Whereas the literature on gender stereotypes in elected office is very extensive and explores the determinants and the mechanism behind voter biases, little is known about how gender stereotypes operate at the executive level. Despite the importance of cabinets in governance and policy-making, researchers know surprisingly little about how ministers are evaluated. In addition, the burgeoning literature on gender stereotypes and cabinets still presents some important deficits that require further attention. Previous analyses are focused mainly on the evaluation of candidates’ performance in office or their policy outcome (Taylor-Robinson and Bjarnegård 2015, Teele et al. 2018, De Geus et al. 2020). Other studies have explored how symbolic representation in the executive branch affects voters (Schwindt-Bayer and Reyes-Housholder 2017). However, the scarce extant literature about the evaluation of personal and political characteristics of ministers by voters is practically non-existent.  This article seeks to contribute to the unexplored scholarship of gender stereotypes in cabinets by measuring the extent to which political and personal characteristics are evaluated in the executive office across gender. In particular, we explore political qualifications and the ministries’ marital status - which are factors that can powerfully affect their evaluations of female candidates- in a high prestigious portfolio. Both, executives and high prestigious ministries are considered the most masculinized political institutions, with women absent entirely until the last decade (Franceschet and Annesley 2015). By exclusively focusing on this area, the gender stereotypes can be tested more robustly since these double standards may be more present.  We test our assumptions through the use of a conjoint experiment that we conducted in Spain. This design allows us to identify how gender and the intersection with other personal and political characteristics affect citizens’ evaluations of hypothetical candidates. This conjoint experiment asks voters to evaluate pairs of hypothetical candidates with different gender, simultaneously with random characteristics assigned for each candidate: such as political background, age, marital status and political experience (randomly assigned for each candidate). This case study is especially relevant since previous research has pointed out the necessity of exploring how gender stereotypes operate outside the U.S. and across other contexts (Teele et al. 2018, De Geus 2020). Taken together, it is necessary to examine whether female ministers suffered greater scrutiny in the executive branch since this greater criticism may affect the achievement of objectives, making it harder to pursue their legislative agendas and women’s symbolic representation.