Framing Abortion: The Debate in Texas
By Kate Rosenbaum and Thaiss Del Rio
The way an issue is presented carries enormous influence on the politics and policy designs that surround it. Cultural, social, and economic factors and life experiences drive a person’s values and political beliefs, which in turn affect political outcomes. Often, issues are conveyed through multiple or opposing narratives, each seeking to gain political advantage. The topic of abortion is no exception. In fact, it embodies the impact that framing and storytelling have on policy processes.
Take, for example, the most current restrictive abortion law in the United States to date. Texas recently enacted S.B. 8, a law prohibiting abortions once fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which is typically around six weeks of pregnancy and before many people know they are pregnant. Such a ban directly challenges the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision recognizing a constitutional right to abortion until fetal viability, a time generally after 24 weeks gestation. The Texas law went into effect in September 2021, although it faces multiple court challenges ahead.
The Texas abortion ban can be considered a product of decades of anti-abortion and abortion rights rhetoric motivating policy change. These framings have interacted with one another and converged to generate a patchwork of state abortion laws that protect or restrict abortion access depending largely on a state’s politics. In general, although other factors such as religious affiliation play a key role, those who identify as Republican typically oppose abortion rights while Democrats tend to support them.
The ways in which policy problems are framed send signals to others about how to interpret the world and take action on issues they care about. Effective narratives rely on simplified information, ideological appeals, and emotional stories–qualities that are embedded in the abortion debate. We can look to the key narratives surrounding the new Texas law to explore how these types of storytelling ultimately impact policy processes.
A Quick Look at Abortion Laws in the United States
In 1973, the Supreme Court affirmed in Roe v. Wade the right to have an abortion as protected under the right to privacy found in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While this decision was a win for pro-choice activists everywhere, just three short years later Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, banning the use of federal funding to pay for abortions through Medicaid, an act that continues to disproportionately impact low-income women and women of color. Since then, several legal efforts have been made to curtail access to abortion. In fact, 2021 has brought upon the highest number of abortion restrictions the United States has ever had.
Over the years, some states have protected abortion access, however, far more have enacted laws that restrict access to abortion, including targeted restrictions on abortion providers (TRAP) laws, ultrasound requirements, and “trigger laws” that would ban abortion automatically if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court. Some states have passed laws that ban abortions around six to eight weeks or when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, but none have gone into effect. Prior to the new Texas law, no state law successfully banned abortion before 20 weeks. In some instances, states that try to pass abortion restrictions fail due to extreme public pressure. For example, during the Utah State Legislature’s 2020 General Session, H.B. 364–the ultrasound bill–mandated pregnant individuals to receive an ultrasound 72 hours prior to the procedure. During the ultrasound, the medical provider must make the ultrasound images visible and make the fetal heartbeat audible. After passing the Senate, the bill ultimately died without a final vote from the House.
Texas has been one of the nation’s Republican strongholds over the last several decades and the legislature has long supported laws limiting access to abortions. Even before the most recent law banning most abortions, abortion clinics in Texas have declined, spurred by various abortion restrictions. Most notably, a law enacted in 2013 required doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, thereby shuttering many of the state’s abortion clinics. The recent passage and unprecedented nature of Texas’ S.B. 8 reveals the increasing social and political appetite to ban abortion, particularly with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
The Texas Legislature enacted S.B. 8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, in May 2021 and went into effect in September. This measure prohibits abortions as soon as cardiac activity can be detected, which can be as early as six weeks gestation. One new component of the law that has so far protected it from being permanently blocked in court alongside other similar bans, is that private citizens have the primary responsibility of enforcement rather than the state. Anyone can sue a person who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” someone who seeks an abortion after six weeks. If they win the lawsuit, the state will award them with at least $10,000. The Supreme Court originally allowed S.B. 8 to go into effect in September, but it is currently considering a challenge. The Court hasn’t announced a date by which they expect to have an opinion, so, for now, abortions after six weeks remain banned in Texas.
As abortion rights and anti-abortion rhetoric evolves and diverges over time, we start to see a puzzling landscape of opposing narratives, each seeking a political edge. The Narrative Policy Framework can help make sense of these complex interactions and the way they ultimately impact policy decisions.
The Narrative Policy Framework
Narratives carry a lot of weight in politics. They condense complex societal problems into simplified stories that intentionally provoke certain feelings and inspire preferred outcomes. The Narrative Policy Framework argues that people employ consistent and specific narrative strategies seeking to influence people’s core beliefs and encourage particular solutions. It suggests that public opinion relies less on policy details than on the telling of a good story that can appeal to an audience’s fundamental values. This policy framework is particularly relevant in a world of immediate access to information, where emotional stories are constantly circulated and inflammatory content is rewarded. As they can motivate real change by reinforcing and exploiting cognitive biases, narratives are incredibly powerful.
According to the Narrative Policy Framework, stories contain four main elements: a setting, at least one character, a plot, and the moral, which often includes the ultimate solution to the policy problem. The setting involves a specific policy context in which a problem is occurring–for example, current legal or constitutional parameters, socioeconomic conditions, and other factors. Within the setting, policy narratives always have at least one character who acts or is acted upon. Characters typically include a villain, who does the harm; a victim, who is harmed; or a hero, who provides relief from the harm, although there can be others, such as beneficiaries or allies, who benefit from the policy solution or support the hero. These individuals, groups, or agencies interact with one another through the plot and end up at the moral–which can involve a policy solution or an intermediary step.
The abortion debate involves many different narratives, but each contain the elements of the Narrative Policy Framework. This article focuses on the two most fundamental, pro-choice and pro-life, and their role in the recent effort to ban abortion in Texas.
The Pro-Choice Narrative
Pro-choice individuals and advocacy coalitions deem abortion to be a universal human right. The narratives central to pro-choice lie on the fundamental principles of choice, autonomy, and human rights. Pro-choice emphasizes that anyone who wants to should have the opportunity to access safe and high-quality abortion care, as it is their human right to do so. Letting people decide what they want to do with their own bodies empowers them to take control over other aspects of their lives. Additionally, pro-choice highlights that abortion is a deeply personal decision made between the pregnant individual and their health care provider, and that those who seek to have an abortion should have the ability to do so without government infringement. Framing abortion through a lens of free will allows individuals and organizations alike to reconstruct abortion as a personal and health care issue, rather than a moral one. Due to the inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the abortion debate, pro-choice activists and organizations work towards destigmatizing abortion and removing the shame that pro-life activists often attach to those individuals who seek it. Doing so shifts the negative associations of abortion and frames it as a core aspect to an individual’s overall reproductive care, while simultaneously emphasizing the positive possibilities that come from receiving an abortion.
Narrative policy framework reveals that narratives play an important role in the policy process, and the way a story is told is told is as important as the advocacy work being done. Therefore, story telling is a critical mechanism in the fight for abortion access and expansion. The Narrative Policy Framework communicates a policy issue through the specific elements of characters, setting, plot, and moral. In the context of reproductive rights, elements work together to complement one another and relay to the audience the importance of expanding and providing abortion services. The pro-choice stance views anti-choice politicians and organizations as the villains of the story who only care about dominating and controlling the lives and bodies of women and individuals who seek abortion. Women and families are framed as the victims, and pro-choice politicians, organizations, and to an extent women themselves are deemed the heroes.
Pro-choice narratives can be effective in helping shape policy outcomes. Framing abortion as a public health and civil rights issue aids in mobilization efforts and coalition building with other groups who are equally focused on protecting the civil rights and liberties of people. Another effective strategy that the pro-choice movement elicits is its reliance on facts and appeals to logic when discussing abortion. Common to the pro-choice narrative is the use of evidence-based practices, gestation timeline, and other scientific framing that allows for the removal of emotionally-charged rhetoric. However, that is not to say that personal storytelling is not important. Deep and personal stories of individuals who made the decision of getting an abortion are also a critical component of humanizing the abortion debate. When individuals discuss the positive aspects of getting an abortion they are able to create real empathetic connections with others while simultaneously destigmatizing abortion.
The Pro-Life Narrative
Those who identify as pro-life oppose abortion because they view it as taking the life of a human being. Pro-lifers believe that everyone has the fundamental right to life, which begins at conception, and that any unjust deprivation of life through abortion is morally wrong, no matter the circumstances. At its core, the pro-life narrative involves a framing centered around religious beliefs, fetal personhood, and tremendous emotional appeal — with a particularly narrow and strategic focus on what happens inside the womb. The pro-life frame considers the fetus to have a separate autonomy from the pregnant person, with the same legal rights. Once an unborn child starts growing, the mother has no right to take its life; the pregnant person has no right greater than the right to be born.
In the contemporary context of the Narrative Policy Framework, the pro-life stance views abortion providers and abortion-rights activists as villains, women and unborn children as victims, and pro-life supporters and mothers as heroes. These characters interact in a political landscape where abortions continue to occur legally. Villains exploit and harm women and unborn children, while the heroes do their best to protect life through advocacy and various types of abortion restrictions. The primary solution seeks to protect all human lives by ultimately overturning Roe v. Wade and preventing abortions from occurring.
Pro-life narrative can be considered effective for several reasons. Based on strong conceptions of right and wrong and like most narrative strategies, the framing packages complex issues into simple terms that are easier to understand and market. For example, once a person views a heartbeat as a human life and a fetus as an unborn child, it’s easier to malign abortion. The pro-life movement leans heavily on fundamental Christian beliefs that all human life is a sacred gift from God. By appealing to religion, the narrative attracts a coalition with deeply held ideologies, one that already plays an active and motivating role in the political sphere. Finally, it utilizes emotional stories meant to illicit strong reactions against abortion, including stories of inspiration about women who choose not to have an abortion, and tragic stories about women who regret having abortions or appalling medical procedures such as “partial birth abortions.”
The Narratives around Texas’s Abortion Law
Abortion is a topic that has always been steeped in ardent–and mostly partisan–narratives in Texas. Although a red state, Texas has its share of pro-choice activists who interact with the state’s robust pro-life coalitions, particularly throughout the consideration and passage of S.B. 8. Both parties employed certain narrative strategies that successfully appealed to Texan’s core beliefs and inspired various political and intermediary outcomes.
The Fight Against S.B. 8
Since the enactment of S.B. 8, pro-choice activists and organizations alike have gathered to protest against the bill and spread awareness of its unconstitutionality. Several notable organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the Center for Reproductive Rights and more have filed lawsuits challenging Texas’ Heartbeat Act. Advocacy coalitions have framed S.B. 8 as an attack on reproductive care and an individual’s constitutional right to abortion.
Stories have been a critical component in humanizing individuals who get abortions and those who support its protection and expansion. In late September, the House Oversight Committee heard testimonials from some of the women legislators who received an abortion and their fear of Roe v. Wade being overturned. The testimonies held a consistent framing and narrative of abortion as one that emphasized universal human rights and individual bodily autonomy. Testifiers also framed S.B. 8 as a transgression on an individual’s right to privacy and a weapon of control, further illuminating the breach of power and abuse of the bill. Furthermore, in a guest appearance on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi stated the inevitable consequences S.B. 8 will have on pregnant individuals in Texas:
My colleagues are asking if they`re still allowed to treat an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage. They`re worried they will have to delay life saving care for people who are very sick. They`re worried about all of the possible chronic conditions that can worsen in pregnancy but not worsen enough to warrant an exception under this law. S.B. 8…has made it extremely dangerous to be pregnant in Texas where our maternal morbidity rate and mortality rate is already unconscionably high especially for black women and pregnant people of color.
Pro-choice narratives emphasize the deeply private and personal choice of getting an abortion as one that is made between the individual and their healthcare provider. Medical doctors and physicians who support abortion note that the government prioritizes ideology over a patient-provider approach to abortion, S.B. 8 being no different. Several pro-choice advocates have made it clear that the Texas Legislature has interfered in an individual’s decision to get an abortion and that S.B. 8 is in clear violation of Roe. v. Wade
In a different narrative approach, over 50 companies spoke out against Texas’ S.B. 8 in a signed national statement published in late September. The narrative used in the statement indicates the notion that abortion is reproductive care and that any attempt to restrict abortion negatively impacts the economy and its workers. Companies who signed on to this statement including Yelp, Netflix, Lyft, and Bumble, spoke to the economic losses that Texas has experienced on their labor force due to abortion restrictions, adding on that it has cost the State of Texas nearly $15 billion annually. Framing S.B. 8 through an economic lens offers an appeal to logos and facts, and helps steer the conversation and framing of abortion from one that focuses on emotional appeal.
In Support of S.B. 8
Prominent pro-life advocacy coalitions including Texas Right to Life, Human Coalition Action, and Texas Alliance for Life also played a major role in the policy process surrounding the state’s latest abortion ban. These groups were involved in a 2020 Interim Report that included findings and recommendations on how Texas could further protect the lives of the unborn, and they provided testimony during public hearings for SB 8. Throughout conversations about the bill’s passage and in the bill language, key pro-life narrative strategies are evident.
One main component of pro-life rhetoric relies on strategically important language, for example, using the term “unborn child” instead of “fetus.” The Texas Heartbeat Act only contains the term “fetus” to define the term “unborn child,” which is used throughout the bill more than fifteen times. During a Senate State Affairs Committee meeting, a witness from Human Coalition Action testified in support of the bill and stated that the term “fetus” should be avoided because it mischaracterizes unborn children as less than human. Strategic use of language like this has been shown to successfully shape attitudes around abortion by, as recognized by the advocacy group, attributing humanity to the unborn.
In other instances during testimony, pro-life witnesses consistently simplified medically-complex concepts for broad appeal. For example, many referred to fetal cardiac activity as a “heartbeat,” when medical experts describe what’s happening as a much more complicated phenomenon. Heartbeats have often become a crux in the abortion debate, with pro-lifers equating its existence with viability. At one point during witness testimony for S.B. 8, a sonographer played audio of two fetal heartbeats for the Committee — one older than 24 weeks and the other at six weeks gestation. The sonographer testified there was no audible difference between the sound of the two heartbeats, imploring the committee: why is one heartbeat protected and the other isn’t? Although this and many other state laws refer to “fetal heartbeats,” the term is more legal and political than medical, and is intended to pull on people’s heartstrings. Such emotional appeals that personify a fetus often elicit moving responses that are effective in undermining the rhetorical and legal foundations of abortion.
In addition to advocacy coalitions, members of the public also testified in favor of the Texas Heartbeat Act. Many quoted bible verses extensively and made claims culturally resonant with Christian values. The pro-life movement and negative ideas about abortion are strongly aligned with religion, particularly those in Christian denominations. Many popular pro-life narratives, particularly those employed by public commenters in Texas, are rooted in Christian scripture that teaches life is sacred and promotes “family values”–appeals that have been seen to motivate activism around abortion.
One final interesting component of the bill’s rhetoric is that its unique strategy of enforcement specifically punishes abortion providers and others who may be involved in aiding an abortion–except for the pregnant women themselves; abortion patients can’t be sued under the law. This concept aligns with studies of pro-life narratives that have experienced a shift in the characterization of women in the abortion debate, in which pro-lifers are now donned “pro-woman” after historically viewing women receiving abortions as villains. Instead of being viewed negatively and punished for seeking abortions, this bill reinforces a newer pro-life concept that women who consider abortion are not bad, they are simply taken advantage of by abortion-rights groups. One witness testified that S.B. 8 protects women because it “prevents illicit use of others who would benefit from the loss of a woman’s baby, such as sex traffickers, incestuous abusers, and coercive partners.” Such “pro-woman” strategies have been seen to unify pro-life movements and have succeeded in appealing to broader audiences, furthering the movement’s salience in political environments.
Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Narrative Successes and Challenges
The pro-choice and pro-life narratives each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and have experienced various successes in influencing policy change. Abortion is such an emotionally-charged issue that is already bound to one’s existing core beliefs; the way it is framed can carry enormous power to either shift or strengthen individual policy preferences.
The pro-choice movement has been incredibly successful in executing demonstrations across the nation, mobilizing and organizing thousands of people. In early October, the Women’s March held a nationwide march ignited by Texas’ Heartbeat Act. While the main event was in Washington D.C., over 600 “sister marches” were held in cities across the U.S. Notable activists, politicians, and celebrities took the stage to share their stories and encourage others to do the same while also speaking to their legislators about protecting Roe v. Wade. The impact of the pro-choice movement has been momentous, with 61% of American supporting abortion during the first trimester.
To the extent that the pro-choice narrative is effective, it also has a semi-lacking ability to include a broader audience of individuals who seek abortion. Often, abortion narratives are constructed around individuals who identify as cisgender women. This narrative erases the reality and experiences of many non-binary and transmen individuals who are also affected state-enacted anti-abortion laws. Furthermore, the notion of choice often ignores the many low-income women of color who are disproportionately impacted by targeted restrictions on abortion providers (TRAP) and other anti-abortion laws. Despite this, several activists from these communities are doing the work to make the pro-choice movement, and more largely the reproductive justice movement inclusive of more individuals, those often left out of the conversation.
Meanwhile, the-pro life narrative is salient because it aligns strongly with people’s fundamental values, particularly alongside the broader conservative ideology. This movement and its narrative framework have successfully motivated policy changes across the United States in the form of various types of legal abortion restrictions, culminating in the highest amount this year compared to any year since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The success of the pro-life movement is particularly evident not only in the passage of the Texas Heartbeat Act, but in the way the law has so far remained in effect and prevented abortions from occurring past six weeks in Texas.
While pro-life narratives resonate with many, it has shortfalls. For one, there is an obvious discrepancy between support for government action to restrict abortion and the typical conservative ideology of individual freedom without government infringement. In the context of S.B. 8, perhaps the pro-life movement avoids this inconsistency by having individuals rather than the state enforcing the law.
There is also the critique that the pro-life movement is “pro-birth” rather than “pro-life.” This concept captures the incongruity of claiming to value the sanctity of life above all else, yet withholding support from programs that safeguard the health of families and children after birth, such as Medicaid and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
Although such critiques of hypocrisy in in the pro-life movement are not lost on many members of the public, it is clear that pro-life narratives not only persist, but they motivate real change. Perhaps the abortion debate is easier to package as a moral, binary choice rather than a highly complex public health and civil rights issue.
Where Do We Go from Here?
The ultimate fate of the Texas abortion law is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Anti-abortion and abortion-rights narratives have long interacted with one another, each appealing to their audience’s fundamental beliefs to influence political outcomes through strategic narratives and frames. Pro-choice framing, which emphasizes a broader outlook on reproductive justice and the overall health and socioeconomic wellbeing of individuals across their lifespan, relies on logic and evidence-based appeals. Meanwhile, pro-life rhetoric leans on emotional and ideological appeals with a narrow focus on the unborn child while it’s in the womb. Each has been successful in its own way, whether it be the passage or reinstatement of legal abortion restrictions, or action taken to temporarily block the new law or otherwise support abortion rights elsewhere.
While the future of abortion rights in Texas and nationwide is unclear at this moment in time, we can be sure of one thing: whatever legal decisions are made, they are likely to energize each side of the abortion debate and inspire even further policy change.
