Study of U.S. Democratic and Republican Senators' Political Framing Strategies on Abortion Rights Based on Social Identity Theory and Framing Effect
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/88jqsb53Keywords:
Abortion Rights, Political Framing, Party Identification.Abstract
Political framing significantly shapes public opinions and legislative outcomes in the United States, making the understanding of Democratic and Republican senators' strategies concerning abortion rights necessary. This study employs Social Identity Theory and Framing Effect to analyze cognitive and affective language patterns, as well as frequent references to specific word count in senators' speeches, using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program. The findings reveal distinct partisan differences: Democrats frequently emphasize women's rights and personal freedoms, while Republicans focus on morality and the sanctity of unborn life. These divergent framing strategies highlight how party affiliation influences the discourse on this contentious issue. The research, using both qualitative and quantitative approaches, underscores the complexity of political communication and the need for nuanced studies to explore how language reflects and shapes political identities and ideologies.
Downloads
References
[1] CClark, C. S., Paluck, E. L., Westwood, S. J., et al. Effects of a US Supreme Court ruling to restrict abortion rights [J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2024, 8: 63–71.
[2] Davis, M. F. The state of abortion rights in the US [J]. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 2022, 159(1): 324-329.
[3] Hess, J. A., & Rueb, J. D. Attitudes toward abortion, religion, and party affiliation among college students [J]. Current Psychology, 2005, 24(1): 24–42.
[4] Naughton, D. C. What influences reproductive rights policy? State abortion restrictions and the level of state democracy [J]. Scholarly Horizons: University of Minnesota, Morris Undergraduate Journal, 2024.
[5] Atikcan, E. Ö., & Hand, K. Moral framing and referendum politics: Navigating the empathy battlefield [J]. Political Psychology, 2023, 45(1): 193-210.
[6] Csiszer, A. Social identity as a tool of sustainable public deliberation [J]. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 2020, 12: 61–[vii].
[7] Brown, J. K., & Hohman, Z. P. Extreme party animals: Effects of political identification and ideological extremity [J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2022, 52(5): 259-401.
[8] Tao, R., Zhang, C., Zhao, H., Xu, Y., Han, T., Dai, M., Zheng, K., Zhang, N., & Xu, S. A negative emotional context disrupts the framing effect on outcome evaluation in decision making under uncertainty: An ERP study [J]. Psychophysiology, 2023, 60: e14207.
[9] Prieto, M., & Verdugo, S. (2021). How political narratives affect the self-enforcing nature of interim constitutions: Assessing challenges and politics of the Chilean constitution-making process [J]. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 13(2-3), 265-293.
[10] Hårstad, R. M. B., & Vik, J. Political parties' framing of farm animal welfare: A fragmented picture [J]. European Policy Analysis, 2023, 9(1): 30-47.
[11] Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Booth, R. J., Ashokkumar, A., & Francis, M. E. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC-22 [M]. Pennebaker Conglomerates, 2022.
[12] Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods [J]. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2010, 29(1): 24-54.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
