCHES' "Clearest Blue," which scores Nick's bisexual awakening so precisely it almost feels unfair. Wolf Alice for when you need it bigger. Maggie Rogers, Carly Rae Jepsen, Rachel Chinouriri, Cavetown. Girl in Red, MUNA, Troye Sivan, Clairo. Music for the feeling you now have a name for.