Abortion Figurations studies abortion debates in three pairs of countries that represent three regional human rights systems: Mozambique and Senegal (the African Union), Poland and Ireland (the Council of Europe), and Argentina and Honduras (the Organization of American States). Our research shows the ambivalence of human rights that are being used successfully to argue both for more liberal and more restrictive abortion laws. To explain this ambivalence, we apply concepts of argumentative architecture and involvement patterns, developed by Marta Bucholc as part of her figurational theory of law. Using a mixed-methods approach that combines qualitative sociology, legal analysis, and corpus linguistics, we will offer a multi-dimensional model for a globally comparative, interdisciplinary socio-legal study of human rights. We will study the structure, composition, and embedding of arguments, along with group perspectives, emotions, and circles of identification of arguing actors so as to arrive at a heat map that will show the distribution of involvement in argumentative architectures. By constructing a global meta-typology of argumentative architectures and involvement patterns in abortion debates, we will explore the integrative potential of human rights and identify the centrifugal forces in human rights figuration that comprises the local, regional, and global levels.
Abortion remains a crucial issue today as it sits at the intersection of public health, political ideology, and human rights. Understanding how human rights are invoked in such debates offers tools to policymakers to navigate the many ambiguities that appear to be part of the social and cultural understandings of human rights. Different actors deploy the language of human rights, which leads to conflicting interpretations and applications of human rights principles in the abortion debate. Competing claims create legal and ethical tensions, influencing policy decisions, court rulings, and international human rights discussions. Examining how human rights are mobilised allows for a deeper understanding of the power dynamics at play and helps craft more informed, context-sensitive approaches to abortion laws and regulations. Our study will help policymakers navigate the polarised abortion debate by providing a nuanced understanding of how human rights arguments are mobilised in different contexts. We also expect that studying how human rights are invoked in abortion debates will help policymakers craft policies that enhance democratic legitimacy and social cohesion.
