The Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022 reversed 50 years of precedent by allowing states to formulate their own abortion policies. This resetting of abortion policy created a new raft of opportunities and threats across the states for both pro-life and pro-choice supporters. In this study, we aim to analyze how public discourse around abortion responded to this changed political context. Using a dataset of 288,325 abortion-related Tweets posted in 2022, we examine public reaction to Dobbs using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. We categorize Tweets by abortion stance (pro-choice and pro-life) and geo-political context by state groups (protected, restricted, and unsettled based on abortion access policy). Our temporal analysis shows that while both pro-choice and pro-life Twitter activity spiked after both the leaked draft in May 2022 and the final decision, only pro-choice discussions maintained a heightened level of engagement over time. Analyzing the discussion frames among the Tweets reveals that pro-choice users emphasized a wider range of arguments that varied by state context, while pro-life Tweets were generally unresponsive to state context. Our findings indicate that the new threats and opportunities had uneven effects within pro-life and pro-choice public discourse.
AdamczykA.KimC.DillonL. (2020). Examining public opinion about abortion: a mixed‐methods systematic review of research over the last 15 years. Sociological Inquiry, 90(4), 920–954.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
4.
BenteleK. G.SagerR.AykanianA. (2018). Rewinding Roe v. Wade: Understanding the accelerated adoption of state-level restrictive abortion legislation, 2008–2014. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 39(4), 490–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2018.1511123
5.
BentonA.HancockB.CoppersmithG.AyersJ. W.DredzeM. (2016). After Sandy Hook Elementary: A Year in the Gun Control Debate on Twitter. Public opinion, 18, 21.
6.
BessettD.GerdtsC.LittmanL. L.KavanaughM. L.NorrisA. (2015). Does state-level context matter for individuals’ knowledge about abortion, legality and health? Challenging the ‘Red states v. Blue states’ hypothesis. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(6), 733–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.994230
7.
BroersmaM.GrahamT. (2013). Twitter as a news source: How Dutch and British newspapers used tweets in their news coverage, 2007–2011. Journalism Practice, 7(4), 446–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.802481
8.
BudakC.GoelS.RaoJ. M. (2016). Fair and balanced? Quantifying media bias through crowdsourced content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 250–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw007
DaiZ.HiggsC. (2024). Social network and semantic analysis of Roe v. Wade’s reversal on Twitter. Social Science Computer Review, 42(1), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231178602
12.
DanielC.MahoneyA.RileyG. (2024). The politics of problem definition: Abortion policy in republican-controlled Louisiana. Social Sciences, 13(8), 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13080387
EnjolrasB.Steen-JohnsenK.WollebækD. (2013). Social media and mobilization to offline demonstrations: Transcending participatory divides?New media & society, 15(6), 890–908.
15.
ErlichA.JungD. F.LongJ. D. (2024). Covering the campaign: Computational tools for measuring differences in candidate and party news coverage with application to an emerging democracy. Social Science Computer Review, 42(6), 08944393241247420. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393241247420
FaupelA. (2010). The pitfalls of winning: a comparison of two first-wave feminist organizations. In Research in social movements, conflicts and change (pp. 69–101). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
18.
FerreeM. M. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge University Press.
19.
FerreeM. 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
20.
FujiyamaT.MatsuiC.TakemuraA. (2016). A power-law growth and decay model with autocorrelation for posting data to social networking services. Plos One, 11(8), e0160592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160592
21.
GrootendorstM. (2022). BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure (No. arXiv:2203.05794). arXiv.
22.
HuntK. (2019). Twitter, social movements, and claiming allies in abortion debates. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16(4), 394–410.
23.
JostJ. T.BarberáP.BonneauR.LangerM.MetzgerM.NaglerJ.SterlingJ.TuckerJ. A. (2018). How social media facilitates political protest: Information, motivation, and social networks. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 85–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12478
24.
JozkowskiK. N.CrawfordB. L.HawbakerA.ParkerE.Golzarri ArroyoL.TurnerR. C. (2024). Attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion regulation: Insights from a nationally representative study. Social Science Quarterly, 105(5), 1649–1667. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13443
LukerK. (1984). Abortion and the politics of motherhood. University of California Press.
28.
MansbridgeJ. J. (2015). Why we lost the ERA. University of Chicago Press.
29.
McCaffreyD.KeysJ. (2000). Competitive framing processes in the abortion debate: Polarization-vilification, frame saving, and frame debunking. The Sociological Quarterly, 41(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2000.tb02365.x
30.
McCammonH. J. (2022). A war of words over abortion: The legal-framing contest over the undue burden standard. Justice System Journal, 43(4), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2151388
31.
McCammonH. J.ChaudhuriS.HewittL.MuseC. S.NewmanH. D.SmithC. L.TerrellT. M. (2008). Becoming full citizens: The U.S. women’s jury rights campaigns, the pace of reform, and strategic adaptation. American Journal of Sociology, 113(4), 1104–1147. https://doi.org/10.1086/522805
MeyerD. S.StaggenborgS. (1996). Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101(6), 1628–1660. https://doi.org/10.1086/230869
34.
MucciaroniG.FerraioloK.RubadoM. 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
35.
MunsonZ. (2024). Reflections on abortion politics in the new right-wing America. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 28(4), 515–520. https://doi.org/10.17813/1086-671X-28-4-515
NanayakkaraA. C.ThennakoonG. A. D. M. (2024). Enhancing social media content analysis with advanced topic modeling techniques: A comparative study. International Journal on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (ICTer), 17(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.4038/icter.v17i1.7276
NguyenD. Q.VuT.Tuan NguyenA. (2020). BERTweet: A pre-trained language model for English tweets. Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: System demonstrations (pp. 9–14). Association for Computational Linguistics.
40.
OschatzC.StierS.MaierJ. (2022). Twitter in the news: An analysis of embedded tweets in political news coverage. Digital Journalism, 10(9), 1526–1545. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1912624
41.
PondP.LewisJ. (2019). Riots and Twitter: Connective politics, social media and framing discourses in the digital public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 22(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1366539
42.
ReingoldB.KreitzerR. J.OsbornT.SwersM. L. (2021). Anti-abortion policymaking and women’s representation. Political Research Quarterly, 74(2), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920903381
43.
RobertiA. (2021). “Women Deserve Better:” the use of the pro-woman frame in anti-abortion policies in U.S. States. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 42(3), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2021.1925478
44.
RohlingerD. A. (2002). Framing the abortion debarte: Organizational resources, media strategies, and movement-countermovement dynamics. The Sociological Quarterly, 43(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2002.tb00063.x
45.
RohlingerD. A. (2006). Friends and foes: Media, politics, and tactics in the abortion war. Social Problems, 53(4), 537–561. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2006.53.4.537
46.
RohlingerD. A. (2015). Abortion politics, mass media, and social movements in America. Cambridge University Press.
47.
RoseM. (2011). Pro-life, pro-woman? Frame extension in the American antiabortion movement. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 32(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2011.537565
48.
RothL. M.LeeJ. H. (2023). Undue burdens: State abortion laws in the United States, 1994–2022. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 48(4), 511–543. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10449905
49.
SavageC. (2022). Abortion ruling poses new questions about how far supreme court will Go. International New York Times.
50.
SawyersT. M.MeyerD. S. (1999). Missed opportunities: Social movement abeyance and public policy. Social Problems, 46(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/3097252
51.
SharmaE.SahaK.ErnalaS. K.GhoshalS.De ChoudhuryM. (2017). Analyzing ideological discourse on social media: A case study of the abortion debate. In Proceedings of the 2017 international conference of the computational social science society of the americas, (pp. 1–8). Association for Computing Machinery.
52.
StaggenborgS. (1986). Coalition work in the pro-choice movement: Organizational and environmental opportunities and obstacles. Social Problems, 33(5), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.2307/800657
53.
TangA. (2023). After Dobbs: History, tradition, and the uncertain future of a nationwide abortion ban. Stanford Law Review, 75(5), 1091–1156.
54.
TaylorV. (1989). Social movement continuity: The women’s movement in abeyance. American Sociological Review, 54(5), 761–775. https://doi.org/10.2307/2117752
55.
TrzcińskaJ. (2022). Litmus test for a democratic public sphere? Discussion on the abortion issue on Polish Twitter. Athenaeum Polskie Studia Politologiczne, 75(3), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2022.75.09
UseemB.GoldstoneJ. A. (2022). The paradox of victory: Social movement fields, adverse outcomes, and social movement success. Theory and Society, 51(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-021-09460-2
WitschgeT. (2008). Examining online public discourse in context: A mixed method approach. Javnost-The Public, 15(2), 75–91.
60.
ZhangA. X.CountsS. (2015). Modeling ideology and predicting policy change with social media: Case of same-sex marriage. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2603–2612). Association for Computing Machinery.
61.
ZhangA. X.CountsS. (2016). Gender and ideology in the spread of anti-abortion policy. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 3378–3389). Association for Computing Machinery.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
