Argumentative Complexity of Abortion Discourse

Abstract

Using integrative complexity theory and its associated coding scheme, this article explores the structure of arguments on abortion articulated by single- and multi-issue “prochoice” and “pro-life” groups between July 1989 (following the Supreme Court Webster v. Reproductive Health Services opinion) and May 1991. A simple random sample of 13 paragraphsized statements representative of each organization's position was rated by two trained coders on a 7-point scale measuring conceptual differentiation and integration. The debate, as a whole, was conducted at a low level of integrative complexity. Contrary to the “rigidity of the Right” hypothesis, both prochoice and pro-life arguments were characterized by similarly low levels of integrative complexity. Supporting an ideologue hypothesis, the arguments of multi- as opposed to single-issue organizations were more integratively complex.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.