Figures & data
Figure 1. Basic structural elements and causal sequence in a legal-framing contest.
Note: Text in italics (including legal case names) refers to the specific empirical focus examined here. Non-italicized text refers to the general model.
Figure 2. (a) Word/phrase proportions for the undue-burden frame for the reproductive-rights litigant brief. (b) Word/phrase proportions for the undue-burden frame for the antiabortion litigant brief.
Figure 3. Structural elements and causal sequence in a legal-framing contest.
Note: boxes with a) double-lined borders indicate the discursive-opportunity structure, b) dotted lines, legal cases, c) solid lines, persistent frames, and d) dashed lines, innovative monologic frames.
Figure 4. (a) Word/phrase proportions for the untruthful frame for the reproductive-rights litigant brief. (b) Word/phrase proportions for the untruthful frame for the antiabortion litigant brief.
Figure 5. (a) Word/phrase proportions for the abortion-negative frame for the reproductive-rights litigant brief. (b) Word/phrase proportions for the abortion-negative frame for the antiabortion litigant brief.
Figure 6. (a) Word/phrase proportions for the expert-evidence frame for the reproductive-rights litigant brief. (b) Word/phrase proportions for the expert-evidence frame for the antiabortion litigant brief.
Figure 7. (a) Word/phrase proportions for the uncertainty frame for the reproductive-rights litigant brief. (b) Word/phrase proportions for the uncertainty frame for the antiabortion litigant brief.
Figure 8. (a) Word/phrase proportions for the final-authority frame for the reproductive-rights litigant brief. (b) Word/phrase proportions for the final-authority frame for the antiabortion litigant brief.
