Can Theatres Gender Swap Roles in A Chorus Line? Only With Permission

by Chris Peterson

I saw that a recent community theatre production of A Chorus Line in Texas cast a woman as Richie, and I’ll admit it sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole.

Not because I’m against gender-swapped casting. In fact, I’m often for it. There are absolutely shows and roles where a thoughtful gender swap can open something up in a really exciting way.

But there’s a difference between a creative choice and an allowed one.

That’s the part I think a lot of theatres either don’t know, ignore, or convince themselves that it doesn’t really matter.

In this case, it got me wondering what the licensing language for A Chorus Line actually says. And the answer, according to Concord Theatricals, is pretty straightforward. Their current guidance says that casting female parts with male actors, or vice versa, is considered a change that requires permission from the author or estate.

It also states that the gender of characters cannot be changed or altered “in any way” unless that change is explicitly noted in the script or the license. Concord also says productions must be presented as written unless written approval has been granted for a change. 

We’ve seen productions of A Chorus Line get in trouble for things like this before.

So yes, theatres should absolutely think creatively. But they also have to follow the contract they signed.

That may sound boring. But licensing is not a suggestion. It’s not a “well, hopefully nobody notices” kind of situation. If you want to change a role, change pronouns, or reconceive a character’s gender, you need permission from the rights holder. 

Did this theatre in TX ask and receive permission to make the change for Richie? I hope so.

What makes this more interesting is that there clearly are cases where this kind of casting can happen with approval. In the UK revival of A Chorus Line, Mireia Mambo was publicly described as the first woman to play Richie, which tells us two things at once.

First, the role can be reconceived in some circumstances. Second, if it happened in a major licensed production, it almost certainly did not happen by accident. Someone had to sign off on it. 

And that is the real point.

I’m not writing this to clutch pearls over one production decision. I’m writing this because I think a lot of theatre companies want to be more imaginative with casting, and I support that impulse.

But part of doing that responsibly is understanding the line between interpretation and alteration. One lives inside the production. The other lives inside the licensing agreement.

Too often, theatres act as though good intentions should be enough. They aren’t.

The bigger conversation here is worth having. There are plenty of roles across the canon that could be opened up in smart, fresh, deeply theatrical ways through gender-expansive casting. But if we want that future, we don’t get there by pretending permission doesn’t matter. We get there by advancing the conversation while also respecting the material's legal and ethical framework.

That’s less rebellious, maybe. But it’s also how you keep the conversation credible.

Because “we thought it would be interesting” is not the same thing as “we were allowed to do it.”

And in licensed theatre, that distinction is everything.