Social movements and human rights language in abortion debates

Abstract

This study empirically examines the ways in which anti- and pro-abortion rights actors utilize human rights frames with varying success in getting them repeated by the news media in the different legal terrains of the Republic of Ireland and Canada. Given the results of a content analysis of 1,100 news articles on abortion from six newspapers spanning five years (2009-2014) during periods of relative policy stability in these two countries, this article suggests that social movement actors who feel their voices have been ignored in their domestic contexts may find human rights frames helpful in attracting news media attention. This finding has implications for the way in which international human rights language can be harnessed by diverse actors and employed domestically in battles over women's rights.

Acknowledgments

The anonymous reviewers and the editor and staff at the Journal of Human Rights provided excellent suggestions to strengthen the manuscript, and I sincerely thank them for their time and dedication.

Notes

1 In both of the countries under study, there have been important events related to abortion rights in the years between 2014 and 2020. In the Republic of Ireland, as of January 2019, abortion rights were expanded to include the right to abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks into pregnancy; and in Canada, as of January 2017, abortions became accessible in Prince Edward Island, which has been a contested area in the abortion debate since the 1980s. Both of these events were important moments in the abortion debates. Although it would be intriguing to conduct an analysis of the language used during the periods surrounding these events, the 2009–2014 time period offers a look into the language being used during times of relative stability in the policy status of abortion in each of the countries under study.

2 Additionally, the abortion debate in the United States has been studied extensively and at different time periods, and the status of abortion varies across states (much of the debate about abortion is currently taking place at the state level) and would be difficult to compare to abortion debates that are concentrated more at the national level in other countries. Finally, comparative studies of political communication outside of the United States are less common and offer opportunities to observe the evolution and emergence of human rights frames in variable contexts.

3 In 2013 in the Republic of Ireland, legislation (the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act) based on a 1992 Supreme Court decision was passed that clarified the limited circumstances when abortion was legal, given the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution that granted an equal right to life to pregnant women and their fetuses.

4 To check for the reliability of coding, a random sample of 100 of the coded statements were coded by another coder. There was an agreement of 94 percent in coding the frames.

5 The politically charged terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are used to denote pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights positions in the figures in order to conserve space. The terms provide a convenient and recognizable shorthand for anti- and pro-abortion positions.

6 This frame refers to the 1992 “X Case” Supreme Court decision that argued that the Republic of Ireland must legislate to make abortion legal in limited circumstances when women’s lives are in danger due to pregnancy or due to suicidal ideation related to pregnancy.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kate Hunt

Kate Hunt is a visiting assistant professor of International Studies at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. She studies human rights, social movements, and communication.