Critical discourse analysis reveals competing representations of gay couples in legislative debates, highlighting how equality advocates reappropriated exclusionary rhetoric.
Key Points
To examine how gay couples were represented and contested in parliamentary debates surrounding the enactment of civil-partnership legislation.
Conducted a critical discourse analysis of parliamentary debate transcripts from 2011 to 2015 regarding civil-partnership legislation.
Analyzed linguistic concordance patterns for terms including 'homosexual*' and 'mismo sexo' (same-sex) to evaluate framing strategies.
Opponents deployed traditionalist and biologistic rhetoric to depict gay couples as inherently different from heterosexuals, asserting they cannot marry, parent, or form legitimate families.
Equality advocates countered exclusionary discourse by expanding the definition of family and reappropriating moral and authoritative legitimation strategies used by opponents.