The aim of this study is to analyze whether any media bias and framing can be observed in the U.S. news reporting surrounding the topic of the abortion debate. And if yes, how they are being presented to their respective audiences.For this, thirty articles have been analyzed in total; published respectively by Fox News and CNN in the timeframe of June 2021 until June 2023. This covers the time before, after, and during the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the law of Roe v. Wade. For the analysis I referred to Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis, as well as the theories of framing and media bias. Additionally, the theory of hegemony was applied to the results. These theoretical concepts were accompanied by a combined paradigmatic approach of interpretivism and critical theory.The results of the analysis indicate that both news outlets present bias, framing, and hegemonic ideologies within their reporting. The content of Fox News showed a tendency of an anti-abortion stance in its rhetoric, utilizing frames concerning morality, freedom, politics, and the abortion industry. Meanwhile, CNN’s content tended to take an oppositional stance by utilizing pro-abortion rhetoric, as well as frames concerning harmful information, freedom, the danger of Conservatives, and politics. These findings led me to conclude that there are significant implications for media hegemony inherent in the reporting of both outlets.

Government began legislating abortion in the mid nineteenth century and has controlled access to this service for women ever since. With the creation of hospital boards after WWII, state control over access became further entrenched. Regulations and restrictions since Roe v. Wade limit the availability of abortion services for women served by Medicaid and other social assistance programs. The existence of a class bias around access can be seen throughout the topic's history and legislation has unfairly targeted and therefore disproportionately affects poor women. The data show that these restrictions have no impact on the number of unintended pregnancies over the last 20 plus years. Without the ability to personally fund the procedure, poor women do not enjoy the same choices as women in other social classes. In the next decade, we are likely to experience more of the same without having a realistic conversation about Medicaid funding of abortion.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The examination of the role of the state in the broader context of socio-technical entanglement within data governance has received less attention due to the emergence of other powerful corporate actors (e.g. Big Tech). This thesis utilizes quantitative content analysis to investigate and compare how state agencies (the White House, FTC, Congress) and CNN framed data governance in 2022, focusing on the role of the state amid growing data privacy concerns following the Roe v. Wade overruling. The ultimate aim is to pinpoint the sociotechnical imaginaries that gain traction, having a constitutive effect on the US data governance order. Empirical results indicate that framings between the two units rather align than differ, particularly in the wake of the overruling. The evidence points to the active and multiple roles of the state and the coexistence of multiple sociotechnical imaginaries within asymmetric power dynamics, with the vision of ensuring consumer trust rising as prominent at the expense of viewing data privacy as a sovereign right of citizens. Despite the emerging perspective of viewing data privacy as a right, CNN, as a significant place of mediation, has amplified rather than challenged the market-based approach. Lastly, evidence indicates that media is not only a significant place for elevating certain sociotechnical imaginaries but could be considered one of the crucial places of initially discursively negotiated policymaking.

Traces the inter-related histories of the eugenics movement and birth control, with an emphasis on abortion. Discusses Sarah Weddington's arguments and the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v Wade. Straws the eugenic influences in the case and asserts that these influences caused the decision to be less than decisive.