Term variation and framing in the context of ideological struggle

Abstract Term variation relates to the representation and communication of specialized knowledge in different contexts. Terminological choices reflect how a speaker understands a concept or wishes to present it in a given context; they can shape understanding within specialized fields and influence public opinion on scientific issues. However, capturing systematic patterns in these choices is challenging due the highly contextual nature of categorization. This study applies frame analysis to study the behavior and motivations behind the use of term variants related to surrogacy, a controversial topic with legal, social and economic dimensions. First, it performs a cognitive-semantic analysis of 30 term variants identified in scientific and activist discourse, revealing different perspectives that range from critical to favorable towards the practice. Second, it examines how these terms are used and framed in a corpus of Spanish press from different ideological orientations. Results show a correlation between the evaluative valences of terms and frames in the case of less frequent variants, whereas the most frequent variants are used across different frames. Furthermore, critical framings and terms are more common in progressive media outlets, emphasizing the illegality and commodification of the practice. In contrast, liberal newspapers adopt more neutral and/or favorable framings, focusing on the need for regulation or the personal experiences of intending parents. The findings provide insights into how cognitive frames and terminological choices reflect broader ideological struggles in scientific and public discourse.