Sign in with Facebook
The 52 Most Popular Romances of the Past Three Years
Ah yes, the allure of new love! Be prepared to be charmed, wooed, and—of course—seduced by these most popular romance novels of the past three years, according to Goodreads members.
These recent romances include new crushes in the form of blockbuster debuts from Casey McQuiston, Jasmine Guillory, and Helen Hoang. There's also the return of many longtime loves, including Colleen Hoover and the writing duo Christina Lauren. To create our list, we looked through our data to find the romance novels published since 2018 that have the most Want to Read shelvings (that's how we measure buzz).
So, here they are! Readers' most popular romance novels on Goodreads, listed from 1 to 52. Scroll over the book covers to learn more about each novel, and be sure to add the books that pique your interest to your Want to Read shelf!
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26
#27
#28
#29
#30
#31
#32
#33
#34
#35
#36
#37
#38
#39
#40
#41
#42
#43
#44
#45
#46
#47
#48
#49
#50
#51
#52
What are some of your favorite recent romance novels? Let’s talk books in the comments!
Comments Showing 51-94 of 94 (94 new)
date
newest »
newest »
If you're looking for fun, LGBT paranormal the How the WereGeeks Saved Wisconsin series is a blast. And Winter's Orbit (which they also missed) is absolutely the best thing I've read this year and in terms of romance ANY year
Maybe they should make a few lists, because romance has subcategories, like every other main "section" (not just general fiction and other genres but also nonfiction - check out how many subsections you will find in history or personal growth or even cookbooks). This looks like a list of some of the more popular trade paperback, present day romances. Maybe we also need one for historical romances and/or one for present day mass market romances. Someone mentioned not being happy with LGBT representation on the list, and I have read some fantastic historical gay romance mass markets from Cat Sebastian that I would include on any good romance list.
message 54:
by
The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears
(last edited Feb 09, 2021 04:30PM)
(new)
No Courtney Milan.No Alyssa Cole.
No Rebecca Weatherspoon.
No Olivia Waite.
No Cat Sebastian.
No K.J Charles.
But Nicholas freaking Sparks and E.L. James???
How???
Talk about a questionable algorithm or something. And why are some authors on the list more than once? Absolutely no variety here. Moving on...
What about Catherine Catherine bybee or Jamie beck?
Axel wrote: "Where is the hating game on that list?!!"Agreed!
Sue wrote: "Why on earth would you look at the books on the 'want to read' shelf instead of the books people actually read? The 'want to read' shelf is where books go to die."This made me LOL so hard! 😂
Azet wrote: "Strange that none of Lisa Kleypas,Tessa Dare`s or Nora Roberts aren`t in the list."Right?? And I got so frustrated with the Goodreads Awards for Romance. Like ZERO HR! I'll never understand. I can never discover HR on any Goodreads articles (in the News & Interviews section).
Come on, where is Cemetery Boys, Lady Midnight, Lord of Shadows, Queen of Air and Darkness, The Red Scrolls of Magic, They Both Die at the End, Wayward Son, To All the Boys I've Loved Before, I'm going to stop now because this list would go on forever and ever but if you haven't read these books you should go read them.
I miss the historical romance of yesteryear. Haven't been able to get into the new contemporaries.
I’ve only read 2 (Red, White and Blue and Boyfriend Material) and have 2 on my TBR. I don’t read contemporary romance unless it’s gay. 😅 I prefer fantasy romance and historical Romance.
Jessica wrote: "From everything I have seen In Five Years is not even properly placed in the romance genre. Some publishers marketing department has hijacked this list"That's right, because it ISN'T a romance. I've read it and still get angry whenever I see it mentioned/listed with romance books.
Chris wrote: "The placement of Red, White and Royal Blue is just right."100% correct!
I haven't read any of these authors in the list. Personally I love Ruth Cardello and Catherine Bybee with the occasional Aria Hawthorn.
Lilly wrote: "You know, none of my favorite books were on here, and almost all of them are romance novels! But anyway, if anyone wants a good book to hold their attention even when you stop reading, read [book:T..."Lilly, all of your favourite books are John Green's YA titles, and predate this list considerably. If you'd like some others to try, you might give David Levithan's others a try, or there have been a lot more recent books. It does seem that there aren't many titles that go outside the expected. No historical, christian, contemporary? Things that have long waiting lists at the local library aren't here - and the YA equivalents, which will be making their debut onscreen or being translated into Netflix aren't here, either.
Where are the historical romances?? Those are my favorites!
Once again the definition of the goodreads staff on romance is questionable at best!
Robin P wrote: "They clearly didn't foresee the Bridgerton trend!"IKR
i see nobody like the list, well i can´t complain as long as Regretting you stays here
I don't need a 'be all-end all' list... As if one list could rule them all! Ha. For me, this looks like a good list! I've already read 11 of them, and liked them, so it's likely I'll enjoy more of them. No Sarah Morgan, or Beth Kendrick here, but no worries - I already knew, and still know, that I want to read more of their books. I hope I can find this list later once I've finished all my popsugar categories and have some me-time reading ahead.
Where on earth is the historical romance? I mean seriously, with the Bridgerton series back on the NYT bestseller list, not one of Julia Quinn's books made this list? That doesn't seem believable at all. Plus, where are Lisa Kleypas, Tessa Dare, and Sarah MacLean? For that matter, where are the blockbuster romantic suspense authors like Nora Roberts and Jayne Ann Krentz/Amanda Quick?
Any list that calls itself "The 52 Most Popular Romances of the Past Three Years" but is based on "the most Want to Read shelvings" is utter nonsense. This would count no matter the genre. It would be interesting to see the numbers of actual 'read' shelvings for each of these and see how they fare against the actual 52 top most read romances of the last 3 years.
Audrey wrote: "Where are all the historicals? Why so many from the same authors?"I agree with this.
Pamela wrote: "Sad not to see LGBT represented"The number 1 book on the list is M/M.
Cynthia wrote: "I haven't read any of these books, nor are any of them on the TBR. Where is JR Ward? A NY Times Bestselling author!"JR Ward had quite a few releases. Her and Nora Roberts not being on this list make it seem like this list was curated based on publisher insistence rather than actual reader opinion.
Sue wrote: "Why on earth would you look at the books on the 'want to read' shelf instead of the books people actually read? The 'want to read' shelf is where books go to die."Absolutely!
Chris wrote: "The placement of Red, White and Royal Blue is just right."i literally texted my friend when i saw it
I like some of these, but I think there are far better romances out there. There's a lot of the list that have had a lot of hype recently which I get why they're promoting them but there are some great romances that are early 2000 realises or even some classics.
Clare wrote: "Nicholas Sparks is NOT romance."So much this! He has contempt for the entire genre. Why is his book here?
Jo wrote: "I miss the historical romance of yesteryear. Haven't been able to get into the new contemporaries."There's a ton of it out there but only one made the list: Bringing Down The Duke. It's a good book. Wish this list included some of the other great stuff being written.
Many books in the list were popular choices but you haven’t included top romance novels by top romance authors like Kennedy Ryan and Emma Scott. They have written excellent and superior romances than shown here. Also, in the historical romances, there is none like Lisa Kleypas and she’s not included. Therefore, this list is incorrect and inaccurate.
A lot of these books I've read, but no Rebecca Yarros, or Sarina Bowen?
Why are there only contemporaries? Where's all my other romances at? Historical? Paranormal ? Bad list, bad list.
Sally wrote: "Pamela wrote: "Sad not to see LGBT represented"literally the top book is lgbt..."
That's literally the only one in a list of 52
Elizabeth wrote: "Y’all need to do your research. You included plagiarizer author L.J. Shen in this list so I’m disappointed in your list and author choice. The Kiss Thief is a copy cat of Judith McNaught’s Whitney ..."hmmm...interesting. I've not read Shen -- but McNaught is hands down, one of the BEST in this genre and will always be. Whitney My Love is one of my favorites, that I've read multiple times.
As someone who works with data professionally, the criteria on which this list was made makes me shudder. A more scientific way would have been including all sub-genres of romance (such as historical, YA, etc.), and by giving weighted preference to the shelves on which the books were added. For example, +1 for every time a book was added to "read", +0.5 for every time a book was added to "tbr", and maybe a negative point for "dnf".
Further, the points for adding a book to "read" could have been weighted too. +1 for 5/5 stars. +0.8 for 4/5 stars and so on, to +0.2 for 1/5 stars.
At least, this is how I'd go about it if I were the data analyst behind this list.
If you don't find your recent favourites on this list, it's because of bad use of available data.
Why is the hating game not on this list, your honor?
They do have "Red, White, and Royal Blue" and "Boyfriend Material" on the list, and both are gay romances. They may not have included all representations or enough for you, so you might want to alter your comment to say "sad not to see enough LGBT represented", which is completely your right and might reflect your thoughts more accurately.