IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v52y2019i2d10.1007_s11077-018-9336-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing morality policy issues: state legislative debates on abortion restrictions

Author

Listed:
  • Gary Mucciaroni

    (Temple University)

  • Kathleen Ferraiolo

    (James Madison University)

  • Meghan E. Rubado

    (Cleveland State University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary Mucciaroni & Kathleen Ferraiolo & Meghan E. Rubado, 2019. "Framing morality policy issues: state legislative debates on abortion restrictions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 171-189, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9336-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-018-9336-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-018-9336-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-018-9336-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey R. Lax & Justin H. Phillips, 2012. "The Democratic Deficit in the States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 148-166, January.
    2. Jeffrey R. Lax & Justin H. Phillips, 2009. "How Should We Estimate Public Opinion in The States?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 107-121, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dane G. Wendell & Raymond Tatalovich, 2021. "Classifying public policies with Moral Foundations Theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 155-182, March.
    2. Job P. H. Vossen & Gabriëlle L. Pooter & Petra Meier, 2022. "Conceptualizing morality policy: a dyadic morality frame analysis of a gendered legislative debate on abortion," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 185-207, March.
    3. Anna M. Crawford & Christopher M. Weible, 2024. "The political polarization over abortion: An analysis of advocacy coalition belief systems," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(3), pages 599-620, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Facchini, Giovanni & Hatton, Timothy J. & Steinhardt, Max F., 2024. "Opening Heaven’s Door: Public Opinion and Congressional Votes on the 1965 Immigration Act," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 232-270, March.
    2. Christopher Muller & Daniel Schrage, 2014. "Mass Imprisonment and Trust in the Law," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 651(1), pages 139-158, January.
    3. Wang, Wei & Rothschild, David & Goel, Sharad & Gelman, Andrew, 2015. "Forecasting elections with non-representative polls," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 980-991.
    4. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Bailey, Delia & Blumenau, Jack & Rivers, Douglas, 2020. "Model-based pre-election polling for national and sub-national outcomes in the US and UK," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 399-413.
    5. Kai Hao Yang & Alexander K. Zentefis, 2023. "Extreme Points of First-Order Stochastic Dominance Intervals: Theory and Applications," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2355, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    6. Margaret Weden & Christine Peterson & Jeremy Miles & Regina Shih, 2015. "Evaluating Linearly Interpolated Intercensal Estimates of Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of U.S. Counties and Census Tracts 2001–2009," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 34(4), pages 541-559, August.
    7. Jessica L Espenshade & James D Murdoch & Therese M Donovan & Robert E Manning & Charles A Bettigole & John Austin, 2018. "Public acceptability of development in the Northern Forest of Vermont, USA—The influence of wildlife information, recreation involvement, and demographic characteristics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, December.
    8. Motta, Matt & Callaghan, Timothy & Trujillo, Kristin Lunz, 2022. "“The CDC Won’t Let Me Be.” The Opinion Dynamics of Support for CDC Regulatory Authority," SocArXiv pxrn3, Center for Open Science.
    9. Chris Hanretty & Benjamin E. Lauderdale & Nick Vivyan, 2020. "A Choice‐Based Measure of Issue Importance in the Electorate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 519-535, July.
    10. Iskander De Bruycker & Anne Rasmussen, 2021. "Blessing or Curse for Congruence? How Interest Mobilization Affects Congruence between Citizens and Elected Representatives," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 909-928, July.
    11. Matsusaka, John G., 2017. "When Do Legislators Follow Constituent Opinion? Evidence from Matched Roll Call and Referendum Votes," Working Papers 264, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    12. John G. Matsusaka, 2018. "Public policy and the initiative and referendum: a survey with some new evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 107-143, January.
    13. Caldarulo, Mattia & Mossberger, Karen & Howell, Anthony, 2023. "Community-wide broadband adoption and student academic achievement," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1).
    14. Christopher Claassen & Richard Traunmüller, 2020. "Improving and Validating Survey Estimates of Religious Demography Using Bayesian Multilevel Models and Poststratification," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(3), pages 603-636, August.
    15. Wittels, Annabelle Sophie, 2020. "The effect of politician-constituent conflict on bureaucratic responsiveness under varying information frames," SocArXiv 4x8q2, Center for Open Science.
    16. J. Mitchell Pickerill & Cynthia J. Bowling, 2014. "Polarized Parties, Politics, and Policies: Fragmented Federalism in 2013–2014," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 44(3), pages 369-398.
    17. Skinner, Benjamin T. & Doyle, William R., 2024. "Predicting postsecondary attendance by family income in the United States using multilevel regression with poststratification," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. Laura C. Dawkins & Daniel B. Williamson & Stewart W. Barr & Sally R. Lampkin, 2020. "‘What drives commuter behaviour?': a Bayesian clustering approach for understanding opposing behaviours in social surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(1), pages 251-280, January.
    19. Stefanie Heidrich, 2017. "Intergenerational mobility in Sweden: a regional perspective," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(4), pages 1241-1280, October.
    20. Roberto Cerina & Raymond Duch, 2021. "Polling India via regression and post-stratification of non-probability online samples," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-34, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9336-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.