Picture: Demonstration against abortion law changes (NTB scanpix, 2019)
Master’s Thesis – Graduate School of Communication MSc Communication Science – Political Communication
A heated Norwegian abortion debate;
Normative standards under pressure?
Date of submission: 24.06.2019 Supervisor: Dr. Linda Bos By: Christian August Stang (11770937)
Word count: 8.999 (excl. tables, figures, abstract and preface)
Note to second reader: Because of (1) a qualitative approach and (2) an extensive amount of
Driven by an idealistic belief that the public sphere deserves good deliberations, this has been a truly exciting research process. I want to thank my supervisor Dr. Linda Bos for her encouragement, help and enthusiasm. I also want to thank all the respondents for participating. Those featured in this study are those who potentially can make use of the findings. Hopefully, this thesis provides a facilitating tool for improvement.
Literature suggests there is tension between normative standards for contributions to the public sphere and debates on moral issues. Such issues are likely to arouse emotions and provoke hostile opinions – leaving it less likely that normative standards are followed. By investigating a specific Norwegian abortion debate, the present study dives into this tension. Through interviews with key-participants in the debate, i.e., journalists and politicians, it finds that only a few normative standards were considered. Participants also perceive that other debate contributors followed even fewer standards, simultaneously as they characterize the debate in unfavorable terms on several parameters. Besides pointing to shortcomings regarding the studied debate, these findings suggest a discussion about (1) the configuration of normative theory, and (2) improvement possibilities for future moral debates. First, it is suggested that normative theory should acknowledge that all topics cannot be debated the same way. It should e.g., embrace that attached argumentation sometimes is inevitable, and it should explain how to best navigate in an uninformed debate climate. Due to respondents’ characterization of citizens’ role in the debate, it is also suggested that normative theory should grant citizens a more prominent discursive role – especially in small democracies resembling Norway. Second, even though the findings suggest normative theory should be adjusted, they also indicate that the studied debate would have been more fruitful if such standards were followed. Accordingly, it is suggested that future moral debates would benefit if participants reflect upon their own behavior and strive for a factual, dialogic debate
detached from political tactics, i.e., contribute to a debate which gives the subject just.
Preface
Norway, fall 2018; The Christian Democratic party (KrF) decides whether to join the blue conservative government, or seek alliance with the left red-wing. If they go red, the government will fall – it will no longer have parliamentary support.
Amidst this political thriller, Norway’s prime minister of the party Høyre, Erna Solberg, proposes adjusting the abortion law if KrF joins her government. She proposes adjustments on two accounts; (1) the abortion law’s §2c1 and (2) current practice regarding multifetal pregnancy reduction2. This proposition weighs heavily within KrF, and after a
tense internal battle, they choose the blue side.
Today, KrF is part of the blue conservative government. Accompanying their
governmental entry, the abortion law has been adjusted3; multifetal pregnancy reduction must now be considered by abortion committees, i.e., women can no longer choose on their own to abort one of several fetuses. The abortion law’s §2c remains unchanged.
The heated debate that trajected from Solberg’s proposition is the focal point of this thesis. It does not intend to determine what is right or wrong, but to understand the debate in light of normative standards. Morality, ethics and debate might at times constitute unsound companionships – this thesis examines if this was the case during this debate.
1 Abortion law §2c states; After week 12 of pregnancy, pregnancy-interruption can occur when; there is great risk that the child may have serious illness, as a result of hereditary disease, disease or harmful effects during pregnancy (Lov om svangerskapsavbrudd [abortloven], 1976).
2 Regulation regarding multifetal pregnancy reduction has previously not explicitly been incorporated in the abortion law. Prior to proposed adjustment, law interpretations have allowed self-determined multifetal pregnancy reduction before week 12 of pregnancy. This issue is called fetal reduction and twin-abortion throughout the thesis.
3 Law-change enforced by parliament 13.6.19. Depending on political stance, the adjustment is either considered a restriction or a clarification of the law. Most political commentators agree the adjustment implies restriction.
Introduction
“The abortion debates and demonstrations lately have been full of misleading and unfounded arguments and slogans. Is it impossible to have a factual debate regarding such questions?”
- Former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell M. Bondevik (2018)
Erna Solberg’s proposition did not go unnoticed. Several critics claimed adjusting the abortion law entailed decreasing women’s self-determination rights. A heated national debate emerged; politicians, journalists, experts, citizens and celebrities participated in the crossfire. Not only was the abortion law in play, the governing power of Norway was also at stake. An ethically difficult debate thus became intervened in a political game.
In addition to Bondevik, others have criticized the debate. It has been characterized as disrespectful, hard and implacable (Ulserød, 2018), consisting of selective argumentation, cheap rhetoric and accusations (Antonsen & Hjortland, 2018, 2019). The present study dives into this debate – it analyses considerations of key participants; politicians and journalists. What do they think of the debate and their own contribution to it?
In order to analyze participant’s considerations, the study relies on normative standards which supposedly enable (1) an ideal public sphere and (2) an optimal discursive situation in different democracies. It especially consults normative frameworks by Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards and Rucht (2002a), Strömbäck (2005), Christians, Glasser, McQuail, Nordenstreng and White (2010), Fishkin and Luskin (2005) and Habermas (2006). These frameworks deal with issues like detached (factual) vs. attached (emotional) argumentation, civility vs. uncivility and deliberative norms.
If normative standards are more than utopian academic guidelines, one might assume they are followed in Norway – the world’s most democratic country (The Economist
standards were not met, e.g., the debate seemed uncivil, emotional and consisting of misinformation4. Perhaps therefore, critics have described it as nonoptimal. This might be explained by the debate’s moral5 and ethical aspect. Research suggests that debates on moral issues like abortion differentiate them from other political debates (Ryan, 2014; Clifford, Jerit, Rainey & Motyl, 2015). People are more likely to take specific issue stands (Clifford et al., 2015) and become mobilized (Biggers, 2011). Moral conviction attitudes are evoked, in turn provoking a distinct processing mode which arouses emotions and fuels hostile opinions (Ryan, 2014). Thus, debates on issues like abortion potentially elicit attitudes and behaviors diverging from normative standards and principles.
The present study examines the tension between normative standards and moral issues, using a specific Norwegian abortion debate as context. By interviewing key debate participants, it aims to answer the following research question: How do the participants in
the Norwegian abortion debate evaluate the debate’s alignment to normative standards?
Specifically, how do they consider (1) their own contribution and (2) the debate in general? While previous research (Ferree, Gamson, Rucht & Gerhards, 2002b) investigates the same tension, the present study takes a different approach. First, instead of studying USA and Germany, it examines a Norwegian setting. Second, it focuses on one specific debate. Third, it does not attempt to determine which democracy model best fits the Norwegian discourse, it rather examines if normative standards proposed for the Norwegian liberal representative / competitive democracy model align with key participants’ perception of the debate and their own contribution to it.
4 Fact-checkers (Faktisk.no, n.d.) have refuted several misinformation’s in this debate.
5 Zygmunt Bauman distinguishes between moral and ethics; moral as perceived individual responsibilities towards others and ethics as societies' shared assumptions of “rules of conduct” (Kelemen & Peltonen, 2001). The present study applies moral as guiding concept, it being the potent force affecting argumentation; either based on, or detached from, ethical considerations.
The most important academic contribution of the study is thus to normatively assess existing theories, and by that potentially refine normative assumptions (Althaus, 2012). Hence, the study contributes to an omnipresent debate within political science, namely if theory should be applied to what is, or to what ought to be (Habermas, 2006;
Pietrzyk-Reeves, 2017). Furthermore, Norway is a small country where political debates often become nationwide; everyone is involved, everyone is impacted. Thus, it is especially important to understand how key debate participants consider their own behavior and if debates unfold in an ideal way. Hopefully, the present study contributes to triggering an important debate on how debates are carried out – and if current practice best serves the Norwegian democracy.
Literature Review
The Role of Debate in the Norwegian Democracy
“Deliberative, argumentative discourse is an important component of opinion formation, belief revision, and knowledge discovery; it is a cornerstone of modern civil society” (Walker, Tree, Anand, Abbott & King, 2012, p. 812). Debates thus lie at the heart of the public sphere, which is described as "a network for communicating information and points of view" (Habermas, 1996, p. 360). Debates unfold there, they shape its course.
Theory on public sphere and democracy are intertwined (Ferree et al., 2002a). Regardless of democracy type, if society and its inherent public sphere is unable to structure debates regarding opposing interests and ideas, the governing state becomes detached from its citizens (Castells, 2008). An independent public sphere working as an intermediate between state and society, is thus a premise for democracy (Habermas, 2006). Accordingly, debate is necessary for democracy to thrive – the functioning of the public sphere determines the success rate. However, how, who and with what remain open questions related to the
public sphere’s functioning. Answers depend on democracy types (Ferree et al., 2002a), leaving it necessary to consult normative democratic theory.
Norway can be categorized as a competitive/liberal representative democracy (Ferree et al., 2002a; Strömbäck, 2005; Selle & Østerud, 2006). Essentially, citizens hold the ultimate authority through electing policymakers. Citizens’ role is thus limited; they choose from a competing political elite, and further grant parts of this elite the ruling power. Ferree et al. (2002a) accordingly claim elites should dominate the public discourse. However, this view is too limited according to Habermas (2006), claiming that all liberal democracies, regardless of institutional arrangement, should strive for a public sphere which encourages political
participation of as many interested citizens as possible. Nevertheless, also Habermas (2006) acknowledges that especially two actors are essential in the public sphere; journalists and politicians. He claims, “mediated political communication is carried out by an elite” (p. 416). Thus, the present study moves within this boundary, i.e., only politicians and journalists are interviewed.
Selle and Østerud (2006) provide insight into the citizen-vs-elite balance in Norway; they suggest citizens are decreasingly empowered and elites more so. They blame structural democratic change through two congruent processes. First, power is more centralized as local authorities are increasingly tied to central reforms and decisions. Second, citizens are less active in ideological mass movements. Rather, they join smaller groups tailored to personal needs. Thus, the road to the ruling elite is longer, and citizens’ ability to collectively
influence society is smaller. Nonetheless, in comparative terms, Norway is a well-functioning representative democracy; the ruling elites are responsive and accommodating towards citizens, and there is a decent level of governmental trust (Selle & Østerud, 2006).
Regardless of a responsive ruling elite however, decreased citizen power increases the demand for a public discourse which echoes citizens’ interest in Norway. The public
discourse must enable citizens to make well-informed choices, so that they can perform their limited power; vote. Much trust is thus placed in the public sphere’s functioning.
Normative Standards for Politicians and Journalists Conjunct
A normative standard or principle is “a general directive that tells agents what (they ought, or ought not) to do” (Cohen, 2003, p. 211). Such standards direct those participating in the public discourse, regardless of role, i.e., both politicians and journalists.
First, Ferree et al. (2002a) suggest all participants should act detached, i.e., factual arguments should be brought forward rather than personal emotional appeals. They should also act civil and avoid verbal attacks. The norm is that experts and elites get proportional access to the public sphere, e.g., according to citizen’s votes, and contribute to a transparent marketplace of ideas. Here, different opinions should be welcomed. According to
Habermasian theory (Ferree et al., 2002a), this requires a dialogic discourse where opinions are supported by reasoned and understandable arguments. The public sphere should produce well-considered decisions, enabling closure (Ferree et al., 2002a). Thus, a comprehensive discourse is appreciated, but when decisions are reached, the system must move on.
While these norms seem in line with democratic deliberative theory (e.g., Habermas, 2006), closure seems undesirable and unattainable because; (1) deliberations must clarify remaining disagreements to avoid suppressing differences in opinions (Mansbridge, 1996) and (2) it seems incompatible with political competition in multiparty systems with proportional representation. This normative standard is thus disregarded in the analysis. Normative Standards for Journalists
Several scholars define normative journalistic standards, e.g., according to media systems (Siebert, Peterson, Peterson & Schramm, 1956) or citizens’ needs and capabilities (e.g., Zaller, 2003). However, such approaches disregard that the democracy in which media
operate must be considered (Strömbäck, 2005). Thus, drawing on democratic theory, both Christians et al. (2010) and Strömbäck (2005) propose normative journalistic frameworks.
First, Christians et al. (2010) outline four media roles according to media’s
institutional power and autonomy within democracies. Because Norway is rated the world’s most democratic country (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019) and is highest on RSF’s press freedom index (2018 World Press Freedom Index, n.d.), it is reasonable to assume high levels on both conditions. Such conditions require a monitorial media role, i.e., media should act as watchdogs who objectively, neutrally, impartially and systematically discuss and report on current affairs (Christians et al., 2010). Morality can thus only indirectly be applied, i.e., through referencing someone’s moral standpoint (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000).
However, Salgado and Strömbäck (2012) note that interpretive journalism (e.g., political commentating as practiced by the present study’s respondents) cannot be
normatively assessed equal to news journalism. Accordingly, because interpretive/intervening journalists may take sides, provide opinion/value judgement, suggest proposals/demands, use adjectives and write in first person (Mellado & Van Dalen, 2014; Mellado, 2015), such practice cannot be equally objective and neutral. This ambiguity in defining journalistic norms is considered in the present study, i.e., it is not expected that respondents considered these norms, nor that they only indirectly applied moral, but they are still asked if they did.
Regardless of journalistic roles however, Salgado and Strömbäck (2012) acknowledge that journalisms’ main task is to provide citizens with necessary information enabling them to be free and self-governing. Christians et al. (2010) similarly suggest that media have a duty to inform citizens so they can form well-informed opinions and decisions. Strömbäck (2005) agrees; in a competitive democracy like Norway, journalists should provide citizens with comprehensive and accurate information regarding the country’s governing and governors, i.e. they should act as watchdogs. Also, media must set the agenda as politicians have
self-favouring interest (Strömbäck, 2005). They should be truth-speakers, holding power-holders accountable (Christians et al., 2010). Acting as watchdogs is accordingly a normative expectation upon political commentators, although they might apply their own opinions. Normative Standards for Politicians
As a basic normative principle, “rulers should rule in the interest of the ruled” (Philp, 2007, p. 222). There should thus be causality between representatives’ policy decisions and citizens’ interests (Wessels, 2009). Hence, citizens in functional competitive democracies choose their government according to who best fulfils this duty (Strömbäck, 2005).
The present study cannot determine if/how citizens’ interest translates into policy. However, representing citizens’ interest also inheres expectations regarding how politicians deliberate and communicate political views. Key questions are; how should politicians behave and communicate for their constituents to decide if they rule in their interest? Thus, what behavior best facilitates the democratic process in competitive democracies?
To assume the previous questions can be answered requires a normative approach to political science; one assumes it is possible to define what ought to be. This differs from a second paradigm within political science – the positive approach claiming that “theory only can be applied to what is” (Pietrzyk-Reeves, 2017, p. 174). As opposed to journalism
research, political science is thus less unanimous that defining normative standards is feasible and advantageous. Despite ambiguity however, the literature provides some clues.
Drawing on Schumpeter (1975 [1942]), Strömbäck (2005) compares politician’s role in competitive democracies with marketplace goods. Citizens are customers, they choose between different “options”. Clear alternatives and opposing views within the political discourse are fundamental. This is palpable – political disagreement is omnipresent in democratic societies. The interesting question is how the discourse (should) unfold.
Theorists provide suggestions agreeing that a well-functioning public sphere is a deliberative one (Evans, 2012), regardless of whether it is dominated by elites or not.
Habermas (2006) suggests deliberation enables formation of considered political opinion, i.e., that agreement as opposed to polarization can be achieved through deliberation. Similarly, Evans (2012) claims that a deliberative public sphere is vital for political decision making. Thus, it seems promising to consult deliberative theory to identify guidelines for how politicians best “battle” within the public sphere.
Fishkin and Luskin’s (2005) seminal research offers “rules” that should apply when competing opinions and considerations meet in deliberation. These mirror Habermas’ (2006) suggestions for functional democratic deliberations. First, they propose that deliberations should be balanced, i.e., counterarguments should be welcomed. This aligns with the dialogue norm (Ferree et al., 2002a), i.e., welcoming different opinions. Second,
deliberations should be informed, i.e., arguments should be supported by factual, accurate and appropriate claims. Evans (2012) similarly claims that reason needs to justify arguments, and Habermas (2006) stresses that this norm still applies whenever there are disagreements; he claims deliberations should be processed discursively, i.e., through proper pro/con
argumentation. Third, deliberations should be substantive, i.e., arguments should be considered on substance, not on how they are stated or who states them.
Lastly, Fishkin and Luskin (2005) claim deliberations should be comprehensive, i.e., significant citizen groups should be heard. This is legitimately essential; it ensures “plurality of considered public opinions” (Habermas, 2006, p. 416). Comprehensibility is also a
prerequisite for deliberations because they must mobilize required information and relevant issues – in turn generating rational attitudes and decisions (Habermas, 2006).
Given the normative expectation of a deliberative public sphere, these “rules” are considered expectations upon politicians. A summarized overview of the normative standards discussed in this literature review is found in table 1.
Normative standards for
All Public Sphere participants Journalists Politicians Act civil
Verbal attacks should be avoided
(Ferree et al., 2002a)
Act detached Factual arguments over emotional/personal arguments
(Ferree et al., 2002a)
Welcome different opinions Reasoned and understandable
arguments through dialogic discourse. Contribute to a transparent marketplace of
ideas that produces well-considered decisions
(Ferree et al., 2002a)
Act as a watchdog Hold power-holders
accountable
(Christians et al., 2010; Strömbäck, 2005)
Duty to inform citizens with comprehensive,
accurate and factual information in order for them to form well-informed
opinions and decisions
(Christians et al., 2010; Strömbäck, 2005; Salgado &
Strömbäck, 2012)
(Act objective, neutral and impartial)
(Christians et al., 2010)
Media must set the agenda in political issues (Strömbäck, 2005) Contribute to balanced (dialogic), substantial, informed and comprehensive political deliberations
(Fishkin & Luskin, 2005)
Deliberations must mobilize required information and relevant
issues, be processed discursively, and generate
rational attitudes
(Habermas, 2006)
Table 1. Normative standards summarized The Moral Aspect
As discussed, moral debates might provoke argumentation incompatible with
normative standards. The explanation is causal; people are likely to take stance close to their personal beliefs and become mobilized (Biggers, 2011). Emotions are aroused – leading to
the emergence of hostile opinions (Ryan, 2014). A content analysis on a stem cell debate by Clifford and Jerit (2013) provides support for this causal chain; it finds that both proponents and opponents engage in moral rhetoric, and that moral rhetoric increases in periods with legislative activity. It also finds some evidence that moral rhetoric breeds more moral rhetoric; when one side initiates, the opposing side answers equivalently. Thus, moral issues might provoke an argumentative battle where promoting own views trumps norms. Especially attachment, civility and substantial, balanced and informative deliberations seem threatened.
It is accordingly important to understand if/how normative standards are considered in moral debates because such issues might move to the political agenda’s forefront. Citizens are more engaged in moral issues than other issues (Clifford et al., 2015) and more inclined to vote in certain directions based on them (Biggers, 2011). Accordingly, Abramowitz (1995) finds that abortion was the most influential issue on voter behavior in the 1992 U.S. election. Thus, politicians might recognize such issues’ inherent mobilizing force and accordingly pursue political gain. Simultaneously, the issue might lead them to disregard normative standards. Analyzing an abortion debate is thus especially useful to understand the potential application of normative frameworks.
Method
If the aim was to purely assess if normative standards were followed, a quantitative content analysis could have been applied. However, the present study aims to understand how politicians and journalists contributed to, and consider, a specific abortion debate in light of normative standards. This implies investigating why- and how-questions related to a specific context – leaving qualitative method appropriate. Also, because the aim is to uncover
individual interviews are relevant. This ensures preserving individual opinions in the data and enables capturing nuances regarding each respondent’s debate contribution.
Sample
As key contributors to the public sphere, and the studied debate, both politicians and journalists are interviewed. Because they hold prominent roles, anonymity is considered throughout the research process. Thus, certain details regarding the sample and the sampling process cannot be disclosed. Overall however, respondents consented to it being impossible to entirely ensure anonymity because readers may relate statements with roles (for consent form, see appendix 1)6.
Sampling criteria. Selected journalists and politicians actively participated in the debate. Sampled politicians must have had a strong opinion which gained media publicity. To ensure political breadth, both sides of the Norwegian political landscape should be evenly represented. Sampled journalists must have acted as commentators and not as disseminators, i.e., provided citizens with opinions, analysis and/or interpretations and not only
case-information. This distinction is important because the aim is to capture data from those who shaped the debate with their viewpoints. Sampled journalists should also represent different news-outlets to create variation. Only newspaper-journalists are interviewed7.
Sampling method. The overall sampling method is purposeful sampling, i.e., the sample needs to be information-rich (Patton, 1990). Patton further describes multiple strategies when purposefully selecting a sample – the present study adopts several of them. First, the sample is criterion based, i.e., it must fit with the previously described criteria. Second, the sample is intense, meaning that the debate’s main arguments and frames are
6 The study is ethically approved by ASCoR, ID: 2019-PCJ-10492.
7 Political commentators in news-broadcasters (NRK/TV2) were not considered to shape the debate. Reason; NRK-commentators (public broadcaster) are subject to government-issued directions, which more than general press instructions emphasize neutrality (“NRK-plakaten”, n.d.). They are accordingly considered more objective in this debate. Also, TV2-political commentators did not provide adequate explicit opinions in the debate.
found in the sample’s contributions. This overlaps with critical cases sampling, as the sample should constitute the most prominent contributions to the public sphere in this debate.
Sampling process. Based on subjective assessments, nine people (four journalists and five politicians) were initially considered optimal. Through consultation with a gatekeeper8 it was decided to substitute one of the considered journalists to create more sample variation (there were two journalists from the same newspaper on the initial list). The four remaining journalists were considered the debate’s most prominent journalistic voices. The gatekeeper further forwarded an invitation-letter to the four journalists in April 2019. All four agreed to participate and were interviewed in April/May.
All five politicians on the initial list were contacted in April – two agreed to
participate. These were interviewed in April/May respectively. Further, one of the contacted politicians never responded, and one declined. It was attempted to recruit another respondent from the same political party as the one who declined, but this person also declined.
Moreover, the last initially considered politician said yes, but referred to a more relevant candidate within her own party – a proposition which was considered well-founded.
Thus, the sampling process took on a snowballing-character at this stage – a fruitful strategy for locating critical and information-rich cases (Patton, 1990). The politician who was referred to was contacted in April and confirmed/interviewed in May. This politician (and a previously interviewed journalist) further referred to a politician which was not on the initial list. This politician was contacted, confirmed and interviewed in May. Also, an expert was contacted, confirmed and interviewed in May.
Sample size. Patton (1990) notes, “there are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry” (p. 184). However, in studies with information-rich samples such as the present, he proposes that few interviews can produce valuable information. The sample size is thus
determined by when saturation is reached, i.e., additional respondents no longer provide additional information (Marshall, Cardon, Poddar & Fontenot, 2013).
Saturation was reached on several subjects after five to seven interviews. However, additional interviews were considered necessary. Specifically, an expert who observed the debate was interviewed to validate findings from an “outside” perspective. Also, one
additional politician was interviewed to clarify some diverging findings from interviews with politicians and to create sample balance, i.e. even representation between both political sides9. After nine interviews, saturation was considered reached on all important subjects.
The complete sample is found in table 210.
Respondent Role Date Length
Politician A Government Minister (Right wing), Male 23.04.2019 35:47 Journalist A Political Editor (Newspaper A), Female 24.04.2019 26:43 Journalist B Political Commentator (Newspaper B), Female 26.04.2019 51:50 Journalist C Political Editor (Newspaper C), Female 30.04.2019 40:31 Politician B Member of Parliament (Left wing), Female 06.05.2019 31:56 Politician C Member of Parliament (Left wing), Female 13.05.2019 49:38 Journalist D Political Editor (Newspaper D), Female 13.05.2019 29:10 Expert Political Commentator (Expert), Male 14.05.2019 32:49 Politician D Youth Politician (Right wing), Female 20.05.2019 42:55
Table 2. Sample Reliability and Validity
Reliability. Although the literature is ambiguous about reliability in qualitative research, the research process’ trustworthiness and transparency are its crucial aspects (Golafshani, 2003). To enhance reliability, Atlas.ti is used for structuring the data-coding.
9 KrF is not represented – their two main debate participants declined the invitation.
10 Age, political party and newspaper-name (and potential political affiliation) are not displayed to maintain respondents’ anonymity.
Other researchers are welcome to request transcripts, examine the data and to follow the research steps if desired11. To ensure privacy, all transcripts were stored in a secure UvA-folder. To maintain anonymity and privacy, transcripts are not attached to the thesis.
Validity. Validity in qualitative research refers to the appropriateness of the research process, tools and data (Leung, 2015). Validity-measures ensure that the research procedures enable getting as close to the respondent’s life as possible, i.e., with reality. In the present study, validity is enhanced through verbatim transcription and member checking. The latter means that respondents had the opportunity to read through transcripts to ensure congruity with their opinions. One respondent made corrections to the transcripts.
Interview Guide
The interview guide derives from the literature review, i.e., the list of normative standards as displayed in table 1. Respondents are asked about their debate role, why they contributed like they did and how they perceive the debate. Specifically, both politicians and journalists are interviewed based on questions deriving from Ferree et al.’s (2002a)
framework describing normative standards for all public sphere contributors. Questions are accordingly designed to reveal if normative standards for public sphere participation, e.g., detachment, civility, and allowing for differences in opinion, were considered and if they acknowledge that others followed them.
Journalists are additionally asked questions deriving from the theoretical frameworks of Strömbäck (2005) and Christians et al. (2010) describing role-specific normative standards for journalists, e.g., journalists must set the agenda and act as watchdogs. Similarly,
politicians are additionally asked questions based on deliberative theory (Fishkin & Luskin,
2005; Habermas, 2006), e.g., if they considered that deliberations should be balanced, substantive, informed and comprehensive.
In general, questions follow a semi-structured design; the first question is aimed at unlocking if the respondent considered a specific normative standard either by asking them directly or indirectly. Thereafter, several probes are potentially asked to understand why (not) the standard was considered. For the interview guide and details regarding it, see appendix 2. Process of Open Coding
The study conducts open coding; i.e., the data is analyzed through researcher-derived coding (according to the literature review) and data-derived coding (according to detected phenomena regardless of facilitating literature). While the first is important to answer the research question concretely, the latter enables unlocking other related aspects. The two-folded coding-process is also important to avoid missing important information.
All transcripts are (re-)coded three times to ensure that all relevant data is captured. When having coded all interviews, 274 codes were assigned to the data (appendix 3). Among these were 135 codes directly related to normative standards. Reflecting the research
question, the codes related to normative standards were separated with regards to whether respondents described own or others’ debate contribution, and if normative standards were considered/followed or not. Codes were grouped according to similarities.
Process of Developing the Concept Indicator Model (CIM)
After the coding process, researcher-derived codes were structured into two concept indicator models (CIMs) reflecting the research question; (1) Normative standards vs. how participants consider their own contribution and (2) Normative standards vs. how
answers to the research question, i.e., if normative standards were considered/followed or not. These dimensions are supported by indicators from the data.
Reliability and Validity; Analytical Issues
Some issues potentially compromise validity and reliability in the analysis. First, some respondents vaguely remembered their debate statements, making it possible that answers reflect general conceptions rather than actual statements. This makes it difficult to validate their answers. Moreover, all respondents are professional media-actors, and it was noticed that some were good at “dodging” questions and that several answers had a
“political” undertone. As a researcher it is thus difficult to separate opinion from political agenda. Nonetheless, to enhance validity, the present study locates overall data-patterns.
Lastly, because interviews were conducted and transcribed in Norwegian, quotations are translated into English. This could compromise reliability and validity because subjective interpretations are necessary when translating; sentences are structured differently, and some words inhere special meanings in Norwegian. Thus, it cannot be assured that other
researchers would translate similarly, and that respondents’ opinions are entirely preserved in the translated quotes.
Results
This section elaborates on findings displayed in the CIMs. Not all normative standards discussed in the literature review are addressed, only those respondents acknowledge or not. The results also reflect an interesting overall finding; that respondents were more willing to discuss others’ than their own behavior. Thus, the CIM concerning the debate in general is more extensive than the CIM concerning respondents’ own contribution.
Normative Standards vs. How Participants Consider Their Own Contribution
The following section displays how participants regard their own contribution, and if their described behavior/considerations align with normative standards. Figure 1 displays this CIM. Occasionally, corroborating respondents are quoted to validate indications.
Figure 1. CIM 1 Detachment – not always considered. Findings suggest that for most of the
interviewed politicians, detachment is not always a priority. Journalists were less explicit on this point, stating that commentary journalism is about providing their own opinion, but not necessarily using feelings. Those politicians who do use attached argumentation claim to mix factual and emotional/personal arguments and use personal experience when arguing. When asked to place his contribution on a factuality-emotionality scale, Politician A illustrates this by stating, “I would place my statements in the middle, especially regarding §2c. It was both about facts and highlighting emotions attached to the circumstances”. He further explains this approach, “it’s difficult to communicate the message, to the public, that some people
experience §2c as discriminating. I sort of chose to take my own situation as starting point when describing how this was perceived”.
Additionally, other politicians claim personalization makes abortion issues comprehensible/less technical for people. When discussing abortion legislation changes, Politician B illustrates, “I think you need the personal stories to understand what it’s about”. Similarly, Politician D states, “if you place facts and emotionality on opposite sides, I’d place my contribution in the middle. Because it becomes extremely technical; when does the heart start beating, what is the spinal cord and how does an abortion committee work”. Thus, some politicians considered attached argumentation as legitimate, meaning that the normative standard of detachment not always was considered.
Factuality/accuracy – considered. Despite unveiling attached argumentation, findings also suggest factuality and accuracy is a priority when respondents debate.
Specifically, most respondents claim to stay factual and «on subject». Politician C illustrates, “We, the whole Parliament group, had a seminar with fetus physicians and [abortion]
committee doctors. So, we were in tip-top-shape quite fast to drive the debate on premises we considered correct and professional [scientific]12. With good professional [scientific]
arguments”. Also indicating a factual approach, some respondents claim they wanted to provide comprehensive analysis/arguments and show nuances. Journalist D illustrates, “I think my role is to somewhat tidy up and identify what this is and what it’s not”. Similarly, Journalist C states, “I sort of tried to display nuances regarding views on abortion in KrF”.
Civility – considered. All respondents claim to act civil, i.e., they answer yes when asked if they regard their own contribution as civil. Whereas most simply answer “Yes”, Politician C elaborates, “I was very clear. I didn't engage in name calling or anything. I think I moved within what the debate deserves, yes”.
Notwithstanding, some politicians argue it was important to attack the Prime Minister. Politician C states, “Erna Solberg chose to open that window [abortion law-changes] which became very leading for the debate, because then it became personal and directed towards her leadership”. Whether attacking the PM is uncivil is of course a matter of political interpretation. However, Politician A corroborates Politician C’s statement by claiming, “there were many attacks, especially towards Erna Solberg as a person”.
Nonetheless, the overall data suggest respondents considered the normative standard of acting civil in their own contributions.
Dialogue – not considered by politicians, but media welcomed different opinions. While welcoming different opinions is a normative expectation upon all public sphere
contributors, contributing to dialogue and balanced deliberations are mainly politician specific expectations. Accordingly, several journalists claim they welcomed different opinions, but do not see their role as dialogue-facilitators. When asked whether she contributed to displaying society’s different opinions, Journalist C illustrates this role
conception by stating, “I perceive that I did, that I was a nuanced voice in this debate […] but I don’t think I as a commentator contributed to creating dialogue”. Politician C also praises media’s ability to welcome different opinions. When asked if important voices participated in the debate she answers yes. She further refers to specific debate programs which included several voices, and states, “I think it was good breadth, many skilled news desks”.
When politicians are asked whether creating dialogue was important for them, they provide ambiguous answers. Nevertheless, findings provide some indications that dialogue was not an option for politicians in this debate. First, some claim it is important to distinguish opponents and to outline differences when debating abortion. Politician B states, “you kind of have to choose an opponent and paint that picture explicitly”.
Opposing political fronts might still comply with dialogue. However, when Politician B further is asked if she contributed to dialogue, she states, “No, to a small extent. Either you’re for or against […] The Government parties and KrF explicitly wanted to change the law, period. So, they left no room for dialogue […] They locked the door for a nuanced debate on borderline cases and ethical issues. Then I had to answer that explicitly. Then you fight for something – more than having a debate for the debate’s sake”. Conjoint with Politician A stating, “in my experience, it’s difficult to have a dialogue regarding this
question [abortion]” when asked if he contributed to dialogue, these politicians indicate they do not approach the abortion debate dialogically. Thus, journalists seem to have welcomed different opinions, while politicians did not, i.e., did not contribute to dialogue.
Enable citizens to make well-informed decisions – considered. This is a journalist-specific normative expectation which interviewed journalists claim they strived for.
Specifically, journalists claim they wanted to sort out the issue for the public. Illustrating this priority, Journalist C states, “I somewhat tried to help people maneuver in what they read […] explain things”. Similarly, when asked if her contributions provided citizens with accurate information, Journalist A answers, “perhaps understanding”. Thus, although it cannot be concluded if citizens were enabled to make well-informed decisions, findings suggest journalists strived for this.
Media must set the agenda – not considered. Despite normative theory arguing media must set the agenda, findings suggest politicians did so in this debate. Two main reasons emerge; (1) most respondents claim a well-orchestrated statement from politicians initiated/regulated the debate and (2) some claim media acted as reporters. Illustrating the first, Journalist B states, “Kjell Ingolf Ropstad13 knew perfectly well what he did, he set the
agenda. When he said; we, KrF, have a historical chance to change the abortion law, he knew
hell was loose […] of course Erna Solberg also knew. It was a requisition. And many have said it was pro-abortionists and people like me who went into Ropstad’s trap”. Illustrating the reporter-characterization, the Expert states, “Politicians were far more important when it came to set the agenda than media were. Media became, perhaps to a stronger degree than usually, a reporter, and not necessarily an actor”.
However, journalists consider their own contribution as more important than being merely reporters – they describe themselves as argument-shifters. Journalist C illustrates, “Politicians mainly set the agenda, but we brought aspects forward […] chose which issues to highlight, so in that sense we contributed by defining the agenda”. Also, Journalist A states, “Hopefully I helped removing the sting from the big polarization regarding twin-abortion which actually was a small case that someone tried to make into a big case”.
Watchdog-role – considered on some aspects. Despite politicians setting the
overall agenda, journalists claim they held a watchdog-role during the debate. This aligns with journalists describing themselves as argument-shifters (previously discussed). Thus, this watchdog-role refers to certain debate aspects; journalists claim they (1) addressed the political game surrounding the debate, (2) acted as fact-checking myth-busters and (3) wanted to uncover false game, exaggerations etc. Journalist B illustrates, “I wanted to communicate the false game, that Ropstad perhaps principally, ran a false game”. Journalist D also explains, “I actually think the debate eventually became quite educating, it executed some myth-busting and several concepts were discussed, so we actually managed to sort out the concepts during the debate”.
Politician B corroborates journalists’ watchdog-role by stating, “Those proposing law-change laid the premise […] but many of Ropstad’s claims were refuted and disproved. In that sense, I think media did a good job in gathering experts and professional voices, and somewhat contribute to a more factual [professional] debate”.
Normative Standards vs. How Participants Consider the Debate in General
The following section displays how participants consider others’ contributions and the debate in general – and if these considerations align with normative standards. Figure 2 displays this CIM. The data suggest discrepancies between how respondents regard their own and others’ debate contribution, which represents an interesting overall finding.
Figure 2. CIM 2 Uninformed debate. Findings vigorously suggest the overall debate is considered uninformed. Several indicators emerge, first that deliberations contained misinformation. E.g., Journalist B states, “Ropstad disseminated much misinformation, he seemed like he didn’t entirely know the abortion requirements”. Also, findings point to derailments, exaggerations and simplifications during deliberations, illustrated by Politician D, who believed many perceived that the overall abortion law was being discussed, stating, “That’s
very misleading, very sad, and actually quite dangerous. My impression is that both sides of the debate were full of misinformation, explicit errors, exaggerations. And it was an
extremely stealth debate. Perhaps because it’s such an emotional debate”.
Also indicating uninformed deliberations, several describe the debate as symbolic. The expert states, “It was a debate that grew bigger than itself because it became symbolic on both sides”. Additionally, respondents point to unrealistic/unjustifiable and morally condemning argumentation, and false game-statements – all indications of an uninformed debate. Unfortunately, Politician A paints a gloomy picture of the abortion debate’s inherent uninformed condition by stating, “It will never return to what it’s actually about”.
Debate was non-factual and inaccurate – argumentation was characterized by attachment. Mirroring an uninformed debate, findings strongly suggest deliberations were non-factual and inaccurate, and rather characterized by extensive attached argumentation. First, several respondents point to unprofessional off-subject argumentation. Politician C illustrates, “I must say, Bent Høie14 was not on topic. He brought [his own] sexual orientation into the discussion regarding §2c; [he claimed] that if we slide here, I can be aborted next time if one finds the homosexual gene. He made it extremely personal and off-topic”.
Reflecting this statement, other respondents point to downsides of the many personal stories. Journalist D illustrates, “there are many personal stories, and they’re very difficult to
counterargue […] such personal stories receive slightly too much share”.
Also indicating a non-factual and inaccurate debate, some respondents describe argumentation intended to create fear. Politician A illustrates, “The challenge was that many counterarguments were built on creating fear that this meant restricting self-determined abortion rights”. Journalist B also illustrates, “there were arguments about a vague future
scenario where fetal reduction would be used to such an extent that people would remove fetuses with brown eyes, almost”.
Despite the political debate lacking factuality and accuracy, several respondents do claim it was an honest debate among citizens. When describing citizens’ role, Politician B highlights this by stating, “other voices that you usually don’t have in political debates came forward, and they’re more nuanced and reflected than politicians in the public debate”. Still, overall findings suggest respondents claim others did not stay factual and accurate, despite claiming to have done so themselves as discussed earlier.
Non-dialogic and imbalanced debate. Respondents’ characterizations of the debate, and others’ behavior, suggest the debate was non-dialogic and imbalanced, i.e., that different opinions were unwelcomed. This perception aligns with how respondents described their own behavior as previously discussed.
Lack of dialogue and balance is indicated by most respondents describing the debate as polarized with sharpened argumentation. E.g., Journalist C states, “It’s been a very sharpened [abortion] debate in Norway […] It’s been a very polarized media debate on these issues”. Respondents further describe pre-determined argumentation, illustrated by Politician B stating, “There’s two camps who have made up their mind, one camp wants change and the other somewhat wants to defend what we have, so there’s little room for dialogue and
counterarguments between them”. This further points to two more indicators of non-dialogic and imbalanced debate; that respondents suggest it was a two-sided trench war (not listening to each other) and that dialogue is not compliant with discussing abortion.
Partly civil debate. Respondents characterize others’ behavior as partly civil, i.e., they answer both yes and no when asked concretely if the debate was civil. However, they indicate uncivility on two points.
First, most respondents agree excessive characterizations were used; Journalist C states, “people use labels like Mørkemann15, state-feminists, those kinds of things, which I think somewhat ruins the debate”. Second, some respondents describe that vulnerable groups, especially people with Downs-syndrome, are used as “argumentation-hostages”. Politician C illustrates, “Reducing this to a discussion about Downs-syndrome, the Downs-paragraph, is based on explicit illiteracy because there are between 6-8.000 diagnoses, conditions, it’s so much, but it’s easy to give it a face and humanize it if you're just talking about Down's syndrome”. Similarly, Politician D states, “…both sides use a group of people to promote their own view […] That’s not nice at all”. Hence, where respondents considered their own behavior as civil, they are not as positive when describing others.
Partly comprehensive debate. Regarding the debate’s scope, findings suggest deliberations were partly comprehensive. First, respondents argue citizens, important groups and experts/doctors largely participated. Highlighting this condition, Journalist B states, “It was liberating that so many appeared with personal stories, stating they have aborted without being ashamed of it”. Further, Politician A states, “There were voices on both sides of the debate, also from outside the political environment, both from the expert-side like medicine-ethicists and parents with experience”. Politician B suggests citizen-participation was
beneficial for the debate. She states, “I was somewhat surprised how many people joined the debate and shared their stories. I think that was very important”.
Respondents however also suggest self-censorship occurred, i.e., that some people did not dare, bear or were refused to participate. Contextualizing this condition, some suggest it was difficult to come forward when wanting to adjust the abortion-law. Politician B
illustrates, “I can imagine that those in favor of tightening the abortion law, or those who oppose self-determined abortion, experience that their stance is less supported and more
difficult to come forward with”. Politician A corroborates, “I guess those who agreed with […] experienced much pressure. I think personal barriers were present. I know several voices in this debate who didn’t come forward […] they didn’t bear to participate”. Thus, although citizens participated, findings also suggest self-censorship.
Results: Other Findings
To further understand the findings related to the research question and to place them in a context for discussion, key data-derived findings are discussed. These relate to (1) reasons for debate conditions and (2) how abortion debates should unfold.
Reasons for debate conditions. Respondents point to several factors affecting current debate conditions; that abortion (1) arouses emotions, (2) is a personal subject for many, (3) constitutes incompatible considerations between women’s self-determination rights and fetal protection and (4) mobilizes people easily. These conditions correspond with the reviewed literature on how moral debates are likely to unfold. Respondents further suggest these factors are intensified because abortion is not debated day-to-day. This illustrates another proposition from the literature review; that moral rhetoric is intensified during legislative activity (Clifford & Jerit, 2013). Illustrating this condition, Journalist D claims, “Because this subject hasn’t been part of the larger public debate, it’s somewhat explosive when it
emerges”. Similarly, Politician A claims abortion debates become emotional because, “it’s not a continuous conversation in society on the subject”.
How abortion debates should unfold. Besides discrepancy between how participants consider their own contribution and the general debate, there is also discrepancy towards how they describe an ideal abortion debate. When asked how abortion should be debated,
respondents say they hope the present debate does not reoccur and urge for a factual, calm debate that considers ethics and principles. E.g., Journalist C states, “I wish we could have a more calm, factual and proper discussion about abortion in Norway without it being
characterized by opposing fronts”. Also, respondents argue that abortion debates should not coincide with political games like the present debate did. Politician B states, “I think we should have such debates without anything being at stake” while Journalist B states, “…you can negotiate several issues in Norwegian politics, but not such value questions, it’s not something you negotiate that way”.
Conclusion and Discussion
The findings enable answering the research question; How do the participants in the Norwegian abortion debate evaluate the debate’s alignment to normative standards? Specifically, how do they consider (1) their own contribution and (2) the debate in general? Overall, respondents claim they considered some normative standards, while disregarding others. They further suggest others followed even fewer standards. Thus, the findings indicate that normative standards did not always align with how the debate unfolded. Although these findings are not generalizable, they do suggest a discussion regarding (1) the configuration of normative theory, and (2) improvement possibilities for future moral debates.
First, literature proposed that normative standards enable a thriving public sphere (Ferree et al., 2002a; Strömbäck, 2005; Fishkin & Luskin, 2005; Habermas, 2006; Christians et al., 2010). If they are more than abstract expectations, it was argued that they should apply in Norway. However, findings suggest several standards were disregarded. As discussed in the literature review, this discrepancy might be explained by the moral debate issue.
Accordingly, the findings provide support for the proposed tension between abortion debates and a normatively ideal debate climate. Respondents claim abortion is personal, that it arouses emotions, is debated in a non-factual way and easily becomes a polarized subject. They often mention a previous debate regarding doctors’ abortion reservation rights which had the same polarized character. Onsrud (2014) analyzed this debate, and similarly as the
present study, suggests the divide between the opposing parts were almost unreconcilable, preventing dialogue. This suggests “political logic” trumps normative standards in moral debates – in turn reflecting that morality policy represents a distinct policy area characterized by greater conflict (Mooney & Schuldt, 2008). A similar study as the present which
investigates a non-moral debate could verify this claim.
Overall, the findings thus advocate for a theoretical suggestion; normative
expectations should be adjusted according to debate topics. One solution simply does not seem to fit all. Rather than claiming detachment always is ideal (Ferree et al., 2002a),
normative theory should recognize that attachment sometimes is inevitable, and suggest how attached argumentation best unfolds. Similarly, because interviewed journalists did not strive for objectivity, impartiality and neutrality (as argued by Salgado and Strömbäck, 2012), but rather state that they are increasingly opinionated when commentating ethical issues like abortion, normative expectations should reflect this condition. Meijer’s (2001, 2003) normative journalistic framework represents a promising avenue in this direction as it acknowledges the democratic potential of journalism which incorporates emotions and personalization, simultaneously as quality standards are preserved.
Furthermore, normative theory should address how public sphere contributors best maneuver when desired dialogical balanced deliberations (Ferree et al., 2002a; Fishkin & Luskin, 2005; Habermas, 2006) are unreachable. Similarly, it should determine how to successfully navigate in a landscape far from the ideal informed deliberation climate (Fishkin & Luskin, 2005). Normative theory must embrace such challenges, i.e., refine its
assumptions, if it aims to be relevant, not utopian. Simply put; normative theory must acknowledge what is if it aims to define what ought to be.
The findings also contradict normative theory which assigns only a limited role to citizens (Ferree et al., 2002a; Strömbäck, 2005). First, like in the Norwegian immigration
debate (Figenschou & Beyer, 2014), citizens seemingly participated actively and opposed the elites in the studied debate. Second, citizens are described as “the honest voice”, which although implying attached argumentation, mirrors that many citizens engage in thoughtful normatively ideal deliberations (Ruiz et al., 2011).
Third, citizens’ engagement is by many respondents suggested to be decisive for the debate’s outcome; minor legislation-change. If true, this illustrates that abortion policies often mirror public opinion (Norrander & Wilcox, 1999) simultaneously as it might represent a normative prerequisite in practice; that politicians should represent citizens’ interest (Strömbäck, 2005; Philp, 2007; Wessels, 2009). Contradicting previous findings (Purcell, Hilton & McDaid, 2014), respondents also suggest media framed abortion as positive and legitimate through telling citizens’ personal stories. Thus, despite Selle and Østerud (2006) arguing there are fewer mass movements in Norway, citizens seemingly constituted such a movement in this debate – in turn influencing society.
Perhaps the Norwegian democracy better resembles a participatory model than a representative one, which would grant citizens a more prominent role (Ferree et al., 2002a; Strömbäck, 2005). However, given Norway’s representative structure (Selle & Østerud, 2006), the findings suggest normative theory should expand citizens’ discursive role – especially in small democracies resembling Norway. Reason being that the findings suggest support for Habermas’ (2006) argument; that democracies benefit from citizen participation.
Although the findings suggest normative theory needs adjustments, respondents’ negative characterizations indicate that normative standards increasingly should have been followed. Overall, many characterize the debate as flawed – and urge for a professional, factual abortion debate. They also propose several deficiencies stemming from dysfunctional deliberations; that (1) uninformed argumentation conceals the actual discussion, (2)
non-factual attached argumentation hinders counter-argumentation, and (3) a non-dialogic/ imbalanced debate reinforces polarization.
These characterizations gain support from related research. First, Karlsen, Steen-Johnsen, Wollebæk and Enjolras (2017)16 suggest the Norwegian debate climate is characterized by trench war dynamics, potentially strengthening the opposing opinions. Second, social anthropologist Øyvind Fuglerud (2017) claims that emotions, moral and symbolism suppress a sober immigration debate in Norway. Third, Balch and Balabanova (2011) finds that both sides of the UK immigration debate tend to simplify facts, rather than recognizing the issue’s complexity and inherent knowledge-boundaries – in turn potentially accelerating the debate into a vicious cycle. Habermas’ (2006) prediction thus seems fulfilled; dysfunctional deliberations produce polarization, not agreement. Hence, perhaps normativity indeed should be a lodestar also in debates on abortion and other ethical issues.
Ambitiously, the study aimed at being socially relevant by triggering a debate on how Norwegian debates unfold. The findings suggest this is necessary, and that current conditions are unfavorable for democracy. Fortunately, the findings also provide suggestions for how moral debates should unfold.
First, respondents frequently disapprove others’ behavior while praising their own. E.g., while most claim to use factual argumentation, others are accused of misinforming. This discrepancy might reflect Jones and Nisbett’s (1972) suggestion; that actors tend to evaluate one’s own behavior based on the issue he/she is addressing, while others’ behavior is
evaluated based on the actor him-/herself (as cited in Pronin, Gilovich & Ross, 2004). This bias might also lead to overestimating the presence of polarization in abortion debates (Robinson, Keltner, Ward & Ross, 1995), which is unsurprising given that moral issues promote moral conviction – in turn bolstering hostility towards opponents (Ryan, 2014).
Hence, although it cannot be validated, the discrepant findings suggest respondents engaged in such bias. This notion, and a general assumption that “everyone else is wrong” is illusory, suggest that self-reflection might generate improvement. Legitimate self-reflecting questions are; was own behavior beneficial for the debate and its outcomes, and were others’ arguments evaluated based on substance or their sender?
Second, respondents themselves provide suggestions for how future abortion debates should unfold. They propose calm, factual day-to-day deliberations, detached from political tactics. The latter may however be especially difficult due to two congruent conditions. First, moral issues inhere a mobilizing potential (Biggers, 2011), leaving political gain tempting. Second, Norwegian broadcasters seem more concerned with political games than political issues (Jamtøy, 2011)17. Thus, unsurprisingly, many respondents describe current conditions as “normal politics”. Still, respondents also note that abortion is the only life and death-topic determined by Norwegian politicians – making it unworthy that it is not debated properly.
Because interviewed respondents are key actors in the Norwegian public sphere, it is tempting to simply say; fix it! Do not let short-term political gain suppress a vital
responsibility; assuring the public sphere’s well-being. Reflect upon own behavior and contribute to a factual, dialogic debate which gives the subject just. The present study provides guidelines for doing so, i.e., for understanding potential flaws regarding current conditions and suggestions for improvement.
Suggestions for Future Research
Research suggestions derive from the study’s findings and limitations. First, the debate is examined through key-participants’ eyes which implies a crucial limitation; it cannot be determined if findings are valid and congruent with reality. A content analysis
examining key debate contributions is thus encouraged. Coupled with the present findings and a survey investigating citizens’ perceptions (i.e., if citizens’ perceive that the debate produced rational outcomes/increased their knowledge, and if citizens’ attitudes towards politicians are affected by the potential presence of misinformation, attached argumentation etc.), this could rigorously establish if normative standards were breached, and what potential implications are.
Second, the study’s approach makes findings ungeneralizable beyond its context – not to other Norwegian debates, nor to other countries. Because abortion is an inflamed debate-topic throughout the world, similar studies as the present should be conducted in other
countries. Do key-participants in coinciding debates regard those debates equally uninformed and non-dialogic? If so, what does that mean for normative theory? Comparative studies might further propose debate climate improvements and/or adjustments to normative theory.
Moreover, respondents point to other polarized Norwegian debates, e.g., regarding immigration. Interestingly, they also resolutely claim Norway and its debate climate is increasingly polarized. However, although Karlsen et al. (2017) suggest the Norwegian debate climate is characterized by trench war dynamics, it is possible that respondents overestimate polarization as previously discussed. This proposition gains support from an NRK-analyst who finds little or no evidence that Norway is becoming more polarized (Prebensen, 2018)18. Thus, is increased polarization reality or perception? If reality, is it throughout society or only for debates among politicians and elites, given that elites increasingly vote in polarized directions (Kvale, 2018)? Researchers should answer these questions to either prove assumptions or reveal hypochondriac perceptions. A broad study examining Norwegian debate conditions (on non-moral issues as well) is thus encouraged.
Third, although the sampling criteria were fulfilled, the sample constitutes limitations regarding politicians. Only three of nine parliament parties are represented, and they all belong to the traditional left or right wing, i.e., no centrist politicians (including KrF) were interviewed. The results might thus be more polarized than if respondents from all political parties participated. Also, because KrF was a key-actor in the debate and is the only political (parliament) party who openly advocates for abortion restrictions, their presence might have brought additional clarity to several subjects; (1) the political game surrounding the debate, (2) the difficulty of creating dialogue when proposing abortion restrictions and (3) the role of religion in moral debates. The latter might consequently have nuanced the picture regarding alleged misinformation and non-factual argumentation.
Nevertheless, because saturation was considered reached on all important subjects within the current sample, additional respondents, regardless of political affiliation, might not have added to the results. Only a similar study as the present, with more extensive sampling, could determine this question.
Lastly, the discrepancy between the researchers’ lack of interview experience and respondents’ professionalism probably bolstered an inevitable condition in qualitative
studies; subjectivity. Specifically, subjective interpretation was present while sampling, while conducting interviews (e.g., avoiding questions because respondents seemed reluctant to answer and/or time-issues), while coding (e.g., determining if statements were exaggerated political opinions, not perceptions), while translating quotations (e.g., assigning context) and while interpreting results in general. Because subjectivity seems especially prominent, findings should be read in that regard.
Nonetheless, the findings provide valuable insight into a heated Norwegian abortion debate. Respondents claim they considered some normative standards, while disregarding others. They also suggest other participants followed even fewer standards, and they
