How parties compete by utilizing frames in the public debate is not well understood. A widespread understanding is that parties tend to compete by talking past each other, i.e. when they utilize dissimilar frames. This article relies on a unique data set of parties’ framing of four individual policy questions over two decades in Denmark to examine frame overlap, i.e. when parties adopt similar frames. Results show that parties utilize similar and dissimilar frames in the public debate. However, a high degree of frame similarity was generally found across parliamentary blocs (between the leading mainstream party from each bloc, their leading junior coalition partner, and the two blocs) and most often a very high degree of overlap was found within parliamentary blocs (between the leading mainstream party and its junior coalition partner). This result suggests a need to rethink thoroughly how to understand and study interaction among parties utilizing frames.
AlbækEGreen-PedersenCLarsenLT (2012) Morality issues in Denmark: policies without politics. In: EngeliIGreen-PedersenCLarsenLT (eds) Morality Politics in Western Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 137–160.
2.
AlbækEvan DalenAJebrilN, et al. (2014) Political Journalism in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BartholomeGLechelerSde VreeseC (2015) Manufacturing conflict? How journalists intervene in the conflict frame building process. The International Journal of Press/Politics20(4): 438–457.
4.
BaumgartnerFR (2013) Ideas and policy change. Governance26(2): 239–58. DOI: 10.1111/gove.12007.
5.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BaumgartnerFRMahoneyC (2008) Forum section: the two faces of framing individual-level framing and collective issue definition in the European union. European Union Politics9(3): 435–449.
7.
BaumgartnerFRBerryJMHojnackiM, et al. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BaumgartnerFRDe BoefSLBoydstunAE (2008) The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BjarnøeC (2016) Evolution in Frames: Framing and Reframing of Policy Questions. Politica. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
10.
ChongD (1996) Creating common frames of reference on political issues. In: MutzDCSnidermanPMBordyRM (eds) Political Persuasion and Attitude Change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 195–248.
11.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science10(1): 103–126.
12.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2013) Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics75(01): 1–16.
13.
CookTE (1998) Governing With the News: The News Media as a Political Institution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
DavisDK (1990) News and politics. In: NimmoDan D.SwanssonDavid L. (eds) New Directions in Political Communication: A Resource Book. California: SAGE Publication, Inc, pp. 147–84.
15.
De VreeseCH (2012) New avenues for framing research. American Behavioral Scientist56(3): 365–375.
16.
DöringHManowP (2019) Parliaments and Governments Database (ParlGov): Information on Parties, Elections and Cabinets in Modern Democracies. Development version, 2019.
17.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
18.
Elmelund-PræstekærCHopmannDNNørgaardAS (2011) Does Mediatization change MP-media interaction and MP attitudes toward the media? Evidence from a longitudinal study of Danish MPs. International Journal of Press/Politics16(3): 382–403.
19.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
20.
FerreeMMGamsonWAGerhardsJ, et al. (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1–37.
22.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPB (2010) Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agenda-setting. European Journal of Political Research49(2): 257–281.
23.
Green-PedersenCThomsenLH (2005) Bloc politics vs. broad cooperation? The functioning of Danish minority parliamentarism. The Journal of Legislative Studies11(2): 153–169.
24.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPBSoF (2014) The agenda-setting power of the prime minister party in coalition governments. Political Research Quarterly71(4): 743–756.
25.
GrossmannM (2013) The variable politics of the policy process: issue-area differences and comparative networks. The Journal of Politics75(1): 65–79.
26.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HänggliR (2020) The Origin of Dialogue in the News Media. Macmillian: Palgrave.
28.
HänggliRKriesiH (2010) Political framing strategies and their impact on media framing in a Swiss direct-democratic campaign. Political Communication27(2): 141–157.
29.
HarcupTO’NeillD (2001) What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies2(2): 261–280.
30.
HelblingMHoeglingerDWüestB (2010) How political parties frame European integration. European Journal of Political Research49(4): 495–521.
31.
HoeglingerD (2012) Struggling with Intricate Giant. How European Integration Is Being Politicized in Western Europe. PhD Dissertation, Institute for Political Science, Zürich University.
32.
JeritJ (2008) Issue framing and engagement: rhetorical strategy in public policy debates. Political Behavior30(1): 1–24.
33.
KellstedtPM (2003) The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
KriesiHHänggliR (2019) The positioning of the actors in the public debates. In: BernhardLFossatiFHänggliRKriesiH (eds) Debating Unemployment Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–232.
35.
KrippendorffKH (2003) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
36.
LefevereJTreschAWalgraveS (2015) Introduction: issue ownership. West European Politics38(4): 755–760.
37.
LowiTJ (1964) American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics16(04): 677–715.
38.
LundAB (2002) Den Redigerende Magt – Nyhedsinstitutionens Politiske Indflydelse. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
39.
MerzN (2017) The Manifesto-Media Link: How Mass Media Mediate Manifesto Messages. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
40.
NeumanRWJustMRCriglerAN (1992) Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
41.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
42.
Politiken (2001) Valg 2001: Nyt Opgør Om Udlændinge i Venstre. PolitikenNovember 9.
43.
RikerWH (1986) The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
SchattschneiderEE (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.
45.
ShoemakerPJReeseSD (1996) Mediating the Message. White Plains, NY: Longman.
46.
SidesJ (2006) The origins of campaign Agendas. British Journal of Political Science36(3): 407–436.
47.
SigelmanLBuellEHJr (2004) Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in U.S. presidential campaigns, 1960-2000. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 650–661.
48.
SlothuusR (2010) When can political parties lead public opinion? Evidence from a natural experiment. Political Communication27(2): 158–177.
49.
SmithKB (2002) Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy classification. Policy Studies Journal30(3): 379–395.
50.
SnidermanPM (2000) Taking sides: a fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In: LupiaAMcCubbinsMDPopkinSL (eds) Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–84.
51.
SnidermanPMTheriaultSM (2004) The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In: SarisWESnidermanPM (eds) Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 133–165.
52.
StromK (1990) A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 565–598.
53.
van de WardtM (2015) Conforming to the dominant discourse: framing distance and multiparty competition. West European Politics38(4): 839–868.
54.
WilsonJQ (1980) The politics of regulations. In: WilsonJQ (ed.) The Politics of Regulations. New York, NY: Basic Books, pp. 357–394.
55.
WirthWMatthesJSchemerC, et al. (2010) Agenda building and setting in a referendum campaign: investigating the flow of arguments among campaigners, the media, and the public. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly87(2): 328–345.
56.
WolfsfeldG (1997) Media and Political Conflict: News from the Middle East. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.
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.
