Patriarchal discourse, episodic journalism, and ideological stances in newspapers’ feminicide news in Türkiye: A case study of Başak Cengiz murder

News coverage of violence against women frequently employs patriarchal discourse that implicitly justifies male perpetrators, especially in cases involving known relationships. Violence against women is also legitimized by focusing on victimblaming notions, such as women’s attire and behaviors. This study examines whether patriarchal discourse persists in Turkish news coverage even when victim and perpetrator have no prior connection and discriminatory justifications based on women’s attire are irrelevant. Additionally, recognizing the significant role of framing in news stories in shaping public discourse, this study explores framing strategies adopted by Turkish newspapers in reporting femicide and investigates whether these frames differ according to newspapers’ ideological orientations. Integrating van Dijk’s Critical Discourse Analysis and Iyengar’s framing approach, this study analyzes news stories from 12 national newspapers regarding the murder of Başak Cengiz by an unfamiliar male perpetrator. Findings reveal that patriarchal language consistently, legitimizing male violence irrespective of the relationship between the parties. In the absence of traditional victimblaming narratives, the press constructed alternative myth centered on perceived female vulnerability. Furthermore, the analyzed newspapers predominantly utilized episodic framing with thematic framing primarily observed in left leaning newspapers. Some right wing newspapers chose not to report on the femicide unless they have political relevance.