6. Multilevel Logistic Regression: Predicting Incidents of “Protect the Lives of
6.3 Regression Results
6.3.2 External Movement Factors
133
acknowledges that the actions of the antiabortion protesters threaten the safety of patients while also maintaining that the protesters’ actions do “not constitute a violation of RICO because neither FACE, trespassing, nor ‘acts or threats of violence’ are among the listed “predicate crimes” necessary to constitute a RICO violation.”
Overall, the findings of my regression analysis indicate that the central identity of left- leaning SMOs is organized around protecting patient access to reproductive healthcare. As such, the higher proportion of left social movement brief authors, the greater the odds that the “protect the lives of patients” frame will be the most commonly used “protect life” legal frame.
134
some evidence in the literature that public sentiment may influence the work of lawyers (see e.g., Robbenolt & Studebaker 2003; Daniels & Martin 2001, 2002, 2004; Kritzer 1998), no
scholarship has examined how broader public culture may shape legal brief writing.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that the odds of the “protect the lives of patients” frame appearing as the most common “protect life” frame in a brief will increase in more politically conservative contexts when controlling for the brief’s supporting party and type. The results of Models 3 and 5 support this hypothesis by testing the effect of the political context measure of the proportion of states with a Democrat majority in at least one state-level chamber; in each model, the coefficient is less than one and significant at the p = 0.05 level when controlling for the other variables in the model. Therefore, when the political context is more conservative (i.e., the proportion of states with a Democrat majority in at least one state-level chamber decreases), the
“protect the lives of patients” frame is slightly more likely to appear as the primary “protect life”
frame. Thus, we can conclude that in more conservative political contexts, movements
strategically reframe their “protect life” argument to emphasize the health and safety of patients, regardless of which side of the case they support.
Although work that focuses specifically on the relationship between political context and movement framing is limited, it does suggest that the broader political context influences
framing (see McCammon 2012; Lemaitre & Sandvik 2015; McCammon & Beeson-Lynch 2021).
For example, Rohlinger’s (2002) comparative study of framing strategies used by prochoice and antichoice SMOs during the 1980s and 1990s suggests that organizational frames shift in
response to changes to the political climate. Specifically, she found that the prochoice SMO was more likely than the antichoice SMO to shift its framing strategy, (i.e., become more “tactically flexible”) in response to changes in the broader political context compared to the antichoice
135
SMO. In contrast, the results of my regression analysis indicate that the “protect the lives of patients” frame is more likely to be used when the political context is more conservative, regardless of which side of the case that the brief authors support. In other words, both the feminists and anti-abortion protesters are more likely to use the “protect the lives of patients”
frame when the political context is more conservative.
Hypothesis 4a predicted that lawyers will be more likely to use the “protect the lives of patients” frame when the legal context is more ideologically conservative. In Models 4 and 5, the legal context is measured by the average Martin-Quinn score of all of the justices combined to produce a Court-level measure for the case135. A higher average Martin-Quinn score indicates that the Court is more politically conservative, and a lower average Martin-Quinn score indicates a more liberal judiciary. Model 4 tests the effect of the average Martin-Quinn score on the odds that the “protect the lives of patients” frame will be the most commonly used “protect life” frame in a brief, controlling for the brief’s supporting party and type; the results of Model 4 do not offer any support for Hypothesis 4a at the p = 0.05 level136.
135 Hypotheses 4b predicted that when the lower court ruled in favor of the feminist party to the case, the odds that the “protect the lives of patients” frame will be the most commonly used “protect life” frame in a brief will decrease. When I included the binary measure equal to 1 if the lower court ruled in favor of the feminist party to the case and 0 otherwise, the measure was not significant at the p = 0.05 level when controlling for the brief’s
supporting party and type. As such, I did not find support for Hypothesis 4b. Similarly, Hypotheses 4c predicted that when the case involved disputes over buffer-zone laws, the odds that the “protect the lives of patients” frame will be the most commonly used “protect life” frame in a brief will increase. When I included the binary measure equal to 1 if the brief was submitted in a buffer-zone case and 0 otherwise, the measure was not significant at the p = 0.05 level when controlling for the brief’s supporting party and type. As such, I did not find support for Hypothesis 4c.
136 I tested the effects of all three legal context measures (the average Martin-Quinn score, disposition of the lower court, and the case type), and none of the legal context measures were significant when only controlling for the brief’s supporting party and brief type. The effects of the disposition of the lower court and case type were also not significant when I controlled for the political, cultural, and internal movement contexts, in addition to the brief’s supporting party and type. However, when the Martin-Quinn measure is included in a model controlling for political, cultural, and internal movement contexts, the legal context measure is significantly related to the use of the patient frame. I discuss this finding next.
136
However, as the results of Model 5 reveal, the average Martin-Quinn score is a
significant predictor of incidents of the “protect the lives of patients” frame when I account for other factors, including the proportion of left social movement authors and the proportion of states with a Democrat majority in at least one state-level chamber, in addition to the other variables in the model137. Thus, in this full model, I found support for Hypothesis 4a.
Due to the highly insular nature of the Court (e.g., lifetime tenure and separation of powers), it is reasonable to expect that justices’ votes are primarily a reflection of their personal ideological preferences rather than the result of strategic voting that is influenced by the broader political environment (Brace et al. 1998). In such a scenario, activists would not need to consider the effects of external political factors (e.g., the partisan control of state governments) when strategically aligning their frames to the dominant values and beliefs of the Court. However, the results of my regression analysis suggest that a more complicated process might be occurring.
Specifically, the results indicate that feminist and opponent lawyers’ use of the “protect the lives of patients” frame in amicus and party briefs is not simply a function of the Court’s ideological composition, but rather, it is the result of several external- and internal-movement factors. This is evidenced by several important features of Model 5. First, as previously mentioned, when I control for the various other measures in Model 5, the coefficient of the average Martin-Quinn score is significant at the p = 0.05 level, suggesting that controlling for these other environments, the legal context influences patient framing as expected. A more conservative legal environment results in more emphasis of patient framing. Second, the lowest Akaike information criterion (AIC) score is obtained from Model 5, indicating that the best fitting model predicting instances
137 I did not find evidence of multicollinearity between the predictors in all of the models (see the Appendix for the VIF and tolerance scores for each model).
137
of the “protect the lives of patients” frame is one that includes the political, legal, and internal movement variables138.
Overall, the results of my regression analysis highlight the importance of considering the effects of both structure and agency when studying movement framing activity. In terms of the structural determinants of movement framing, the results in Model 5 indicate that the “protect the lives of patients” frame is more likely to be used in conservative political-legal contexts,
regardless of whether or not the brief supports the feminist party to the case. The results of my regression analysis also highlight the importance of considering agency when studying framing activity. The results of Model 5 indicate that when more left social movement authors join a party or amicus brief, the odds of the “protect the lives of patients” frame being used
subsequently increases, regardless of which side of the case the brief supports.
Work that focuses specifically on the relationship between the political-legal context and movement framing suggests that the broader political-legal context influences framing (see McCammon 2012; Pedriana 2007; Lemaitre & Sandvik 2015; McCammon & Beeson-Lynch 2021; Carroll & Ratner 1996). While the bulk of the work that focuses on the relationship
between the broader political-legal context and framing tends to be longitudinal and focused on a single movement, some scholars have examined cross-movement framing patterns. For example, in their study of cross-movement ties and the use of different types of injustice frames, Carroll and Ratner (1996) found that activists whose SMO memberships put them in contact with members from other movements tend to use similar injustice frames. While their study includes SMOs from several movements, all of the movements, including the feminist and environmental
138 See Burnham and Anderson (2004) for further discussion on using AIC scores for model selection.
138
movement, appear to hold similar, left-leaning ideologies. Conversely, my cross-sectional
analysis examines how changes in the broader political-legal context affects legal framing among feminists and their opponents.
The results in Models 4 and 5 illustrate the importance of considering the internal movement composition and broader political context in order to understand why both feminists and opponents use the “protect the lives of patients” frame in conservative political-legal contexts. When the proportion of left social movement authors and states with a Democrat majority in at least one state-level chamber are ignored (Model 4), the effect of the legal context is not significant at the p = 0.05 level. However, when both of these variables are included in the model (Model 5), in addition to the brief’s supporting party and type, the effect of the legal context is significantly and positively related to the odds that the “protect the lives of patients”
frame will be the most commonly used “protect life” frame in a brief at the p = 0.05 level.
To that end, the influence of the broader political-legal context and the organizational identity of SMOs on movement framing has been considered by a number of scholars (e.g., Staggenborg 1991; Rohlinger 2002; Esacove 2004). For example, in an earlier study, Rohlinger (2002) demonstrates that prochoice and antichoice SMOs adapted their frames in response to changes in the broader political environment. Specifically, she found that the prochoice organization was much more flexible and capable of tailoring its message to the political
environment compared to the antichoice organization. In their study of legal framing innovation, McCammon and Beeson-Lynch (2021) found that conservative political and legal contexts can facilitate the emergence of new legal frames among feminist cause lawyers.
The results of my regression build on this line of work by examining how changes the broader political and legal contexts influence the legal framing strategies of feminists and
139
opponents in party and amicus briefs filed in abortion protest cases when controlling for the proportion of left social movement authors. The results of my analysis indicate that feminist and opponent briefs with a high proportion of left social movement authors in conservative political- legal contexts are more likely to contain the “protect the lives of patients” frame.