Interactive Framing Dynamics and Ideological Boundaries in the American Abortion Debate

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy Interactive Framing Dynamics and Ideological Boundaries in the American Abortion Debate A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Kia Heise IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dr. Teresa Swartz, Dr. Lisa Park August 2015 © Kia Heise 2015 Table of Contents i. Introduction……………………………………………………………………..1 ii. Chapter 1 Social Movement Framing Theory…………………………………......................6 iii. Chapter 2 Pro-Life And Pro-Choice Framing And Counterframing Processes…………….20 iv. Chapter 3 Case #1: Abortion as Good Mothering: Claiming a “Moral Framework” for Abortion Rights ………………………………………………………………….56 a. Framing Abortion As Good Mothering…………………………………73 b. Testing the Boundaries of “Moral” Choices……………………………..88 v. Chapter 4 Case #2: Abortion as Black Genocide: Claiming Racism in the Pro-Life Movement………………………………………………………………………112 a. The Conflicting Racial Ideologies of the Black Pro-Life Leaders: Victimhood, Pathology, and Colorblindness…………………………...150 b. Narratives of Racial Authenticity and Betrayal in the Abortion as ‘Black Genocide’ Debate……………………………………………………….184 vi. Conclusion: The Risks of Blurred Boundaries: Exploiting Weakness, Filling the Gaps, Using the Language of the Opposition...………………………………...219 vii. Bibliography…………...………………………………………………………224 viii. Appendices...…………………………………………………………………..234 i Introduction While the ideologies of the pro-life and pro-choice movements are seemingly diametrically opposed, their framing strategies over time are deeply interconnected, resulting in a blurring of ideological boundaries between the movements. Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, the pro-life and pro-choice movements have been constantly engaged in a process of framing and counterframing, with each movement gaining political advantages at different times in the last 40 years (Rohlinger 2006, McCaffrey and Keys 2000, Esacove 2004). Successful counterframing forces a social movement to reframe or clarify their argument, and in this interaction, the pro-life and pro-choice movements have, at times, borrowed from and co-opted the language of the opposing movement, which can be advantageous or hazardous to a movement’s success (Benford and Snow 2000). In this dissertation, I illustrate the interactive nature of strategic framing processes of the American pro-life and pro-choice movements and the process whereby movements borrow and co-opt language and imagery from opposing movements. Illustrated by two case studies of reactive and strategic counterframing in the pro-choice and pro-life movements, I show how such framing complicates the boundaries between these movements’ ideologies. What was once demarcated as progressive becomes a champion of conservative causes and vice versa. I extend social movement theories of interactive framing processes and boundary demarcation by contributing an analysis of instances 1 where activists blur ideological boundaries between movements and risk weakening the collective identification of movement adherents. I have identified two “cases” that exemplify this interactive framing process and the subsequent blurring of ideological boundaries between the pro-life and pro-choice movements—1) pro-choice activists framing abortion as “good mothering” and 2) pro- life activists framing abortion as “Black genocide.” First, I explore the historical and cultural context of each framing strategy, as well as the motivations and goals of the movement actors utilizing them. Then, in the case of framing abortion as “good mothering,” I explore how pro-choice movement activists attempt to respond to countermovement attacks by reframing abortion using the language of “good mothers” and “morality” traditionally used by the politically conservative pro-life movement. In the case of framing abortion as “Black genocide,” I explore how pro-life movement activists attempt reframe abortion using the language of racism and inequality traditionally associated with politically liberal civil rights activists. I argue that as each movement responds to countermovement threats by borrowing and co-opting language and imagery from the opposing movement, the ideological boundaries between the pro- life and pro-choice movements are blurred. Blurred boundaries threaten the stability of each movement by weakening collective identity ties and risk marginalizing and alienating certain movement adherents 2 In PART ONE of this dissertation, I argue that the framing of abortion as “good mothering” is a response to the success of the pro-life rhetoric that frames women who abort as bad mothers. This case study illustrates the interconnected nature of framing and counterframing processes. By attempting to frame women who abort as good mothers making moral choices, the pro-choice actors utilize the culturally resonant values of good motherhood and child-centered choices that have been central to pro-life framing over the years (Snow and Benford 1988). In this way, they hope to destigmatize abortion and abortion patients using language of the pro-life movement and expand the boundaries of “morality” to include abortion. This framing tactically avoids the “choice” and personal autonomy frameworks of the mainstream pro-choice movement, which have been consistently attacked and weakened since their emergence after Roe v. Wade. The pro- choice advocates using this framework hope to mobilize support for abortion rights from that segment of potential adherents who are uncomfortable with viewing abortion as simply a woman’s personal choice or legal right. However, their framing abortion as moral and women who chose abortion as responsible marginalizes the many women who fall outside of the realm of “good mothers” making “responsible choices” for their children. In my analysis, I show that, while framing abortion as good mothering acknowledges women’s emotional connections to their fetuses and responds to a feminist call for destigmatizing abortion through a “moral framework,” it may also pose a significant risk to the larger movement. This case study contributes to our understanding of the framing/counterframing process by exploring the risks of responding to countermovement attacks “on their terms” (Benford and Snow 2000). While such 3 reframing provides an opportunity to mobilize new supporters, it may be just as likely to alienate core constituents (Ferree 2003). Because movement activists under attack are seeking to restore their movement’s moral status, they are likely to reframe their movement using culturally resonant language of the successful countermovement. In doing so, they may contradict or challenge their movement’s core ideologies and divide the movement. I draw on theories of boundary framing and collective identity to show how this interactive and reactive framing blurs the ideological boundaries between the pro-choice and pro-life movements. In PART TWO of this dissertation, I argue that the re-emergence of “abortion as Black genocide” framing in the anti-abortion movement should be understood as a response to the rise of the reproductive justice movement led by women of color that criticizes the pro-choice movement for ignoring racism within its ranks. This case study also illustrates the interconnected nature of the framing and counterframing processes in the abortion debate. By framing abortion as “Black genocide” these pro-life movement activists are attempting to mobilize greater support among African Americans and utilize the increased focus on race in the abortion debate to their advantage. They claim that Black Americans are specifically targeted for extinction by the government and Planned Parenthood. These activists, many of whom are African Americans, draw on the history of racially discriminatory population control programs and the relatively high rate of abortion in the Black community today to argue that abortion is a continuation of racist eugenic practices stretching back to slavery in the United States. In their degree of credibility and salience to African Americans, this frame is hypothetically likely to 4 appeal to the targets of mobilization. However, I argue this proposed frame extension deeply conflicts with the racial ideologies of conservative Republicans—the pro-life movement’s core constituents—in its focus on race and racism. In order for a frame to have resonance, it must be credible, and credibility depends on three factors: frame consistency, empirical credibility, and credibility of the frame articulators or claimsmakers (Benford and Snow 2000). I suggest that the ‘Black genocide’ frames lacks consistency as well as credibility with both conservative Republicans and Black civil rights leaders. This research contributes to our understanding of the framing/counterframing process by exploring the risks of frame extensions that tactically utilize the language of the opposition and risk blurring the boundaries between the opposing movements and alienating certain key constituents. These cases illustrate the difficulty of boundary demarcation when language, imagery, and framing that were once associated with the pro-life movement become associated with the pro-choice movement and vice versa. Thus, interactive counterframing confuses and shifts boundaries. In this research, I extend social movement theories of interactive framing and boundary demarcation processes by contributing an analysis

Load more