The surrogacy question, unresolved: surrogacy policy debate as a hegemonic struggle over rights

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences Critical Policy Studies Pub Date : 2022-08-10 DOI:10.1080/19460171.2022.2105736
Jenny Gunnarsson Payne, Mika Handelsman-Nielsen
{"title":"The surrogacy question, unresolved: surrogacy policy debate as a hegemonic struggle over rights","authors":"Jenny Gunnarsson Payne, Mika Handelsman-Nielsen","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2105736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Sweden is often described as a ‘moderate’ country when it comes to legislation and policy on assisted reproductive technologies, being relatively permissive with regards to their use, but only permitting them within a strictly regulated framework. The ‘surrogacy question’, however, remains a polarized issue in media debates and has become a key topic of public negotiation and contestation around the meaning of a range of rights. This article investigates how surrogacy became a topic for policy debate in Swedish opinion journalism between 2009 and 2019. Drawing on discourse theory, the article investigates which, and ‘whose’, rights are mobilized in the debate, as well as how these rights are differently articulated and ‘filled with meaning’. It argues that polarized discourse coalitions are formed across the political spectrum, and that the absence of explicit legislation on surrogacy has led to a pragmatic ‘split policy’ which keeps both opponents and proponents unsatisfied, keeping the debate alive.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2105736","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Sweden is often described as a ‘moderate’ country when it comes to legislation and policy on assisted reproductive technologies, being relatively permissive with regards to their use, but only permitting them within a strictly regulated framework. The ‘surrogacy question’, however, remains a polarized issue in media debates and has become a key topic of public negotiation and contestation around the meaning of a range of rights. This article investigates how surrogacy became a topic for policy debate in Swedish opinion journalism between 2009 and 2019. Drawing on discourse theory, the article investigates which, and ‘whose’, rights are mobilized in the debate, as well as how these rights are differently articulated and ‘filled with meaning’. It argues that polarized discourse coalitions are formed across the political spectrum, and that the absence of explicit legislation on surrogacy has led to a pragmatic ‘split policy’ which keeps both opponents and proponents unsatisfied, keeping the debate alive.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
代孕问题,未解决:代孕政策辩论作为霸权斗争的权利
摘要:在辅助生殖技术的立法和政策方面,瑞典经常被描述为一个“温和”国家,对其使用相对宽松,但只允许在严格监管的框架内使用。然而,“代孕问题”在媒体辩论中仍然是一个两极分化的问题,并已成为围绕一系列权利含义进行公开谈判和争论的关键话题。本文调查了代孕如何在2009年至2019年间成为瑞典舆论新闻界政策辩论的话题。文章借鉴话语理论,研究了哪些权利和“谁的”权利在辩论中被动员起来,以及这些权利是如何以不同的方式表达和“充满意义”的。它认为,两极分化的话语联盟是在各个政治派别中形成的,缺乏关于代孕的明确立法导致了一种务实的“分裂政策”,这让反对者和支持者都不满意,从而使辩论继续下去。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
A complementary approach to Critical Frame Analysis and ‘what is the policy represented to Be?’ Pragmatism over sovereignty? The Italian policy response to the infrastructuralization of non-EU cloud service providers Exploring counter hegemony and action research to address the climate crisis Social prescribing for and beyond health: hyper-solutionism in health policy What problems is the AI act solving? Technological solutionism, fundamental rights, and trustworthiness in European AI policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1