The purpose of this research is to examine the effectiveness of abortion-related argumentation theories as applied to amicus curiae briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in landmark abortion cases. The plan of the research will be to set forth the methodology of argumentation used by selected academic rhetoricians in the initial chapter, and in succeeding chapters to compare analyses of so-called pro-life (anti-choice) rhetoric with the content of anti-choice amicus curiae briefs; to compare analyses of pro-choice rhetoric with the content of pro-choice briefs; and to discuss in comparative form the results of the analyses--all with a view toward evaluating in heuristic terms whether and to what extent the specialized legal arguments that amicus curiae briefs demand match, conform to, or reflect the broad theories of communication. It is anticipated that such evaluation may sight the relevant scope and limit of broad-based argumentation analysis as applied to a specific political or social situation.
Although the United States Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade made legal access to abortion the law of the land as of 1973, the war of words that preceded the decision has dogged it in a variety of ways since that time. Because the abortion decision is weighted with moral and cultural as well as psychological predicates, because dramatically antagonistic perspectives of abortion as such and the decision for abortion inform debate on the issue, and because the abortion debate is not confined to opinion holders and makers but rather has consequential implications for public policy and those who faced the decision, an understanding of the strategies of persuasion employed at all levels of abortion discourse is not only useful but necessary as well.
Despite--more exactly because of--Roe v. Wade's constitutional protection for what is customarily termed a woman's right to choose, abortion-related cases continue to be filed in vari...