I suspect these laws bear out their effects in considerably more numerous (and more subtle) ways than many critics realise. I suspect most will understand (i)

I suspect these laws bear out their effects in considerably more numerous (and more subtle) ways than many critics realise. I suspect most will understand (i) the law immediately addresses a numerical imbalance, and (ii) also creates visible models/ examples to inspire future women to go for board seats. But also (iii) it builds the CVs of the current crop of women benefiting from the law to get onto boards, meaning they'll be less at a disadvantage next time they apply for another board (people are often on multiple boards at once), boosting 'organic'/'natural' (non-discriminatory) gender balance in the competition for seats; and (iv) when it comes to replacing the female board member, the company/organisation can more naturally contemplate another woman also doing a great job in that seat (whether or not they hire one into that seat would be a question of available candidates, but at least the headhunters and board would be able to - at least - imagine a woman in the role). Those are all quite significant levers.