Liberals and Leftists frame the abortion question as a “struggle” for the rights of women everywhere, a “right” supported by most Americans, and matter of “choice” (Nieves 2004). Two publications that illustrate the different approaches to framing and reporting on the issue of abortion are The American Spectator and The Washington Post. The former stands as an opponent of abortion and of politicians who support it. The latter largely supports the protection of abortion rights on the part of women. Both employ biased language, innuendo, colorful modifiers, and the overt display of sympathies for one side over the other.
Both of the articles chosen from these two publications very early on make known their loyalties. The Washington Post story’s title of “Abortion Rights Said To Be at a Crossroads” with the subtitle of “Mont. Ex-Legislator Takes NARAL Helm” very clearly stands as an article sympathetic to the pro-abortion camp (Nieves 2004). Abortion is referred to as a “right,” which is to imply that it is something inalienable to women. The abortion fight is at a “crossroads” shows further sympathy. The right was affirmed back in 1974, but now things are at a “crossroads.” This hints at the fact that the foes of abortion rights are now trying to reverse that decision. The proponents, organizations like NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League), feel that abortion rights are being threatened more now than ever. The “Ex-Legislator” who takes the “helm” is to serve as a sort of captain to guide the ship through these troubled waters (Nieves 2004).
The American Spectator’s title of “The President and Abortion” may seem nebulous or even politically neutral. This is probably just to draw the reader in. The article begins, however, with “Another somber anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton is upon us. These were