Coalition dynamics through discourse in U.S. wind energy policy

Environmental policymaking is intrinsically intricate, involving diverse actors, competing values, and scientific knowledge. Policy actors strategically construct arguments to influence decision making, with discourse serving as a central medium in policy debates. Drawing on insights from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the Discourse Coalition literatures, this study examines how policy actors share beliefs and discourses to persuade others in contentious policy conflicts. Using U.S. wind energy policy debates as a case of contested environmental politics, this study analyzes discourse presented through news media during a period marked by changes in national political leadership and broader shifts in wind energy policy. Policy actors’ statements were coded and analyzed using Discourse Network Analysis. The results show that (i) discourse coalitions formed around problems and solutions based on actors’ policy beliefs, (ii) discourse coalitions remained relatively stable despite changes in government leadership, and (iii) policy frames exhibited distinct patterns across coalitions and shifts in the political environment. This study advances understanding of coalition dynamics in contentious energy and environmental policymaking by showing how policy beliefs and discourses shape coalition interactions, and how distinguishing advocacy and discourse coalitions enables a more nuanced understanding of coalition stability and adaptation under political change.