National Voices: A Corpus-Based Comparison of LGBTQ+-Related Opinion Discourse in Nigerian and South African Newspapers

Abstract Views on queer identities and the underlying ideologies are articulated in newspaper opinion sections. Despite growing scholarship on sexuality and gender identity in Africa, comparative linguistic and discursive analyses of LGBTQ+ representation in African media remain scarce. While South Africa is often celebrated for its progressive constitutional protections of sexual minorities, and Nigeria for its restrictive legal and religious stance, little is known about how public opinions around LGBTQ+ identities converge or diverge in both contexts. This study addresses this gap by examining how opinion articles in selected Nigerian ( The Punch and Vanguard ) and South African ( Mail & Guardian and The Sowetan ) newspapers, published between 2014 and 2024, a decade marked by heightened debates on gender identity, same-sex relations, and queer visibility across the continent, represent LGBTQ+ identities and issues. Using a corpus-assisted Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach, the study employs SketchEngine to compile and analyse two country-specific corpora of opinion articles. Keyword analysis was employed to identify salient lexical items and recurring semantic clusters that signal ideological positioning regarding LGBTQ+ identities and issues. Subsequent qualitative interpretation draws on Fairclough’s socio-semiotic approach to unpack how lexical strategies structure the representation of queer subjects. The findings indicate striking contrasts between the two media contexts. Nigerian opinion articles predominantly frame LGBTQ+ identities through discourses of moral panic, criminalisation, and religious deviance, often linking queerness to social disorder and immorality. In contrast, South African opinion discourse foregrounds rights, visibility, and advocacy, while also revealing tensions where appeals to equality coexist with residual tropes of violence and pathology. The study concludes that lexical and discursive choices serve as ideological tools through which individuals either sustain or contest national and cultural imaginaries of sexuality and gender identity.