Abstract
This article questions the use of morality frames and gender stereotypes in discoursing about abortion. The morality policy literature puts abortion forward as the paradigmatic example of its object of investigation. Yet, as heated as abortion debates can get, the issue is not always manifest in the spotlight. We argue salience of the issue depends on active politicization through morality frames. This contribution aims to further the understanding of policy (de)moralization by starting from a gap in the morality policy literature. Morality itself, although fundamental, remains under-theorized in the morality policy literature and is hardly ever operationalized using evidence-based theory. Instead, the positivist school in the morality policy literature assumes morality policy derives its qualification from referring to substantive first-principles, that is, to innate characteristics of a policy. Although the constructivist school holds morality policy is better understood as morality frames, they tacitly build on the definition provided by the positivists. This definition erroneously assumes that morality remains stable for different issues across cultures and over time. We take up a structuralist constructivist approach that shifts focus from the content of morality policy onto the form in which it appears. Abolishing the binary distinction between morality and non-morality renders each political issue, theoretically, a latent morality policy. We demonstrate our proposed approach benefits both the literature on framing and on morality policy by investigating a key abortion debate. Our results suggest (conservative) opponents use immorality frames, whereas (progressive) advocates deploy morality frames. We conclude by highlighting avenues for future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
This is little surprising if one considers politics fundamentally as moralistic endeavor, simply put, with progressives seeking to bring change for the (morally) good and conservatives from preventing change for the (morally) worst.
N.B., we here and hereafter refer to the object of abortion as fetus, but we mean also to include embryos before they have reached this developmental stage.
That is not to say the concept biological sex is not likewise a social construct that is subject to framing processes. For a detailed and critical discussion on this binary distinction and its inadequacy to account for various experiences and performances of gender (roles and identities), see: Ainsworth (2015), Butler (1988), and Cuddy et al. (2002).
Belgian Federal Parliament (1990).
Belgian Federal Parliament (2018).
Belgian Federal Parliament (2019d) Articles that passed during the first reading: art. 1, which deals with a constitutional matter; art. 2, which states the conditions under which abortion is legally permitted; art. 3, which is concerned with obstruction of abortion; and art. 4, which deals with the changing of a phrase.
Belgian Federal Parliament (2019b).
Belgian Federal Parliament (2019a).
Belgian Federal Parliament (2019c).
References
Bacchi, C., & Eveline, J. (2010). Mainstreaming politics: Gendering practices and feminist theory. University of Adelaide Press.
Bacchi, C. (2017). Policies as gendering practices: Re-viewing categorical distinctions. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 38(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1198207
Baumgartner, F. R., Linn, S., & Boydstun, A. E. (2009). The decline of the death penalty: How media framing changed capital punishment in America. In Winning with Words (pp. 171–196): Routledge.
Bill to Ease Conditions for Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy: Articles accepted during the first reading, Belgian Federal Parliament (2019d).
Bill to Ease Conditions for Termination of Pregnancy: Amendment submitted during the second reading, Belgian Federal Parliament (2019a).
Bill to Ease Conditions for Termination of Pregnancy: Report of the second reading, Belgian Federal Parliament (2019c).
Bill to Ease Conditions for Termination of Pregnancy: report of the first reading, Belgian Federal Parliament (2019b).
Bosma, A. K., Mulder, E., Pemberton, A., & Vingerhoets, A. J. (2018). Observer reactions to emotional victims of serious crimes: Stereotypes and expectancy violations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(9), 957–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1467910
Calkin, S., & Kaminska, M. E. (2020). Persistence and change in morality policy: The role of the Catholic Church in the politics of abortion in Ireland and Poland. Feminist Review, 124(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141778919894451
Celis, K., & Coene, G. (2016). Still a woman’s right? In: S. De Zordo, J. Mishtal, & L. Anton (Eds.), A fragmented landscape: Abortion governance and protest logics in Europe (Vol. 20, pp. 123–143): Berghahn Books.
Celis, K. (2013). De Legalisering van Abortus in België: Een Vertegenwoordigingsvraagstuk. In G. Coene & S. Bollen (Eds.), Nog Altijd Baas in Eigen Buik? Een Kritische Doorlichting van de Belgische Abortuswetgeving-en praktijk (pp. 23–64). VUBPRESS.
Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities: Polity.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Crimes and offences against family and against public morality, Belgian Federal Parliament (1867).
Donnay, F., Bregentzer, A., Leemans, P., Verougstraete, A., & Vekemans, M. (1993). Safe abortions in an illegal context: Perceptions from service providers in Belgium. Studies in Family Planning. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939230
Engeli, I., Green-Pedersen, C., & Larsen, L. T. (2012). Morality politics in Western Europe: Parties, agendas and policy choices. Springer.
Engeli, I. (2019). Gender and sexuality research in the age of populism: Lessons for political science. European Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-019-00223-3
Erzeel, S. (2012). Women’s substantive representation in the Belgian chamber of representatives: Testing the added value of a ‘claims-making’approach. World Political Science, 8(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1515/wpsr-2012-0009
Farris, S. R. (2017). In the name of women’s rights: The rise of femonationalism. Duke University Press.
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Rucht, D., & Gerhards, J. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge University Press.
Ferree, M. M. (2003). Resonance and radicalism: Feminist framing in the abortion debates of the United States and Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 109(2), 304–344. https://doi.org/10.1086/378343
Fischer, A. H. (1993). Sex differences in emotionality: Fact or stereotype? Feminism & Psychology, 3(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353593033002
Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (2010). Handbook of social psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
Foucault, M. (1961). [2003]). Routledge.
Gilbert, P. R. (2002). Discourses of female violence and societal gender stereotypes. Violence against Women, 8(11), 1271–1300. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102762478019
Goffman, E. (1979). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 39(4), 601–602. https://doi.org/10.2307/2106908
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and Schuster Inc.
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847
Gray, K., Schein, C., & Ward, A. F. (2014). The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036149
Gray, K., Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2012a). The moral dyad: A fundamental template unifying moral judgment. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 206–215.
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012b). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.651387
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Meier, K. J. (1996). The politics of gay and lesbian rights: Expanding the scope of the conflict. The Journal of Politics, 58(2), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960229
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
Hutson-Comeaux, S. L., & Kelly, J. R. (2002). Gender stereotypes of emotional reactions: How we judge an emotion as valid. Sex Roles, 47(1–2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020657301981
Knill, C., Fernández-i-Marín, X., Budde, E., & Heichel, S. (2020). Religious tides: The time-variant effect of religion on morality policies. Regulation & Governance, 14(2), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12203
Knill, C., Preidel, C., & Nebel, K. (2014). Brake rather than barrier: The impact of the Catholic Church on morality policies in Western Europe. West European Politics, 37(5), 845–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.909170
Kreitzer, R. J. (2015). Politics and morality in state abortion policy. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 15(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440014561868
Law concerning Termination of Pregnancy, Belgian Federal Parliament (1990).
Law concerning Termination of Pregnancy: Removal of Articles 350 and 351 in Criminal Law, Modification of Articles 352 and 383 in Criminal Law and Various Modifications to Statutory Provisions, Belgian Federal Parliament (2018).
Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (2010). Handbook of emotions. Guilford Press.
Lindaman, K., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2002). Issue evolution, political parties, and the culture wars. Political Research Quarterly, 55(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290205500104
Masser, B., Lee, K., & McKimmie, B. M. (2010). Bad woman, bad victim? Disentangling the effects of victim stereotypicality, gender stereotypicality and benevolent sexism on acquaintance rape victim blame. Sex Roles, 62(7–8), 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9648-y
Mooney, C. Z., & Schuldt, R. G. (2008). Does morality policy exist? Testing a basic assumption. Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00262.x
Mucciaroni, G. (2011). Are debates about “morality policy” really about morality? Framing opposition to gay and lesbian rights. Policy Studies Journal, 39(2), 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00404.x
Mucciaroni, G., Ferraiolo, K., & Rubado, M. E. (2019). Framing morality policy issues: State legislative debates on abortion restrictions. Policy Sciences, 52(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9336-2
Mulder, E., Pemberton, A., & Vingerhoets, A. J. (2020). The feminizing effect of sexual violence in third-party perceptions of male and female victims. Sex Roles, 82(1–2), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01036-w
Norris, R. J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2020). Framing innocence: An experimental test of the effects of wrongful convictions on public opinion. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16(2), 311–334.
Oplinus, L. (2018). ’Nieuwe’abortuswet ziet na 28 jaar levenslicht. De Juristenkrant, 375, 5–5.
Peterson, V. S. (1999). Political identities/nationalism as heterosexism. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1(1), 34–65.
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
Ridgeway, C. L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender & Society, 23(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243208330313
Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317698288
Singh, J. (2015). Religious agency and the limits of intersectionality. Hypatia, 30(4), 657–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12182
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1(1), 197–217.
Solinger, R. (1998). Abortion wars: A half century of struggle, 1950–2000. Univ of California Press.
Studlar, D. T., & Burns, G. J. (2015). Toward the permissive society? Morality policy agendas and policy directions in Western democracies. Policy Sciences, 48(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9218-9
Studlar, D. T., Cagossi, A., & Duval, R. D. (2013). Is morality policy different? Institutional explanations for post-war Western Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.761503
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 531–541.
Tribe, L. H. (1990). Abortion: The clash of absolutes. Norton & Co.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1984). Judgment under uncertainty, Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(1), 124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Van Dijk, J. (2009). Free the victim: A critique of the western conception of victimhood. International Review of Victimology, 16(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800901600101
Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00329.x
Vekemans, M., & Dohmen, B. (1982). Induced abortion in Belgium: Clinical experience and psychosocial observations. Studies in Family Planning. https://doi.org/10.2307/1966329
Weber, M. (1904). Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy. In E. Shils & H. Finch (Eds.), The Methodology of the Social Sciences: New York: Free Press.
Wegner, D. M., & Gray, K. (2016). The mind club. Viking.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Research Fund of the University of Antwerp (BOF DOC PRO 2018—FFB180198).
Funding
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vossen, J.P.H., de Pooter, G.L. & Meier, P. Conceptualizing morality policy: a dyadic morality frame analysis of a gendered legislative debate on abortion. Policy Sci 55, 185–207 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09449-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09449-3