Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: A CDA of Discourses on the Alabama Human Life Protection Act

On 15 May 2019 Alabama passed a bill, the so-called Human Life Protection Act, that would set a near-total ban of abortion in the state, with no exceptions for rape or incest, and would make performing an abortion a felony in almost all cases. The law attempted at overturning 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision of the US Supreme Court, which had ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. On 29 October 2019, US District Judge Myron Thompson issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the law from taking effect since it violates constitutional rights. Alabama new legislation was strongly opposed by Democrats but also criticised by some Republicans. Moreover, it prompted an outcry from abortion rights activists across the country, who maintain that reproductive rights are essential human rights, as everyone should be free to decide whether to start a family, to plan their futures and control their destinies.
The present study investigates the legal discourse of the Human Life Protection Act and its interpretation and opposition in pro-choice counter-discourse. In particular, the paper focuses on the online discourse about the issue on NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) website. Since the ban also generated strong reactions on social media, the analysis also considers NARAL posts and user comments on Twitter.
Critical Discourse Analysis represents a valid framework to investigate how discourse reinforces power and ideological meanings and sustains hierarchically gendered social orders. In particular, the study seeks to outline how abortion is framed in legal discourse and how online discourse by a pro-choice organisation popularises and challenges the law as a form of patriarchal control over the women’ body. The study also focuses on social media posts and on the responses they generated, examining the discursive means used by online users to express their position, as a means of direct citizen participation in political debate.