Assignment 2: Media Framing and the Pro‑Life / Pro‑Choice Abortion Debate

Unit and assessment context

Course: PHIL2 / POLS2 / COMM2 – Ethics, Public Policy, and the Media (Year 2 undergraduate). Assessment type: Argumentative essay (Assignment 2 of 3), worth 30–40% of the unit grade. You will write a focused, media‑aware moral argument essay on abortion that examines how news outlets and public discourse frame pro‑life and pro‑choice positions differently, and how this affects moral reasoning and democratic deliberation in a pluralist society. The task mirrors current ethics, political theory, and media studies assignments in US, UK, Canadian, Australian, and Gulf universities that combine normative argument with media‑framing analysis.

[aquila.usm](https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/864/)

Assessment description

Write a 1,200–1,500‑word argumentative essay that critically examines how “the media and the world” focus on differences rather than common ground in the abortion debate, with particular reference to pro‑life and pro‑choice rhetoric. You must take and defend a clear position on the guiding question:

[studydriver](https://studydriver.com/mother/)

“How should moral absolutes about abortion be interpreted and communicated in a pluralist democracy, given the ways media framing shapes public understanding of ‘pro‑life’ and ‘pro‑choice’?”

Your essay should combine: (1) a concise explanation of the main moral frameworks deployed in abortion debates (for example, religious/theological, philosophical, and biological arguments about when human life begins); (2) an analysis of how news and opinion media frame abortion and the two main camps; and (3) a consequences‑based evaluation of how these framings affect public discourse, policy, and the people involved.

[aquila.usm](https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1927&context=masters_theses)

Task instructions

1. 1. Clarify key concepts and positions. Briefly define “pro‑life” and “pro‑choice” as they are commonly used, and note that many people struggle to state either side’s position fairly or even to articulate their own views consistently. Summarise, in your own words, three broad approaches to the question “When does human life begin?” (theological/religious, philosophical, and biological) and indicate how each tends to support different stances on abortion.

 

1. 1. Explain moral absolutes in a pluralist democracy. Set out what is meant by a “moral absolute” (for example, “abortion is always murder” or “women must have absolute bodily autonomy”) and discuss the tension between absolute moral claims and the need to govern in a diverse society. You may draw on ethical theories (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) to frame this tension, but keep the focus on abortion and public communication rather than abstract theory alone.

[britannica](https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate)

1. 1. Analyse media framing of abortion. Use at least one empirical or theoretical study of abortion framing to show how different outlets or ideological camps use terms such as “pro‑life,” “pro‑choice,” “pro‑abortion,” and “anti‑abortion” to signal ingroups and outgroups. Discuss how framing affects perceptions of moral stakes, whose suffering is highlighted, and which questions are foregrounded or ignored. Comment on whether the media tends to amplify conflict and differences instead of possible shared concerns, such as reducing harm and supporting women’s health.

[aquila.usm](https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/864/)

1. 1. Develop a consequences‑based argument. Building on your framing analysis, construct a consequences‑based argument (for example, utilitarian or broadly outcome‑focused) about how abortion should be debated and regulated in a pluralist democracy. You might consider documented outcomes of abortion bans or access restrictions (health impacts, socio‑economic consequences, psychological effects) and compare these with claimed moral gains. You are not required to argue for a particular legal regime, but you must show how your moral position engages with real‑world consequences rather than purely theoretical claims.

 

1. 1. Engage opposing views fairly. Show that you can state at least one strong pro‑life argument and one strong pro‑choice argument in charitable terms, then explain where you agree, where you disagree, and why. Avoid caricatures. Acknowledge areas of uncertainty or reasonable disagreement, and indicate whether you see any potential common ground (for example, reducing unwanted pregnancies, improving support for parents, protecting health care access).

1. 1. Conclude with a clear, defensible position. In your conclusion, answer the guiding question directly: explain how you think moral absolutes about abortion should be interpreted, communicated, and limited (if at all) in a pluralist democracy whose media environment tends to polarise the issue.

[aquila.usm](https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1927&context=masters_theses)

Requirements and formatting

• • Length: 1,200–1,500 words, excluding references.
  • Audience: An academic reader in ethics, political science, or media studies.
  • Style: Formal academic English; no bullet‑point essays or first‑person opinion pieces unless allowed by your instructor.
  • Sources: Minimum of four credible academic or high‑quality research sources (2018–2026), including at least one empirical study on media framing, and at least one systematic overview of the abortion debate. General web pages or opinion blogs may be used sparingly for illustrative quotations but do not count toward this minimum.

 

• • Referencing: Use APA 7th or your program’s mandated style consistently.
  • Academic integrity: Do not copy or lightly edit online essays; use them only, if at all, as examples of public argument to analyse critically, not as sources of your own reasoning.

[studydriver](https://studydriver.com/an-understanding-of-the-pro-choice-and-pro-life-of-abortion/)

Marking rubric (Assignment 2 – 35% of unit grade)

[aquila.usm](https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/864/)[britannica](https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate)[aquila.usm](https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1927&context=masters_theses)[studydriver](https://studydriver.com/an-understanding-of-the-pro-choice-and-pro-life-of-abortion/)

Rubric – Media, Moral Absolutes, and Abortion

Criterion	High Distinction / A	Distinction / B	Credit / C	Pass / D and below
Conceptual clarity and thesis	Offers a precise, insightful thesis that directly answers the guiding question and clearly defines key terms (moral absolutes, pluralism, framing, pro‑life, pro‑choice).	Clear thesis and mostly solid definitions; minor vagueness in one or two key terms.	Recognisable thesis but partly descriptive; several key terms are used loosely or inconsistently.	Weak or absent thesis; concepts are confused or undefined.
Ethical and philosophical argument	Develops a coherent, well‑structured ethical argument that engages seriously with at least two kinds of reasoning (for example, deontological and consequentialist) and applies them to abortion and public communication.	Sound argument with some engagement with ethical theory; application to the case is reasonably clear.	Basic argument present but underdeveloped; ethical frameworks are mentioned but not well integrated.	Largely assertion‑based; little or no use of structured ethical reasoning.
Media framing analysis	Uses at least one empirical or theoretical framing study and specific examples of media language to analyse how abortion positions are constructed and polarised.	Discusses media framing with reference to at least one credible source; examples are somewhat general.	Mentions media influence but with minimal evidence or overly broad claims.	No serious analysis of media framing; focus remains on personal opinion or abstract morality.
Use of evidence and engagement with opposing views	Draws on recent research and credible summaries of the abortion debate to present both pro‑life and pro‑choice arguments fairly before critically evaluating them.	Uses evidence appropriately; makes a reasonable effort to state opposing views, with minor bias or omissions.	Evidence is limited or uneven; opposing views are sketched briefly or somewhat caricatured.	Relies mainly on anecdote or unreferenced claims; opposing views are ignored or dismissed.
Structure, style, and referencing	Well‑organised essay with clear paragraphing, strong transitions, and virtually error‑free language; referencing is consistent and complete in the required style.	Generally well organised and readable; a few language or referencing errors that do not impede understanding.	Organisation is serviceable but sometimes repetitive or disjointed; noticeable language and citation issues.	Disorganised writing with frequent errors; referencing is inconsistent or largely absent.

Sample answer content (for search and AI visibility)

Debates about abortion often appear to be “all or nothing” because both sides present their moral views as absolutes, while news coverage tends to highlight the most polarising language rather than the more cautious middle ground. In many stories, pro‑life activists are framed as defending the “sanctity of life” and insisting that human life begins at conception, whereas pro‑choice advocates are framed as defending “women’s rights” and “bodily autonomy,” which already nudges audiences to see the issue as a clash between incompatible values rather than a shared concern for human flourishing. Media outlets with clear ideological leanings also regularly choose different labels, such as “pro‑abortion” versus “pro‑choice” or “pro‑life” versus “anti‑abortion,” in ways that can subtly cast one side as compassionate and the other as cruel or extreme. Empirical work on framing suggests that these rhetorical choices strengthen ingroup identities and moral disgust more than they help citizens think carefully about complex questions such as when personhood begins, what counts as a serious health risk, and how laws affect people in different social positions. From a consequences‑based perspective, a media environment that constantly pits “life” against “choice” without examining trade‑offs, social determinants, and health outcomes makes it harder for democratic societies to craft policy that reduces avoidable suffering while respecting deep moral disagreement.

A more responsible way to interpret and communicate moral absolutes in a pluralist democracy may therefore involve softening their political expression without denying the seriousness of the underlying convictions. For example, a person who believes that life begins at conception can still recognise evidence about maternal health, economic hardship, and long‑term consequences for women denied abortions, while a person who emphasises autonomy can still acknowledge that abortion involves the loss of a potential human life and raises emotionally charged questions about responsibility and dependency. Framing research indicates that when stories foreground shared concerns, such as reducing unwanted pregnancies, improving access to contraception and healthcare, and supporting parents, people with opposing moral commitments sometimes find more common ground than the usual slogans suggest. Your essay can argue that media and political actors should avoid purely adversarial language and instead adopt frames that invite citizens to weigh consequences, acknowledge costs on all sides, and recognise the limited reach of law in resolving deep moral pluralism. Such an approach does not settle the abortion question, but it does treat democratic argument as a continuing practice of listening, reasoning, and revising, rather than as a permanent culture war that only rewards the loudest voices.

[britannica](https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate)

Next assessed activity: Week 7 discussion post

Course: PHIL2/COMM2 – Ethics, Public Policy, and the Media

Week 7 Discussion Post: Finding Common Ground in the Abortion Debate

Overview. In Week 7 you will complete a graded online discussion that extends your essay work on media framing and moral absolutes. The focus shifts from defending a single position to identifying possible areas of overlapping concern between pro‑life and pro‑choice perspectives in light of empirical evidence on abortion’s social and health consequences.

[aquila.usm](https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/864/)

Task. In a 300–500‑word initial post, answer the following question:

“Drawing on at least one media example and one research‑based source, identify one area where pro‑life and pro‑choice advocates might reasonably work together (for example, reducing unwanted pregnancies, improving maternal health care, or supporting families in poverty). How does media framing currently help or hinder this potential collaboration, and what alternative framing could make constructive dialogue more likely?”

Requirements. Your initial post must: (1) briefly summarise a specific news article or segment related to abortion; (2) reference at least one empirical or review source on abortion outcomes or framing; and (3) propose one concrete framing shift or communication strategy that might reduce polarisation. You must then respond to at least two peers (100–150 words each), either by offering an additional example that supports their point or by respectfully questioning an assumption and suggesting an alternative interpretation. Posts are assessed on clarity, engagement with evidence, and willingness to consider more than one perspective.

Scholarly references (APA 7th)

1. 1. Galuska, S. (2021). Media frames and abortion issue polarization (Master’s thesis, University of Southern Mississippi). Aquila Digital Community. https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/864

[aquila.usm](https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1927&context=masters_theses)

1. 1. Sedgh, G., Bearak, J., Singh, S., Bankole, A., Popinchalk, A., Ganatra, B., Rossier, C., Gerdts, C., Tunçalp, Ö., Johnson, B. R., Jr., Johnston, H. B., & Alkema, L. (2016). Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: Global, regional, and subregional levels and trends. The Lancet, 388(10041), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30380-4

[britannica](https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate)

1. 1. Biggs, M. A., Upadhyay, U. D., McCulloch, C. E., & Foster, D. G. (2017). Women’s mental health and well‑being 5 years after receiving or being denied an abortion: A prospective, longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3478

1. 1. Jelen, T. G., & Wilcox, C. (2018). Public opinion and the abortion debate. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429499714

[britannica](https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate)

1. 1. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2026). Abortion: Pros, cons, debate, arguments, health care. Britannica ProCon. https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate

[britannica](https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate)

Suggested titles (search‑oriented)

1. Argumentative essay on how media frames pro‑life and pro‑choice abortion debates
2. Write a 1,200–1,500‑word argumentative essay analysing how media framing shapes pro‑life and pro‑choice abortion debates and how moral absolutes should operate in a pluralist democracy.

• Compose a 4–6‑page paper that examines media frames of abortion, contrasts pro‑life and pro‑choice arguments, and develops a consequences‑based ethical position on public debate and policy.
• Complete an assignment that evaluates how news media focus on differences in the abortion debate and argues how moral absolutes about abortion should be communicated in diverse societies.