This paper examines the problematisation of sex-selective abortion (SSA) in UK parliamentary debates on Fiona Bruce's Abortion (Sex-Selection) Bill 2014–15 and on the subsequent proposed amendment to the Serious Crime Bill 2014–15. On the basis of close textual analysis, we argue that a discursive framing of SSA as a form of cultural oppression of minority women in need of protection underpinned Bruce's Bill; in contrast, by highlighting issues more commonly articulated in defence of women's reproductive rights, the second set of debates displaced this framing in favour of a broader understanding, drawing on postcolonial feminist critiques, of how socio-economic factors constrain all women in this regard. We argue that the problematisation of SSA explains the original cross-party support for, and subsequent defeat of, the policies proposed to restrict SSA. Our analysis also highlights the central role of ideology in the policy process, thus making politics visible in policymaking.
Abortion Act 1967, 1967. Chapter 87. London: Parliament, Government of the United Kingdom.
2.
Abortion (Sex-Selection) Bill 2014–15, 2014. Standing Order No 23. London: House of Commons, Government of the United Kingdom.
3.
AfsharH., and MaynardM., 1994. The Dynamics of ‘Race’ and Gender: Some Feminist Interventions. London: Taylor & Francis.
4.
AhmadF., 2003. Still in progress? Methodological dilemmas, tensions and contradictions in theorising South Asian Muslim women. In PuwarN., and RaghuramP., eds. South Asian Women in the Diaspora. Oxford: Berg Publishers, pp. 43–65.
5.
AnithaS., 2011. Legislating gender inequalities: the nature and patterns of domestic violence experienced by South Asian women with insecure immigration status in the UK. Violence against Women, 17(10), pp. 1260–1285.
6.
BacchiC.L., 2009. Analysing Policy: What's the Problem Represented to Be?Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.
BenfordR.D., and SnowD.A., 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), pp. 611–639.
9.
BhaskarV., 2011Sex selection and gender balance. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3(1), pp. 214–244.
10.
BlunkettD., 2000. Influence or irrelevance: can social science improve government?Research Intelligence, 71, pp. 12–21.
11.
BrazierA., KalitowskiS., RosenblattG., and KorrisM., 2008. Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process. London: Hansard Society.
CarbyH., 1982. White women listen! Black feminism and the boundaries of sisterhood. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, ed. The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain. London: Hutchinson, pp. 212–235.
DubucS., and ColemanD., 2007. An increase in the sex ratio of births to India-born mothers in England and Wales: evidence for sex selective abortion. Population and Development Review, 33(2), pp. 383–400.
21.
EdenS., DonaldsonA., and WalkerG., 2006. Green groups and grey areas: scientific boundary-work, nongovernmental organizations, and environmental knowledge. Environment and Planning A, 38(6), pp. 1061–1076.
22.
FoucaultM., 2000. Polemics, politics and problematizations: an interview with Michel Foucault. In RabinowP., ed. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984, Volume 1. London: Penguin, pp. 111–120.
23.
GoffmanE., 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City: Anchor Books.
24.
GoffmanE., 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of the Experience. New York: Harper Colophon.
25.
GreasleyK., 2016. Is sex-selective abortion against the law?Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 36(3), pp. 535–564.
26.
GuptaR., 2014. Pro-choice: all the way to the sex-selection gallows. Feminist Review, 107, pp. 84–89.
27.
HallS., 1982. The rediscovery of ideology: return to the repressed in media studies. In GurewitchM., BennettT., CuronJ., and WoolacottJ., eds. Culture, Society and the Media. New York: Methuen, pp. 56–90.
HarkerR., 2016. Statistics on abortion. Briefing paper number 04418. London: House of Commons Library.
32.
HulstM.V., and YanowD., 2016. From policy “frames” to “framing”: theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), pp. 92–112.
33.
JesudasonS., and WeitzT., 2015. Eggs and abortion: “women-protective” language used by opponents in legislative debates over reproductive health. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43(2), pp. 259–269.
34.
JhaP., KumarR., VasaP., DhingraN., ThiruchelvamD., and MoineddinR., 2006. Low male-to-female sex-ratio of children born in India: national survey of 1.1 million households. The Lancet, 367(9506), pp. 185–186.
LeeE., 2004. Abortion, Motherhood and Mental Health: The Medicalization of Reproduction in the United States and Great Britain. New York: Transaction Publishers.
37.
LeeE., 2017. Constructing abortion as a social problem: “sex selection” and the British abortion debate. Feminism & Psychology, 27(1), pp. 15–33.
MohantyC., 1991. Under Western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. In MohantyC.T., RussoA., and TorresL., eds. Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 51–80.
43.
NarayanU., 1997. Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third-World Feminism. New York: Routledge.
44.
NelsonT., and OxleyZ., 1999. Issue framing effects and belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61(4), pp. 1040–1067.
45.
NutleyS., and WebbJ., 2000. Evidence and the policy process. In DaviesH., NutleyS., and SmithP., eds. What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 13–41.
PurewalT., 2003. Female feticide and the spectacle of culture. In PuwarN., and RaghuramP., eds. South Asian Women in the Diaspora. London: Berg, pp. 137–156.
49.
PuwarN., and RaghuramP., eds., 2003. South Asian Women in the Diaspora. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
50.
RadfordJ., and RussellD., eds., 1992. Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing. New York and Toronto: Twayne Publishers.
51.
ReinM., and SchönD., 1993. Reframing policy discourse. In FischerF., and ForesterJ., eds. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 145–166.
SpivakG.C., 1988. Can the subaltern speak? In NelsonC., and GrossbergL., eds. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp. 271–314.
WealeA., BicqueletA., and BaraJ., 2012. Debating abortion, deliberative reciprocity and parliamentary advocacy. Political Studies, 60(3), pp. 643–667.
62.
WinterB., ThompsonD., and JeffreysS., 2002. The UN approach to harmful traditional practices. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 4(1), pp. 72–94.
