•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The legal landscape surrounding reproductive rights is in flux, and direct democracy is a method by which increasingly informed and connected citizen voters are able to skirt perceived slowmoving or biased legislatures. Myriad factors shape state-level referendums, including social movements that intersect with gender ideology to challenge or defend existing arrangements. Yet, we know little about referendum rhetorical framing as tied to successes or failures in this pivotal post-Dobbs era. We use a content analysis to look at the rhetoric in state-level ballot proposals on reproductive freedom that were put in front of voters after the Dobbs decision (2022–2024). We consider whether the rhetoric embraces a primarily rights-based framework (pro or anti-abortion rights) or a frame centered on abortion as healthcare, or both. There have been seventeen ballot initiatives in sixteen states during this time period, with abortion access being protected or restored thirteen times. The vast majority of ballot initiatives employed a primary rights framework (thirteen pro-abortion rights, three anti-abortion rights), one had a primary medical framework, and nine included a secondary medical framework. Ten initiatives sought to expand the pre- Dobbs status quo beyond abortion access alone (e.g., to include bodily autonomy or contraception). Putting the issue of abortion directly to the voters was a successful strategy more than 75% of the time. However, applying theory around social movements, gender, and power provides insights into drawbacks. These include unpredictability in voting patterns, an under-recognized industry of direct democracy, and sacrificing long term losses for short term gains.

Download

Share

COinS