Glorifying the Global Gag Rule : A Critical Discourse Analysis of the U.S. Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy

This study critically examines the role of language employed by U.S. authorities in relation to the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy. By applying critical discourse analysis, this study aims to uncover how words and phrases are used as discursive strategies within official documents to (re)construct, legitimize, and naturalize the implementation of the policy. The material used for the analysis has been collected from the U.S. Department of State’s and The White House’s official websites. To navigate the material, four operationalized concepts have been derived from Fairclough’s three dimensional model: authority, ideology, dominance, and hegemony. The study concludes that there are three interrelated discursive strategies employed by U.S. authorities: nationalistic framing, ideological reframing, blame-shifting/marginalization. U.S. authorities gain discursive traction, by invoking authority and employing nationalistic framings that claim to represent the will of the people. Moreover, the policy is presented as legitimate through ideological and moral claims, as well as religious justifications. As a result, hegemonic narratives are sustained, allowing U.S.’ perspectives to be repeatedly echoed and perceived as natural, while marginalizing alternative viewpoints. Given the controversy of the PLGHA policy, further research in the form of comparative approaches is encouraged.