Framing Abortion Rights in U.S. Online News: A Discourse-Historical Analysis of Democratic and Republican Outlets

This study investigates how Democratic and Republican online news outlets frame abortion rights to mobilize their audiences in the post-Dobbs era, using the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) of Critical Discourse Analysis. Analyzing 80 articles from The New York Times , CNN, The Wall Street Journal , and Fox News (June 2022–December 2024), it identifies distinctive discursive strategies of nomination, predication, and argumentation. Quantitative findings show Democratic outlets rely heavily on nomination (20 instances) and predication (18) to present abortion as an issue of individual freedom and democratic values, often employing empathy-driven narratives appealing to socially justice-oriented readers. Republican outlets use balanced strategies (predication 17, nomination 19) to frame abortion as a pragmatic, state-level concern with minimal electoral significance, emphasizing federalism and moral restraint to resonate with conservative audiences. Qualitative analysis reveals Democratic media positively nominate pro-choice actors and stress threats to rights, while Republican media minimize electoral loss and foreground judicial or states’ rights perspectives. These patterns reinforce ideological polarization, supporting framing theory and CDA. The study’s implications span media practice and pedagogy: it highlights the importance of media literacy education for decoding partisan narratives and calls on journalists to adopt more balanced framing. Theoretically, it extends DHA to digital news contexts, demonstrating its utility for examining polarized discourse and suggesting future research on smaller platforms or longitudinal trends.