Judicial Rhetoric and the Politics of Abortion: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Opinion

Jensen, Agnes Kirk Kisum

4. semester

International Relations, MSc.

2025

2025-05-27

59

Med afsæt i 2022-dommen Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, hvor USA's Højesteret omgorde Roe v. Wade og gav delstaterne kompetencen til at fastsætte abortlovgivning, undersøger afhandlingen, om og hvordan politiske institutioner påvirker retspraksis. Afhandlingen anvender Kritisk Diskursanalyse (CDA), en metode der undersøger, hvordan sprog afspejler magt og ideologi. Den bygger på Faircloughs tredimensionelle model, der ser på teksten, hvordan den bruges, og dens bredere sociale kontekst. Analysen omfatter både flertals- og mindretalsudtalelserne i Dobbs-sagen og ser på, hvordan sprog, rammesætning og ideologi bruges til at opbygge domstolenes autoritet. Resultaterne peger på, at moral konservatisme, som betoner traditionelle værdier, og populisme, som udfordrer eliteinstitutioners legitimitet, påvirker både ordvalg og juridisk argumentation i udtalelserne. Både flertallet og mindretallet benytter ladet sprog og udviser ideologiske skævheder. Disse kræfter påvirker ikke blot, hvad domstolene beslutter, men får også offentligheden til at stille spørgsmål ved domstolenes fairness og upartiskhed. Fundene åbner for en bredere diskussion om, hvilke institutioner der bør have myndighed til at træffe beslutninger om reproduktive rettigheder. Hvis domstole i stigende grad formes af politiske ideologier og institutionelle pres, rejser det vigtige spørgsmål om demokratisk ansvarlighed, domstolenes uafhængighed og domstolenes rolle i at beskytte rettigheder. Afhandlingen viser desuden, at den juridiske rammesætning af abort i USA ikke kan forstås uden at inddrage den sociopolitiske kontekst, herunder folkevalgte, partiideologier, mediefortællinger og græsrodsbevægelser, som lægger pres på retssystemet. Ved at placere Dobbs-dommen i denne bredere kontekst viser afhandlingen, hvordan retsafgørelser kan påvirkes af magtfulde institutioner frem for at blive truffet helt uafhængigt. Dette peger på behovet for fremtidige sammenligninger af, hvordan andre demokratier balancerer retslig autoritet, politisk pres og reproduktive rettigheder.

Starting from the 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion lawmaking to the states, this thesis asks whether and how political institutions shape Supreme Court decision making. It uses Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), an approach that studies how language reflects power and ideology. Drawing on Fairclough’s three-dimensional model, which examines the text, its use, and its wider social context, the thesis analyzes both the majority and dissenting opinions in Dobbs to see how language, framing, and ideology construct judicial authority. The analysis finds that moral conservatism, emphasizing traditional values, and populism, challenging the legitimacy of elite institutions, influence both the wording and the legal reasoning in these opinions. Both sides use emotionally charged language and display ideological leanings. These forces not only shape outcomes but also prompt people to question whether courts are fair and impartial. The findings invite a broader discussion about which institutions should decide matters of reproductive rights. If courts are increasingly shaped by political ideologies and institutional pressures, this raises important questions about democratic accountability, judicial independence, and the judiciary’s role in protecting rights. The thesis also shows that the legal framing of abortion in the United States cannot be understood without the broader sociopolitical context, including elected officials, party ideologies, media narratives, and grassroots movements that exert pressure on the judicial system. By situating the Dobbs decision in this context, the thesis shows how court rulings may be influenced by powerful institutions rather than being made entirely independently. This opens avenues for future research comparing how other democracies balance legal authority, political pressure, and reproductive rights.

[This summary has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]

Download
View record in AAU Student Projects