This article uses Twitter data and machine-learning methods to analyze the causal impact of the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage at the federal level in the United States on political sentiment and discourse toward gay rights. In relying on social media text data, this project constructs a large data set of expressed political opinions in the short time frame before and after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Due to the variation in state laws regarding the legality of same-sex marriage prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, I use a difference-in-difference estimator to show that, in those states where the Court’s ruling produced a policy change, there was relatively more negative movement in public opinion toward same-sex marriage and gay rights issues as compared with other states. This confirms previous studies that show Supreme Court decisions polarize public opinion in the short term, extends previous results by demonstrating opinion becomes relatively more negative in states where policy is overturned, and demonstrates how to use social media data to engage in causal analyses.
BarberáP. (2013). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 556–573.
2.
BarberáP.RiveroG. (2015). Understanding the political representativeness of Twitter users. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 712–729.
3.
BartelsB. L.MutzD. C. (2009). Explaining processes of institutional opinion leadership. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 249–261.
4.
BeauchampN. (2017). Predicting and interpolating state-level polls using Twitter textual data. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 490–503.
5.
BishenN. G.HayesT. J.IncantalupoM. B.SmithC. A. (2016). Opinion backlash and public attitudes: Are political advances in gay rights counterproductive?American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 625–648.
6.
BishinB. G.HayesT. J.IncantalupoM. B.SmithA. (2016). Opinion backlash and public attitudes: Are political advances in gay rights counterproductive?Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 43–56.
7.
BrickmanD.PetersonD. A. M. (2006). Public opinion reaction to events: Citizen response to multiple supreme court abortion decisions. Political Behavior, 28(1), 87–112.
8.
CaseyG. (1974). The supreme court and myth: An empirical investigation. Law & Society Review, 8(3), 385–420.
9.
ChristensonD. P.GlickD. M. (2015). Issue-specific opinion change: The supreme court and health care reform. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(4), 881–905.
10.
ClawsonR. A.KeglerE. R.WaltenburgE. N. (2001). The legitimacy-conferring authority of the U.S. supreme court: An experimental design. American Politics Research, 29(6), 566–591.
11.
DahlR. A. (1957). Decision-making in democracy: The supreme court as national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law, 6(2), 279–295.
12.
DesilverD.KeeterS. (2015). The challenges of polling when fewer people are available to be polled. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org
13.
EriksonR. S.WrightG. C.McIverJ. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. Cambridge University Press.
14.
FloresA. R.BarclayS. (2016). Backlash, consensus, legitimacy, or polarization: The effect of same-sex marriage policy on mass attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 43–56.
15.
FranklinC. H.KosakiL. C. (1989). Republican schoolmaster: The U.S. supreme court, public opinion, and abortion. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 751–771.
16.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (2009). Citizens, courts, and confirmations: Positivity theory and the judgments of the American people. Princeton University Press.
17.
GrovesR. M.PeytchevaE. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 167–189.
18.
Haider-MarkelD. P. (2007). Representation and backlash: The positive and negative influence of descriptive representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 107–133.
19.
Haider-MarkelD. P. (2010). Out and running: Gay and lesbian candidates, elections, and policy representation. Georgetown University Press.
20.
HallM. E. (2014). The semiconstrained court: Public opinion, the separation of powers, and the U.S. supreme court’s fear of nonimplementation. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 352–366.
21.
HamiltonA.MadisonJ.JayJ. (2009). The federalist papers. Edited by ShapiroI.Yale University Press. (Original work published 1787–1788)
22.
HanleyJ.SalamoneM.WrightM. (2012). Reviving the schoolmaster: Reevaluating public opinion in the wake of Roe v. Wade. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 408–421.
23.
HoekstraV. J. (2003). Public reaction to supreme court decisions. Cambridge University Press.
24.
JohnsonT. R.MartinA. D. (1998). The public’s conditional response to supreme court decisions, 92(2), 299–309.
25.
KazyakE.StangeM. (2018). Backlash or a positive response? Public opinion of LGB issues after Obergefell v. Hodges. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(14), 2028–2052.
26.
KhannaK.ImaiK. (2015). Who are you? Bayesian prediction of racial category using surname and geolocation (R package version 0.5.1) [Computer software manual]. https://github.com/ropensci/gender
27.
KincaidJ.ColeR. L. (2000). Public opinion and American federalism: Perspectives on taxes, spending, and trust: An ACIR update. Publius, 30, 189–201.
28.
KincaidJ.ColeR. L. (2008). Public opinion on issues of federalism in 2007: A Bush Plus?Publius, 38, 469–487.
29.
KincaidJ.ColeR. L. (2011). Citizen attitudes towards issues of federalism in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Publius, 41, 53–75.
30.
KingG.LamP.RobertsM. (2017). Computer-assisted keyword and document set discovery from unstructured text. American Journal of Political Science. http://j.mp/2nxUa8N
31.
LaxJ. R.PhillipsJ. H. (2009a). Gay rights in the states: Public opinion and policy responsiveness. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 367–186.
32.
LaxJ. R.PhillipsJ. H. (2009b). How should we estimate public opinion in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 107–121.
33.
MarshallT. R. (1989). Public opinion and the supreme court. Unwin Hyman.
34.
MasseyD. S.TourangeauR. (2013). Where do we go from here? Nonresponse and social measurement. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 222–236.
35.
McKelveyK.DiGraziaJ.RojasF. (2014). Twitter publics: How online political communities signaled electoral outcomes in the 2010 US house election. Information, Communication Society, 17(4), 490–503.
36.
MishlerW.SheehanR. S. (1993). The supreme court as a countermajoritarian institution? The impact of public opinion on supreme court decisions. American Political Science Review, 87(1), 87–101.
37.
MitchellA.HitlinP. (2013). Twitter reaction to events often at odds with overall public opinion. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org
38.
MondakJ. J. (1994). Policy legitimacy and the supreme court: The sources and contexts of legitimation. Political Research Quarterly, 47(3), 675–692.
39.
MullenL. (2015). Gender: Predict gender from names using historical data (R Package Version 0.5.1) [Computer software manual]. https://github.com/ropensci/gender
40.
NicholsonS. P.HansfordT. G. (2014). Partisans in robes: Party cues and public acceptance of supreme court decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 620–636.
41.
O’ConnorB.BalasubramanyanR.RoutledgeB. R. (2010). From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2010).
42.
SalganikM. J. (2018). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital AGAE. Princeton University Press.
43.
StoringH. J. (1981). The complete anti-federalist (Vol. 2). The University of Chicago Press.
44.
StoutenboroughJ. W.Haider-MarkelD. P.AllenM. D. (2006). Opinion backlash and public attitudes: Are political advances in gay rights counterproductive?Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 419–433.
45.
UraJ. D. (2014, January). Backlash and legitimation: Macro political responses to supreme court decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 110–126.
46.
U.S. Constitution Article, VI, §2.
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.
