Literature, particularly institutional approaches, emphasizes that parliamentary systems like Canada have avoided controversial morality policy issues including - and perhaps especially - abortion. This, however, fails to account for historical and contemporary developments in Canadian abortion policy and politics at the federal level. More specifically, it fails to adequately conceptualize how governments engage with abortion in practice, such as with the introduction of the omnibus bills in the 1960s and C-43 in 1989, as well as the increasing use of abortion as a political weapon in election campaigns and party politics. Using framing theory and the concepts of politicisation and depoliticisation, this dissertation fills this gap by unpacking how Canada’s federal governments have managed abortion policy and politics from 1966 to 2019, both in discourse and in concrete actions in parliament. More precisely, the federal government's evolving discourses (stories) and actions on the abortion issue were examined through sources that span the 1960s up to 2019, including parliamentary transcripts (Hansard), parliamentary committee transcripts (Evidence) and reports, cabinet documents, and interviews.
This dissertation presents an original typology to facilitate a more dynamic understanding of (de)politicisation. It categorizes politicising and depoliticising movements according to how actors use the dimensions of time, space, and capacity to delay, defer and establish limits to their agency in depoliticising procedural action or discourse, or to emphasize an issue on the agenda, claim jurisdiction or responsibility, and establish authority and capability in politicising procedural action or discourse. This yields a more dynamic understanding of how governments have managed the abortion issue over time, demonstrating how governments and their representatives have used - often simultaneously - both politicising and depoliticising actions and discourses. This management, which may be intended to dampen controversy, can also result in uneasy and even contradictory discourses and actions that may generate new sources of conflict. Capturing this dynamism affirms that governments do not simply "avoid" or "engage" with abortion, but that their positions are unsteady and often contradictory, moving back-and-forth - often simultaneously - in their efforts to manage the issue.
Using this typology, this dissertation maps out the evolving discourses and approaches through which the federal government approached abortion over time. It argues that, through the 1960s to 1980s, the government approached abortion as a policy problem that required a legislative solution. Beginning in the 1990s and becoming more prominent in the 2000 election and thereafter, the government began using abortion as a political weapon, which served to demarcate Liberal Party values against conservative parties, and vice versa.
This dissertation contributes by expanding (de)politicisation theory through its typology, creating a means to analyse the complex and interactive relationship between (de)politicisation, as well as contributing a Canadian case study to the primarily British and Eurocentric depoliticisation literature. This dissertation also bridges the gap between morality policy literature and (de)politicisation, which may be fruitful for additional study into how political actors manage morality policy issues. Empirically, this dissertation offers a comprehensive history of Canada's federal policy and politics of abortion over the past half century, documenting the significant shifts in the discourses and approaches of federal governments on this contentious issue.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:uottawa.ca/oai:ruor.uottawa.ca:10393/44296 |
| Date | 22 November 2022 |
| Creators | Vachon, Rebecca Grace |
| Contributors | Burlone, Nathalie |
| Publisher | Université d'Ottawa / University of Ottawa |
| Source Sets | Université d’Ottawa |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
Page generated in 0.0036 seconds