Health Care or Murder: A Study of Partisan Abortion Rhetoric and its Effects on Beliefs

Abstract

Prior research has explored the impact of framing on individuals’ perception and public opinion. In the context of abortion, framing has been an influential tool for pro-choice and pro- life groups to influence their presentation of their beliefs and shape public opinion. With the recent developments in abortion regulations on the national level, it is ever important to explore how national partisan debates shape public opinion. The main question that this thesis focuses on is whether or not partisan rhetoric about abortion influences and polarizes U.S. adults’ stance on abortion regulations. This thesis approaches this question through the examination of the effect of exposure to partisan framing on stance, attentiveness, and general belief. For stance, it focuses on partisan rhetoric, ideology, and party identification. For attentiveness and general belief, it focuses on demographic factors like age, gender, income, and education. This work hopes to present a better understanding of how different demographics of the general U.S. population stand on their view of abortion, from neutral to having extreme beliefs. Particularly, it provides insight into the limits of partisan abortion rhetoric on influencing constituents during a time where abortion is a topic of high interest in the political scene. The research was based on data collected through a survey experiment. The survey was fielded through CINT and recruited 1222 nationally representative participants across the United States. Respondents were randomly presented with one of three vignettes consisting of a liberal pro-choice rhetoric on abortion, a conservative pro-life rhetoric on abortion, and a medical explanation of abortion. The data and analysis highlighted a few important findings about partisan abortion rhetoric and public opinion. The first and most significant was that the general U.S. adult population was not significantly affected by exposure to a pro-choice or pro-life rhetoric on abortion, despite the use of framing by organizations in the past to skew public opinion. In addition, women held significantly more polarized views of abortion regulations than men. And although liberals and Democrats were more likely to believe that abortion should be legal, the level of attentiveness to and awareness of the national abortion debate did not vary based on ideology. These findings demonstrate the limits of partisan rhetoric in influencing public opinion and how difficult it is for politicians to push for and pass legislation that do not align with the public opinion, especially since it is difficult to alter public opinion just by using partisan language in an attempt to ignite emotion or opposition. It is clear that for both the Democratic and Republican Party, efforts to push for a specific framing of abortion on news outlets and media is not the best way to secure a solid voter base. And if the Democratic Party wishes to protect and expand support for abortion access, they need to focus on more tangible efforts like voter registration, getting out the vote, legal protection, and increasing access to abortion funds, rather than entrenching a specific narrative to garner more widespread support for reproductive rights.