{"title":"关于堕胎的口水战:关于不当负担标准的法律框架之争","authors":"Holly J. McCammon","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2151388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Movement lawyering often results in litigation battles. Litigant lawyers in Supreme Court abortion cases, who are typically affiliated with, if not members of the reproductive-rights and antiabortion movements, for many years have engaged in a war of words as they dispute abortion laws and what constitutes an undue burden on abortion access. I use and build on social movement framing theory to examine the legal-framing contest unfolding across the undue-burden abortion cases, toward discerning the anatomy and causal sequence of this discursive legal battle. Using both qualitative and quantitative-computerized text analysis, I show that a broad discursive-opportunity structure shapes the legal-framing contest, and the contest itself is structured by framing innovations and persistence and by dialogic and monologic framing. This theoretical framework can aid our understanding of the sometimes fierce discursive battles in movement litigation, shedding light on how social movements influence legal policy development.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A War of Words Over Abortion: The Legal-Framing Contest Over the Undue Burden Standard\",\"authors\":\"Holly J. McCammon\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2151388\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Movement lawyering often results in litigation battles. Litigant lawyers in Supreme Court abortion cases, who are typically affiliated with, if not members of the reproductive-rights and antiabortion movements, for many years have engaged in a war of words as they dispute abortion laws and what constitutes an undue burden on abortion access. I use and build on social movement framing theory to examine the legal-framing contest unfolding across the undue-burden abortion cases, toward discerning the anatomy and causal sequence of this discursive legal battle. Using both qualitative and quantitative-computerized text analysis, I show that a broad discursive-opportunity structure shapes the legal-framing contest, and the contest itself is structured by framing innovations and persistence and by dialogic and monologic framing. This theoretical framework can aid our understanding of the sometimes fierce discursive battles in movement litigation, shedding light on how social movements influence legal policy development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2151388\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2151388","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
A War of Words Over Abortion: The Legal-Framing Contest Over the Undue Burden Standard
Abstract Movement lawyering often results in litigation battles. Litigant lawyers in Supreme Court abortion cases, who are typically affiliated with, if not members of the reproductive-rights and antiabortion movements, for many years have engaged in a war of words as they dispute abortion laws and what constitutes an undue burden on abortion access. I use and build on social movement framing theory to examine the legal-framing contest unfolding across the undue-burden abortion cases, toward discerning the anatomy and causal sequence of this discursive legal battle. Using both qualitative and quantitative-computerized text analysis, I show that a broad discursive-opportunity structure shapes the legal-framing contest, and the contest itself is structured by framing innovations and persistence and by dialogic and monologic framing. This theoretical framework can aid our understanding of the sometimes fierce discursive battles in movement litigation, shedding light on how social movements influence legal policy development.
期刊介绍：
The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
