Interactive Framing Dynamics and Ideological Boundaries in the American Abortion Debate A ...

258 Pages·2015·1.17 MB·English

by  Christopher Park

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 of instances where activists blur ideological boundaries between
movements—in an attempt to weaken their opponents’ claims on certain language or
imagery that is damaging to their movement—and in doing so, I argue, risk weakening
the collective identification of movement adherents.

5
Chapter 1
Social Movement Framing Theory
Social movement framing is a strategic process—deliberative, utilitarian, and
goal directed (Benford and Snow 2000). Social movement organizations (SMOs) are
actively engaged in the production of meaning. The very purpose of a social movement is
to present a different meaning to some specific problem or situation and to convince
observers to favor their interpretation of events (Snow and Benford 1988, Benford 1993,
Gamson 1992, Rose 2011). SMOs seek to control the images and language related to
their cause, and these efforts evolve over time. Some movement actors may attempt to
redefine the meaning of certain words and thereby create new ways of seeing the world
(Benford and Snow 2000, Feree 2003, Staggenborg 1995). Based on the work of
Goffman (1974), social movement scholars call this process “framing.” The concept of
“framing” is now conceived as central to understanding social movements and implies a
dynamic, evolving process, which grants agency to movement actors in the construction
of reality (Snow et al. 1986, Benford and Snow 2000). Through this framing process,
social movement actors “attempt to construct shared meaning about who we are, how the
world is, and how it should be” (Esacove 2004). When a movement actor proposes a new
way to interpret the social world, they intentionally challenge previous understandings.
This strategic deployment of frames results in what has been termed a “collective action
frame.” The purpose of collection action frames is “to mobilize potential adherents and
6
constituents, to garner bystander support, and to demobilize antagonists” (Snow and
Benford 1988:198).
In the creation of a collective action frame, social movement organizations must
first identify the problem and decide whom to blame (“diagnostic framing”), propose
alternatives (“prognostic framing”), and encourage others to join (“motivational
framing”) (Snow and Benford 1988). “Prognostic framing” involves an agreed upon plan
of action to address to problem. “Motivational framing” entails what Gamson (1995)
refers to as the “agency” component of framing and provides a rationale for engaging in
collective action.

Counterframing
Framing is not a one-way process, but is always negotiated and contested by an
SMO’s interaction with supporters, opponents, and the media, as well by changes in
public opinion and available resources (Meyer and Staggenborg 2008). Additionally,
critical political events, such as changes in legislation, court rulings, or elections
influence movements’ actions. Movements must continually adjust their framing and
tactics in response to these interactions and events—many of which cannot be predicted
(Meyer and Staggenborg 2008). Frames are strategically created, but always within a pre-
established framework. A social movement cannot simply project any version of reality
and be accepted, but is challenged from both outside and within the movement (Benford
and Snow 2000). Additionally, cultural and political constraints restrict the types of
framing that social movement organizations can draw on. Counterframing entails a
7