Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Policy Sciences
Erschienen in: Policy Sciences 2/2019

27.10.2018 | Research Article

Framing morality policy issues: state legislative debates on abortion restrictions

verfasst von: Gary Mucciaroni, Kathleen Ferraiolo, Meghan E. Rubado

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Scholars of “morality policies” have often assumed a signature characteristic of such policies is that advocates will frame them as clashes between fundamental moral and religious principles. Recent studies of issues typically considered under the “morality policy” rubric have found that advocates often frame these issues along multiple dimensions and that they do not necessarily favor frames that emphasize moral principles over other considerations. This paper examines this issue for abortion policy. We analyze verbatim records of debates over 26 recent proposals to restrict abortion rights in the 16 states for which data are available. We found that both sides in debates over abortion restrictions framed the issue along several dimensions with no single frame dominating most of the debates. While there is some empirical support for the morality policy perspective, the frequency that advocates employed morality frames was less than we expected given the disproportionately high levels of evangelical Protestant membership in the states we examined. Rather than simply casting the debate as one over irreconcilable moral principles, the two sides’ strategies often converged by framing the issue in terms of various consequences of abortion and abortion restrictions for women. Advocates propensity to frame the issue in terms of “right to life” versus “woman’s choice” principles rose when one side or the other escalated rhetoric about “life” or “choice” principles (inducing the other to respond in kind). Our data thus conform to the logic of a game of tit-for-tat in which individuals follow a strategy of “retaliation” if their opponents frame issues in highly moralized, judgmental terms, or they “cooperate” by emphasizing how their preferred policy will promote some widely shared value (like women’s welfare or the authoritativeness of medical research). “Morality talk” was also more prevalent when the debates were about bans on abortion rather than other types of restrictions. The broad implication of our findings is that the propensity of advocates to frame issues in terms of fundamental moral principles has less to do with the general subject matter or issue area (e.g., abortion) and more to do with the context of debate and strategic considerations.
Nächster Artikel Advisory bodies and morality policies: does ethical expertise matter?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Two other large literatures examine whether citizens are susceptible to “framing effects” (see Druckman 2001; Schuldt et al. 2011; Nelson et al. 1997; Chong and Druckman 2007) and how social movements frame issues in order to recruit and mobilize participants (Gamson 1992; Snow and Benford 1988, 1992; Benford and Snow 2000; Jasper and Poulson 1995).
 
2
In our study, we do not examine what Mooney and Schuldt (2008, 4) call the “secondary features” of morality policy, such as “lack of compromise, technical simplicity, and widespread citizen participation.”
 
4
The bans on abortion at 20 weeks will not affect the vast majority of abortions, which take place within the first trimester of pregnancy. The burdens imposed by the TRAP laws fall disproportionately upon poor women living in rural areas.
 
5
The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade framed abortion as a medical-humanitarian and women’s rights issue, two frames that appeared in earlier legislative efforts to reform abortion laws and the women’s movement (Burns 2005, 223). Similarly, the Court’s majority opinion in Gonzalez v. Carhart, which upheld a federal ban on “partial birth” abortion, borrowed from arguments that state legislatures made earlier about alleged harm to women from abortions (Rose 2011, 1, 2).
 
6
Jerit (2008) and Karch and Rosenthal (2017) contrast “engagement” with “framing.” Our study focuses exclusively on framing strategies. Frame convergence is necessary for engagement, but not sufficient. Engagement requires dialogue. If one side in the abortion debate talks about the consequences for women of abortion and the other of abortion restrictions, we consider that to be convergence because both sides are framing the issue in terms of consequences for women. But they are not engaged in a dialogue since one side is making an empirical claim about the consequences related to abortion and the other about restrictions on abortion. Engagement requires both sides to speak to the same claim.
 
7
The social movement literature’s emphasis on cultural resonance is directed at explaining how movements recruit and mobilize members rather than the framing of issues.
 
8
Since fetal heartbeat can be detected significantly earlier than 20 weeks, it is a more stringent restriction than the 20-week ban. We combined the data for the 20-week ban with the data for the fetal heartbeat ban because both constitute a single type of restrictions (bans) and because very few speeches (only 3% of the total) deal with fetal heart beat bans.
 
9
Archived video or audio recordings were readily accessible in most cases online from state legislative websites or a local public television station. Virginia and the North Carolina Senate sent us their debates on compact disks. The other states that enacted restrictions either did not record their floor debates (IN, KS, MT), or did not archive debates from earlier sessions (ND), or the records were no longer available when we sought to retrieve them (VA Senate for 2011 debate sought in 2014). Other legislatures made records available for one chamber, but not for the other (AR), or debate occurred only on the floor of one chamber (OH).
 
10
The alternative would have been to specify frames at the outset and use machine coding. We decided that manual coding allowed us to develop an exhaustive list of frame categories, uncover the myriad ways in which speakers express frames, and categorize them properly. Also, machine coding would have required costly and time-consuming transcription of the debates.
 
11
Extremely Hostile: LA, OH, UT; Hostile: GA, MI, OK, TX, FL, VA, AR; Not Hostile: NH, MN, NC, TN, AZ, WI.
 
12
Overall, restriction supporters depended more heavily on the “right to life” frame than the opponents relied on the “woman’s choice” frame (38–28%, respectively; the difference is significant with p <=.01) (Table 1). However, the differences diminish if we aggregate the data from the level of speeches to the level of debates. Looking only at the debates in which opponents or supporters gave 10 or more speeches, one-third of the debates for each side included the “life” or “choice” frames. But for the remainder of those debates, restriction supporters placed more emphasis on “life” than opponents did on “choice.”
 
13
For restriction opponents, the specific “consequences for women” included “women’s health and safety,” “burdens on women” (emotional, financial and practical, “makes abortion more difficult to access,” “abortion is safe at 20 weeks,” and “legislation will fail to inform women of all their options.” For supporters, the frames were “restrictions protect women’s health and safety,” “restrictions provide women with informed consent,” “abortion unsafe,” and ‘abortion is unsafe/harms women.”
 
14
Restriction opponents used “medical/scientific” frames that included “interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and usurping the role of physicians,” “restrictions not necessary/appropriate,” “fetal abnormalities difficult to detect,” “damages doctors and creates a shortage of ob-gyns,” for “ignores medical experts opposed to the restrictions,” “singles out abortion doctors for regulation,” and “research/experts for supporters are faulty/biased.” Restriction supporters argued that “doctors and scientific experts support proposal” and “opponents’ data flawed or studies biased.”
 
15
While the data in Tables 1 and 2 suggest a significant level of frame convergence at the speech level, the pattern at the level of debates is more complicated. We looked at head-to-head comparisons of the top frames for each side in the 19 separate chamber debates that featured at least 5 speeches on each side. When we compare the leading frame used by each side, both sides converged (on the “consequences for women” frame) twice as often as they diverged (on the “life versus choice” frames) by 6 to 3. And the debates with the largest number of speeches tended to fit the convergence pattern. The largest number of debates (10) were ones that fit neither the convergence or divergence patterns, but featured one side stressing “consequences for women” and the other either “life” or “choice.”
 
16
We separately tested the model, substituting the Lax and Phillips liberalism score with the Erikson et al. (1993, 67) measure of states’ public opinion as liberal/conservative. In that model, the main findings on the effects of the type of bill and the share of previous speakers using morality framing hold, while the EWM conservatism score is negative and statistically significant, suggesting “life/choice” framing was more likely in states with more liberal public opinion. We include the Lax and Phillips (2012) measure in our model as it is a more recent estimate and the methodology used by the authors (multilevel regression and post-stratification) has been shown to produce reliable estimates (Lax and Phillips 2009).
 
Literatur
Axelrod, D. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Bali, V. (2009). Tinkering toward a National identification system: An experiment on policy attitudes. Policy Studies Journal, 37, 233–255.CrossRef
Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. C., & Leech, B. L. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses and why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.CrossRef
Boonstra, H. D., & Elizabeth N. (2014). A surge of state abortion restrictions puts providers—and the women they serve—in the Crosshairs. Guttmacher Policy Review 17, 1 (Winter). Retrieved July 19, 2014, from www.​guttmacher.​org/​pubs/​gpr/​17/​1.
Bosso, C. J. (1989). Pesticides and politics: The life cycle of a public issue. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Burns, G. (2005). The moral veto: Framing contraception, abortion, and cultural pluralism in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Chong, D. (2000). Rational lives: Norms and values in politics and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99–118.
Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2013). How words do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. Journal of Politics, 75(3), 659–671.CrossRef
Condit, C. M. (1990). Decoding abortion rhetoric: Communicating social change. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.
d’Anjou, L., & Van Male, J. (1998). Between old and new: Social movements and cultural change. Mobilization: An International Journal, 3, 141–161.
Davies, S. (1999). From moral duty to cultural rights: A case study of political framing in education. Sociology of Education, 72, 1–21.CrossRef
Dery, D. (2000). Agenda setting and problem definition. Policy Studies, 21(1), 37–47.CrossRef
Dillon, M. (1993). Argumentative complexity of abortion discourse. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(3), 305–314.CrossRef
Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066.CrossRef
Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eriskon, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American States. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.
Euchner, E.-M., Heichel, S., Nebel, K., & Raschzok, A. (2013). From ‘Morality’ policy to ‘Normal’ policy: Framing of drug consumption and Gambling in Germany and the Netherlands and their regulatory consequences. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 372–389.CrossRef
Evans, J. H. (1997). Multi-organizational fields and social movement organization frame content: The religious pro-choice movement. Sociological Inquiry, 67(4), 451–469.CrossRef
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62.CrossRef
Fenno, R. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
Ferraiolo, K. (2013). Is state Gambling policy ‘Morality Policy’? Framing debates over state lotteries. Policy Studies Journal, 41(2), 217–242.CrossRef
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ginger, C. (2000). Discourse and argument in bureau of land management wilderness environmental impact statements. Policy Studies Journal, 28(2), 292–312.CrossRef
Goggin, M. (1993). Understanding the new politics of abortion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRef
Grammich, C., Hadaway, K., Houseal, R., Jones, D. E., Krindatch, A., Stanley, R., et al. (2012). 2010 U.S. Religion Census: Religious Congregations & Membership Study [data file and codebook]. Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies [producer]. University Park, PA: The Association of Religion Data Archives [distributor].
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Meier, K. J. (1996). The politics of gay and lesbian rights: Expanding the scope of conflict. Journal of Politics, 58(2), 332–450.CrossRef
Jasper, J., & Poulsen, J. (1995). Recruiting strangers and friends: Moral shocks and social networks in animal rights and anti-nuclear protests. Social Problems, 42, 493–512.CrossRef
Jerit, J. (2008). Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in public policy debates. Political Behavior, 30, 1–24.CrossRef
Karch, A., & Rosenthal, A. (2017). Framing, engagement, and policy change: Lessons for the ACA. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 42(2), 341–362.CrossRef
Kellstedt, P. (2003). The mass media and the dynamics of American racial attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
Klandermans, B. (1992). The social construction of protest and multiorganizational fields. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 77–103). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Knutson, K. E. (2011). Breaking the chains?: Constraint and the political rhetoric of religious groups. Religion and Politics, 4(2), 312–337.CrossRef
Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2009). How should we estimate public opinion in the states? American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 107–121.CrossRef
Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 148–166.CrossRef
Luker, K. (1984). Abortion and the politics of motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meier, K. J. (1994). The politics of sin: Drugs, alcohol and public policy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Meier, K. J., & McFarlane, D. R. (1993). Abortion politics and abortion funding policy. In M. L. Goggin (Ed.), Understanding the new politics of abortion (pp. 249–267). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Mooney, C. Z. (1999). The politics of morality policy: Symposium editor’s introduction. Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), 675–680.CrossRef
Mooney, C. Z. (Ed.). (2001). The public clash of private values. In The public clash of private values: The politics of morality policy (pp. 3–18). Washington: CQ Press.
Mooney, C. Z., & Lee, M.-H. (1995). Legislative morality in the American States: The case of Pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 599–627.CrossRef
Mooney, C. Z., & Lee, M.-H. (1999). The temporal diffusion of morality policy: The case of death penalty legislation in the American States. Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), 766–780.CrossRef
Mooney, C. Z., & Schuldt, R. G. (2008). Does morality policy exist? Testing a basic assumption. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA. August 31–September 3.
Mucciaroni, G. (1995). Reversals of fortune: Public policy and private interests. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Mucciaroni, G. (2011). Are debates about ‘Morality Policy’ really about morality? Framing opposition to gay and lesbian rights. Policy Studies Journal, 39(2), 187–216.CrossRef
Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221–246.CrossRef
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment, 52(2), 12–23.
Pierce, P. A., & Miller, D. E. (2004). Gambling politics: State government and the business of betting. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Reese, S. D., Gandy, O. H., Jr., & Grant, A. E. (Eds.). (2003). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Riker, W. H. (1996). The strategy of rhetoric. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (Eds.). (1984). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Roh, J., & Berry, F. S. (2008). Modeling the outcomes of state abortion referenda: Morality or redistributive policy, or both? State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 8, 66–87.CrossRef
Rohlinger, D. A. (2002). Framing the abortion debate: Organizational resources, media strategies, and movement-countermovement dynamics. The Sociological Quarterly, 43(4), 479–507.CrossRef
Rose, M. (2011). Pro-life, pro-woman? Frame extension in the American antiabortion movement. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 32(1), 1–27.CrossRef
Saletan, W. (2003). Bearing right: How conservatives won the abortion war. Berkeley: University of California.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1962). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H., & Schwarz, N. (2011). ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’?: Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(1), 115–124.CrossRef
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–218.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 380–412). Oxford: Blackwell.
Snow, D. A., Burke Rochford, E., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.CrossRef
Stone, D. A. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman.
Strickland, R. A. (1998). Abortion: Pro-choice versus pro-life. In R. Tatalovich & B. W. Daynes (Eds.), Moral controversies in American politics: Cases in social regulatory policy (2nd ed., pp. 3–36). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Studlar, D. T. (2001). What constitutes morality policy? A cross-national analysis. In C. Z. Mooney (Ed.), The public clash of private values (pp. 37–51). New York: Chatham House.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.CrossRef
Tatalovich, R., & Daynes, B. W. (1981). The politics of abortion: A study of community conflict in public policymaking. New York: Praeger.
Tribe, L. H. (1990). Abortion: The clash of absolutes. New York: Norton.
Weart, S. (1988). Nuclear fear: A history of images. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weiss, J. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy Sciences, 22, 91–121.CrossRef
Williams, D. K. (2013). No happy medium: The role of Americans’ ambivalent view of fetal rights in policy conflict over abortion legalization. Journal of Policy History, 25, 42–61.CrossRef
Williams, R. H., & Kubal, T. J. (1999). Movement frames and the cultural environment: Resonance, failure, and the boundaries of the legitimate. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts, and Change, 21, 225–248.
Metadaten
Titel
Framing morality policy issues: state legislative debates on abortion restrictions
verfasst von
Gary Mucciaroni
Kathleen Ferraiolo
Meghan E. Rubado
Publikationsdatum
27.10.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Policy Sciences / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9336-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2019

Policy Sciences 2/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Research Article

Social identities in the policy process

Research Article

Towards productive functions? A systematic review of institutional failure, its causes and consequences

Research Article

Advisory bodies and morality policies: does ethical expertise matter?

Research Article

Governing by contract as a way to reduce crime? An impact evaluation of the large-scale policy of security pacts

Discussion and Commentary

Beyond evidence versus truthiness: toward a symmetrical approach to knowledge and ignorance in policy studies

Research Article

The governance of self-organization: Which governance strategy do policy officials and citizens prefer?