Deliberative Democracy and the Analysis of Parliamentary Debate
Paper for workshop on “Advanced Empirical Study of Deliberation”,
ECPR Joint Sessions, Helsinki, 7-12 May 2007
Judith Bara (Queen Mary, University of London)
Albert Weale (University of Essex)
Aude Biquelet (University of Essex) 1
Abstract
The claim that democratic politics is to be conceived as a system involving the giving and
exchange of reasons relevant for public policy choices is a central feature of recent work focusing
on deliberative democratic theory as a normative account of the democratic process (see, for
example, Dryzek, 2000; and Gutmann and Thompson, 1996, 2004). This suggests that
democratic politics should be construed as a process of deliberation governed by norms through
which preferences are shaped and refined in discursive exchange with others. A prime site for
testing such claims is parliament, especially instances where representatives are not bound by the
strictures of party discipline.
In order to investigate this further we content analyze parliamentary debates on abortion debates
over thirty year period on the issue of abortion, concentrating on two key debates - July 1966 and
January 1988 . Our approach is to compare results using automated (Alceste) and semiautomated (Hamlet) computer assisted text analysis, to enable mapping the relative positions of
speakers in a debate and the substantive content of their contributions, and therefore the extent to
which themes and issues are shared or vary between proponents of different positions. In
particular, we shall be concerned with the extent to which these two approaches yield
complementary or contradictory results.
Although our aim in this paper is primarily methodological but we shall also comment on some
substantive results, especially in terms of how use of language informs our understanding of
opposing positions on the issue. In general we find that, at this early stage of analysis, the two
approaches corroborate each other’s findings, although their different strengths and weaknesses
are clearly manifest. In substantive terms, the analysis supports assumptions made by
commentators on both analysis of parliamentary debate in general and the abortion debate in
Britain in particular, to the effect that there are broadly two underlying dimensions- one
procedural, the other substantive, that and that the language within which the debate is conducted
across a forty year period remains remarkably constant
1
Introduction
In the last fifteen years there has emerged considerable interest in the deliberative dimensions of
democracy. This interest has been in part normative and in part empirical. Normative theorists
have advocated a deliberative model of democracy, normally by contrast with an aggregative
model. Although there are many variants of the deliberative point of view, one common strand
has been to move beyond an account of democracy in terms of the amalgamation of preferences
towards a conception of democracy in which reasons, points of view, arguments and
interpretations are exchanged among citizens and their representatives. Empirical theorists have
realised that though important, there are other elements of democratic politics apart from voting,
and indeed in order to understand voting we may need to invoke the discursive dimensions of
politics. Notable in this latter group has been the Comparative Manifestos Project, which has
sought to locate the programmatic and ideological positions of political parties across all the
principal dimensions of public policy.
Alongside this growing interest in discourse and deliberation, there has been a growth the new
methods of text analysis, in particular computer-aided text analysis (CATA). Even when
captured in party manifestos or legislative debates, political writing and talking generates a great
deal of data, indeed data so voluminous in extent that no one researcher could expect to
understand it alone or without mechanical aid of some kind. As Iain McLean (2006: 128) has
written of the Comparative Manifesto Group material, it 'begins with an unassimilable amount of
primary data' and, as McLean goes on to point out, it can only be handled in three ways: by
unsystematic sampling, by systematic sampling or by some set of data reduction techniques. The
same can be said of parliamentary debates. In the field in which we have been working, and from
which we report some results in this paper, six UK House of Commons debates about just one
issue (abortion policy) amount to nearly 300,000 words. This figure leaves out debates in the
House of Lords, committee proceedings and other parliamentary procedures, for example
adjournment debates. In short, without something like CATA the data are simply too voluminous
to be manageable.
Yet many people are suspicious of formalised techniques of text analysis, whether wholly or
partially computerised. For these critics, texts have meaning and no computer can understand
meaning. Moreover, speakers have intentions, and speech-act theory tells us that intentions are
important. Yet, no computer can understand intentions. We accept the premise of these
2
criticisms. For the reasons that Searle (1984) has set out, there is no reason to think that artificial
intelligence can replace human intelligence. However, to accept the premise is not to accept the
conclusion. For to accept that CATA cannot replace human intelligence is not to show that it
cannot aid human intelligence and the search for meaning.
In this paper we report on a pilot study using two different approaches to CATA. They have been
chosen because they are designed to yield similar, if not identical, statistical analyses on texts
prepared in various ways. However, they differ in one crucial respect. One, Hamlet, requires the
analyst to prepare a dictionary of key terms and statistical analysis may subsequently be
performed on those key terms. The other, Alceste (Analyse des Lexèmes Coocurrents dans les
Enoncés Simple d'un Texte), dispenses with the need for such a dictionary. Instead, it operates on
all meaningful content words within the text. Large claims have been made for Alceste as an
approach to CATA. Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey, in particular, suggests that it has four advantages
over other CATA techniques (like Hamlet) that require a pre-prepared dictionary:
'…it guards against researchers and coders infusing their own biases into the coding.
Second, it can provide an impression of a voluminous data corpus within a very short
space of time. Third, and following on from that, the issue of reliability which arises
with human coding is no longer relevant. Fourth, because large amounts of text can be
analyzed quickly – which means that sampling may not be required – problems of
sampling may also disappear.' (Schonhardt-Bailey, 2005: 703).
These are considerable claims. If one were sceptical about traditional forms of CATA, one might
be inclined to be even more sceptical of that form that did not even require a human being to
prepare a dictionary.
Such claims, however, may not be as universally damning as might first appear. It is certainly the
case that “coder bias” is a potential problem, although in terms of manual coding, extensive
reliability testing is able to minimise the risk to an extent (Klingemann et al, 2006, 90ff) and this
could be extended to category construction for semi-automated CATA. Many CATA
programmes (including Alceste) often require considerable work on preparation of input
documentation and when this is taken account of, the actual time spent on a project may not vary
as greatly as suggested. Furthermore, the application of coding categories in semi-automated
packages is also carried out automatically so there is no reliability issue in this regard.
3
Semi-automated CATA is in any case a tried and tested method of evaluating a priori
assumptions about policy, political commentary, political behaviour and many other applications.
(See, inter alia, Bara, 2001a, 2001b, 2006; Laver and Garry, 1998, 1999; Benoit and Laver,
2006.) In the case of this study, it also allows us to integrate and test further assertions made by
previous analysts of abortion debates (e.g.Lovenduski, 1986) or of the nature of parliamentary
deliberation (Steiner et al, 2004).
We stress at the beginning that we are interested in the substantive understanding to which CATA
can give rise in the study of parliamentary debate. In the next section we set out what our
principal substantive concerns are before moving on to a comparison of our two methods.
Theoretical Issues Raised by Parliamentary Debate
Our study takes off from that strand of deliberative democratic theory that stresses the value of
the norm of reciprocity in democratic debate and decision making. According to this principle,
the reasons that political actors advance in favour of their preferred policy choice should aim to
be acceptable as widely as possible. As Gutmann and Thompson (2004: 7) say '[c]itizens and
their representatives should try to find justifications that minimize their differences with their
opponents.' Two further aspects of reciprocity are also important for Gutmann and Thompson.
The first is the claim that by 'their nature, reasonable differences contain partial understandings'
of which each 'alone is likely to be mistaken if taken comprehensively, all together are likely to
be incoherent if taken completely, but all together are likely to be instructive if taken partially.'
(Gutmann and Thomson, 2004: 29). The second is the view that '… citizens should accept the
broader implications of the principles presupposed by their moral position.' (Gutmann and
Thompson, 2004: 82). The principle of reciprocity taken as a normative standard thus means that
a good debate is one in which differences are minimised and partial understandings brought
together to bring out the complexity of an issue. It also means that participants in a debate should
be open to changing their minds as the broader implications of principles that they espouse are
drawn to their attention by other participants.
One natural way of evaluating how far these implicit standards are met depends upon seeing
parliamentary debate as multidimensional. In particular, the claim that different speakers will
espouse only partial understandings can be understood as the claim that they will only be able to
4
articulate only some dimensions of a complex issue. Moreover, the claim that citizens should
accept the broader implications of their principles also has an obvious dimensional interpretation,
namely that relevant principles ought to carry across different dimensions of decision making.
Yet, if we think in this way, potential problems begin to emerge, for dimensional analyses of
political behaviour generally have rather pessimistic implications from the point of view of
reciprocity.
Consider first a stylised situation of parliamentary choice as represented in Figure 1. In this
situation, we imagine an issue with two dimensions, I and II. Suppose that there are three equal
sized blocs of voters in a legislature, with ideal points over the two dimensions marked as A, B
and C, and that decisions are made by majority vote. Then voting bloc B has an incentive to
persuade both other blocs that they only relevant dimension is I, since B is the median voter in
that dimension; voting bloc A has an incentive to persuade the other blocs that dimension II ought
to be decisive; and bloc C has an incentive to keep both dimensions in play in order to form a pact
with either A or B somewhere in the interior of the vertices, thus bringing the final outcome
closer to C's ideal-point. If this really is the pattern of deliberative competition in the parliament,
then the prospects for reciprocity are poor.
[Figure 1 about here.]
It is of course an empirical question as to how far dimensional manipulation plays a role in
legislative decision making. Riker (1982, 1986) offered a number of examples where there were
attempts to shape the framing of issues and so the agenda of choice, but these have been
challenged by Mackie (2003). However, McLean (2001) suggests some plausible examples in
the UK parliament. It becomes very difficult, for example, to see why the House of Lords in the
1840s should have acceded to the repeal of the Corn Laws unless Wellington had been persuaded
that it was not the free trade dimension that was important but its public order dimension. That
the discursive framing of choice in legislatures is sometimes important is not a proposition that
we can demonstrate here, but we take it as at least a plausible starting-point.
The manipulation of issue dimensions does not seem consistent with the norm of reciprocity. Nor
does issue non-engagement. If the norms of deliberative democracy require proponents of
different points of view to minimise their differences and to see the partial truths in different
viewpoints, this requirements engagement with the point of view of others. Yet, there are three
5
formidable empirical lines of analysis that suggest issue non-engagement is important. The first is
the work of the Comparative Manifestos Project (CMP) (Budge et al., 2001; Klingemann et al.,
2006), which stresses the extent to which political campaigning takes place by parties placing
relative emphasis upon some issues and themes and not others. The second is Riker’s (1996)
account of campaigning in the ratification of the US constitution, in which Riker found that in the
public debates about ratification, partisans stressed different themes. The third body of work
associated with advocacy coalitions (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993) in policy-making. In all
these cases, partisans talk past one another. There is no reciprocal engagement.
These lines of analysis suggest that understanding the dimensionality of debate is important in
understanding the extent to which we can expect the norms of deliberative democracy to be
operative. But in what forums can we examine how dimensionality and deliberative reciprocity
operate? We propose that second reading debates on free votes relating to issues of conscience in
both Houses of the UK Parliament will provide, a priori, a particular opportunity to examine the
scope deliberative legislative activity. Not only are they concerned with important issues in their
own right, but they are dealt with by special procedures in parliament precisely because opinions
on how to resolve them are believed to cut across party lines and be of special interest to
parliamentarians. These are also issues that often have a particular resonance with the broader
citizenry or at least significant sections within the population. So, if we are looking for the closest
approximation to an institutional and normative setting for deliberative practice, involving
reciprocal reasoning, we have as good a chance as we can reasonably expect of finding it in these
sorts of debates.
The particular issue with which we are concerned is abortion. In the UK the main legislative
framework has been determined by the 1967 legislation introduced as a private member's bill by
the then David Steel as a Liberal MP in the House of Commons. The second reading debate for
this legislation took place on 22 July 1966. Before 1967 abortion was governed by the Offences
against the Person Act of 1861, which made it a criminal offence to use any unlawful substance
or instrument to secure a miscarriage. However, because the act did not define what a lawful
substance or instrument might be, the law developed through a serious of cases, the most
important of which was that of R v Bourne in 1938, in which a judge directed the jury that a
medical practitioner would be acting lawfully if he was convinced that without an abortion the
woman would be seriously harmed either physically or mentally. However, as a piece of case
law, this left the conditions unclear as to when an abortion could be lawfully undertaken. The
6
Steel bill, therefore, was not an attempt to make something legal that had previously always been
illegal, but an attempt to specify more precisely in statute the conditions under which an abortion
would be lawful. The 1967 gave statutory effect to the case law defence, added a condition that
permitted abortion when the social circumstances of the mother were adverse, specified that the
need for the operation should be certified by two medical practitioners and imposed a twentyeight week term on permissible abortions. It is important to the character of the 1966 debate that
it was proposed in the context of the deficiencies of the existing case law, rather than being
discussed as a pure issue of principle. Since the 1967 legislation there have been various private
members' bills seeking to alter these conditions, most importantly seeking to make more stringent
the qualifications of the medical practitioners and shortening the term limits.
Altogether there are some forty-five debates dealing primarily with abortion since the 1960s
which accessible from Hansard.2 In a related paper (Weale, Bicquelet and Bara, 2007) we report
on the six principal second reading debates arising from private members' bills attempting to
restrict the availability of abortion services. In this paper we take a sub-set of these six. The first
is the debate of 22 July 1966 on the Steel bill. The second is the Alton bill debate of 22 January
1988, which proposed a reduction on the terms limits after which an abortion could not be
performed from 28 weeks to 18 weeks, and which is widely regarded as one of the most serious
attempts to tighten the conditions required by the Steel bill. The Alton bill is the last significant
attempt to challenge the 1967 Abortion Act and hence represents a reasonable test to see whether
the dictionary remains robust. Both debates involve input from twenty-two substantial speakers,
although of these eight in 1966 made comparatively shorter contributions, as did twelve in 1988.
Those making very short interruptions are excluded. In the 1966 case there were only two
interrupters excluded whereas in 1988 there were nineteen.
Two Forms of CATA
Our approach is to content analyse the debates using two distinct types of computer programme
and compare and contrast the results obtained. One is fully automated (Alceste)3 and the other is
semi-automated (Hamlet)4. This approach represents a growing trend in content analysis (Bara
(2001a, 2001b, 2006; Laver and Garry, 2000; Laver, Benoit and Garry, 2003). The difference
between these two programmes is essentially that Hamlet works on the basis of a constructed a
priori categorical dictionary derived from words present in the text/s whereas Alceste does not.
However, an important restriction in Alceste is that it is advised that the minimum number of
7
words in the text should be 10,000, which is not a restriction that applies in Hamlet. A particular
advantage of choosing Hamlet as the comparator is that it is able to use almost exactly the same
input text as Alceste and offers the possibility of engaging in some limited statistical analysis.
The text, however, is coded into categories (here designated as vocabularies) which have been
constructed a priori by the analyst and it is these which provide the input for statistical analysis.
Thus it is somewhat dubious to directly compare ‘dimensions’ produced by each programme, as
they are quite unalike. The coding itself, however, is carried out by the software in exactly the
same way and is completely reliable.
Hamlet’s main purpose is to allow the investigator to explore text for occurrence of words or to
search for the degree to which particular vocabularies, which s/he designates, are present. This
may be carried out on the basis of designated coding units- in this case sentences delimited by the
usual punctuation conventions. Investigation using vocabularies can be quite simple, for example
simply take broad concepts or word labels as categories or can be made to resemble a much more
complicated dictionary, by judicious use of synonyms, lemma, strings or initials. All of this may
be drawn directly from a specific input text.
With regard to designating vocabularies used in this study, almost all the input words etc are
derived from the text of the July 1966 debate. Some additional words are also included since the
dictionary is applied to ten debates between 1965 and 2004 drawn from both Houses of
Parliament. It is thus necessary to include names of speakers, constituency names, and specific
terminology associated with the House of Lords in order to be able to assess the robustness of the
dictionary. The reason for this is so that we can assess how far the vocabulary associated with the
1966 debate remained current across a period of almost forty years. Almost all the additional
material input relates to one specific vocabulary within the dictionary that reflects procedural
language.
This facility for allowing the transfer of terms directly from the text concerned was another
reason why Hamlet was chosen rather than other semi-automated content analysis software
such as Textpack5, which has been extensively used in studies of party manifestos and related
documentation (Bara, 2001 a, 2001b, 2006). Textpack also requires a particular layout for input
texts (and dictionaries) whereas Hamlet is more flexible. Furthermore, text relating to individual
speakers within debates could be fairly easily assembled to allow for comparison of language
8
both within and between debates and for the inclusion of additional variables such as party,
gender or voting patterns.
As is the case with all software applications dealing with classification of data based on words
and phrases, whether defined according to a priori criteria or not, it is not possible to attach
specific meanings to words which may be used in different ways by different speakers. Take the
word ‘choice’ which assumes a very different meaning if you are a social democrat as opposed to
a neo-liberal. Some words genuinely mean different things in different contexts, such as ‘drugs’
which can connote medical or criminal associations. No software has yet been able to overcome
such contextual problems, other than offering a ‘keyword in context’ or KWIC facility which can
act as a check but is extremely time-consuming. Since six of the debates examined here are over
35,000 words in length, even identifying those words comprising the dictionary ‘signifiers’
would create significant overload. In the event, sampling of particularly strategic words was
subjected to a KWIC procedure. For example, it was found that language associated with
“sanctity of life” emerged as discriminating between those with a” liberal “outlook on abortion
reform and those who adopted the opposite position- which we designate as a “restrictionist”
view. But “sanctity” appears only in 1966, where a KWIC investigation showed nine hits, all of
which related to “sanctity of life” and all of which were in the text of “restrictionist” speakers. In
1988 the word “value” was examined in a KWIC exercise and of the four hits, three corresponded
to “sanctity of life” contexts, all again in the texts of restrictionists. (The fourth hit concerned
“face value”). We also need to be aware that there are many words included in any input text
which may be largely irrelevant. These generally relate to definite and indefinite articles, words
used as connectors such as “and”, certain prepositions, etc. However, there may be occasions
when common prepositions may be highly relevant. Fairclough (2000) found, for example, that
the word “we” figures prominently in the rhetoric of New Labour and comes to connotes a
particular interpretation of policy intention.
The Hamlet a priori dictionary used in this study is constructed so as to identify areas of major
significance in the “key” debate on abortion, that of 22 July 1966, and to investigate whether
these areas remain pertinent across the other nine debates of the period concerned. It is made up
of six categories which comprise eight hundred and seventeen words collectively. (See Appendix
I) The 22 July 1966 (Steel) debate has been chosen as the key debate in this context because it
was both successful in changing the law and represented the focus for change by all subsequent
debates. One aim of the project as far as use of semi-automated coding is concerned is to assess
9
how far all of these major debates rely on the same type of vocabulary and argument. There are
three types of category. “Substantive”, of which there are four, reflects specific vocabularies
which deal with cognate areas - medical, moral, legal and social. “Procedural”, of which there is
one, reflects vocabulary related to the way in which debate is conducted in parliament. The final
type is labelled as “advocacy” and relates to the deliberative element of the debate in terms of
reflecting attempts at persuasion. The words comprising this vocabulary reflect persuasive
rhetoric, such as “commend” or “support” as well as attempts to support argument positively (e.g.
“sympathy” or “fairness”) or negatively (e.g. back-street” or abhorrent”). In the event, results of
preliminary investigation suggested - correctly as it has turned out - that it would be unwise to
use lemma to designate word “families” as it was likely that specific forms of words might help
to designate differential vocabulary usage between particular groups of speakers.
The choice of the vocabularies was also informed by essentially four factors. Firstly, the work of
Marsh and Read (1988) and Lovenduski (1986) suggested that there were clearly identifiable
substantive arguments which could be seen as the “dimensions” of abortion debates from 1965 to
1980 and this might be corroborated or otherwise across a broader range of debates than they
analysed. Secondly, repeated reading of the 1966 (Steel) debate in particular suggested that these
reflect appropriate, major categories to apply to speeches of individual participants. Thirdly, there
have been suggestions that parliamentary debates comprise a balance between procedural and
substantive elements (Steiner et al, 2004), and finally, since this project is largely related to the
empirical study of deliberation, it was felt necessary to test for at least one dimension which
reflected deliberative argument.
In Alceste, the text is represented in terms of 'unités de contexte initiales' (u.c.i.), which in terms
of parliamentary debates are best thought of as speeches or interventions by members of the
House. These u.c.i. can be tagged with 'passive variables, which in our case we have labelled as
the political party, vote and gender of the speaker. However, the statistical operations in Alceste
are based upon the unité de contexte elémentaire (u.c.e), which can be thought of as a sentence or
quasi-sentence, the term we use subsequently.
The basic data matrix on which statistical computations are built depend upon these u.c.e and the
words that make up the sentences of a speech or intervention. Alceste conducts its content
analysis on the whole text, reducing various grammatical forms (for example tensed forms) to a
root form. It then divides the vocabulary of the text of these root forms into two classes: 'function'
10
words, which enable sentences to operate as part of natural languages and 'content' words, which
contain the distinctive meaning of the text (Brugidou, 2003: 419). This is a purely syntactical
operation. Statistical analyses are carried out on the content words, although the output does
provide some information on the function words.
The basic data matrix, then, for statistical analysis can be represented as follows (see Reinert,
2005: 68):
Form j
u.c.e. i
δij
Pi
Pj
P
Within the data matrix, each word ('form') is assigned a column, and each sentence a row. At the
intersection of the sentence row and the word column, the presence (1) or absence (0) of that
word is recorded as occurring in the sentence. Typically, then, in any data matrix there will be
many more zeros that ones entered. The Pj values represent the marginal total of the occurrence
of any particular word, and the Pi values the marginal totals of the number of sentences in which
that word appears. These are thought of as the 'weight' or proportionate contribution that the
word or sentence makes to the total table.
Given that only function words are selected out in Alceste whereas Hamlet includes only those
words that are specified in the dictionary, we should expect a difference in the proportion of the
text that is actually subject to statistical analysis in the two programs. Table 1 provides some data
on this point.
[Table 1 about here.]
Both approaches can effectively use the same input files and both programmes enable the analyst
to carry out some sort of correspondence or multidimensional analysis. In different ways they
also both allow identification and tracking of individual speakers in the debates and limited use of
identifying factors such as party, gender and voting record. This therefore allows us to compare
themes, rhetoric or position between different speakers within debates, such as those adopting
11
“liberal” or "restrictionist" approaches to the issues under discussion, or indeed whether or not
speakers may change position over time as several speak in a number of the debates.
Thus besides commenting on the “deliberative” aspects of this analysis, we shall also compare
and contrast vocabularies with a number of variables relating to speakers. There will be two
levels of analytic unit examined - whole debates and input of key individual speakers. In all
debates there are speakers who simply make minor interruptions and these are excluded from the
Hamlet analysis as their contribution is too slight to be coded sensibly. The comments of the
Speaker are also excluded from the Hamlet analysis.
Alceste and Fully Automated Analysis
The statistical analysis for the 1966 debate performed by Alceste identifies five dimensions of the
debate, which broadly fall into two classes: substantive and procedural. Table 2 gives a listing
and interpretation of the dimensions, together with a sample of characteristic sentences that are
found in the classes as defined by the ten sentences with the ten highest χ2 values. The key terms
on which the classes are defined are identified in bold. It is by reference to these characteristic
sentences that it is possible to place an interpretation on each class as a dimension of debate. The
table also identifies the parliamentary speakers who are statistically associated with the sentences
that make up the class, and who identified under the ICUs (initial context units) of the tables.
[Table 2 about here.]
Class 1, comprising some 15 per cent of the analysed sentences, reflects the fact that the debate is
a legislative one. It is taken up with statements about what the bill proposes and in particular
with the way in which the existing case law, which allowed abortion when there was a risk of
damage to the mental or physical health of the mother, was to be incorporated into statute. It is
not surprising that both David Steel, the proposer of the bill, and Roy Jenkins, the Home
Secretary of the time who facilitated its passage, are frequent contributors to this class of
sentences. However, the class also includes sentences from opponents of the legislation, who
pick up elements of the proposed legislation with which they disagree or draw attention to the
untoward effects, as they see it, of the legislation. Norman St. John Stevas, for example, draws
attention to the bill's provision that abortion should be allowed if there is a substantial health risk
to the child, and Kevin McNamara, another opponent, makes the point that the provision allowing
12
abortion in the case of a risk of child handicap will have the result that normal foetuses will also
be aborted.
Class 2 contains sentences that are characteristic of the rhetoric of advocacy in the House of
Commons, in which members congratulate, encourage or criticise other participants for their
contributions. Such interventions are a marked feature of all House of Commons debates, and in
the particular case of the present debate are also marked by the congratulations to David Steel for
the way in which he introduced the debate, as a relatively new member of the House, and to
Edward Lyons, for whom it was his maiden speech and for whom a number of speakers invoke
the regular formula of congratulation.
Class 3 is the most straightforward class in terms of its ethical content. It relates to the sanctity of
life. It is a tightly defined cluster in the sense that the sentences that it contains are largely used
by opponents of the bill to state the principled grounds upon which they base their objections. An
interesting exception is Leo Abse, who voted in favour of the bill in the end, but who makes it
clear that it causes him great problems of conscience to do so, and who in subsequent debates
takes up a more restrictionist position on the issue. Of the other supporters of the bill, the main
ones to use vocabulary from this class are John Dunwoody and Roy Jenkins, who do not make
counter-assertions of principle, but raise sceptical doubts about whether the sanctity of life really
does forbid or restrict abortion when there are good grounds.
Class 4 is more heterogeneous. The Steel bill was introduced as a private member's bill, but it
was given drafting assistance by the Labour government. Steel himself argues that such matters
should not be dealt with by private member's legislation. Conversely, the Home Secretary, Roy
Jenkins, defends that decision, but also defends the right of the government to lend assistance,
saying that, although the government should retain a position of neutrality, it would be right for
the government to provide support if this was necessary to give expression to the will of the
House of Commons. Similarly issues of neutrality and impartiality are raised in connection with
Catholic members of the House and the extent to which religious convictions should shape the
debate.
By far the largest class of sentences (47 per cent), however, are found in class 5, in which
speakers focus upon the issue the uncertain operation of the prevailing law and the difficulties to
which it gives rise. In particular, the uncertain operation of the law is seen to pose risks to
13
women seeking abortions who may be forced into illegal ('back-street') procedures that are
inherently risky. These were the principal arguments used by Steel himself, who sought to frame
the debate in those terms. Nor is it surprising to find that those in favour of the legislation being
disproportionately located within this class. Some of those opposed to the legislation also employ
vocabulary within this class, but they focus on difficulties faced by medical staff opposed to
abortion both in relation to any operations that had been performed and in relation to those that
would be performed under the new law. This is also the class in which the references to public
opinion are largely to be found. Moreover, Steel's success in framing the issue in these terms is
evidenced by the large number of sentences falling within this class, as well as the fact that the χ2
values of the sentences are rather low, suggesting that the sentences in this class do not stand out
against the general background of the debate.
When we turn to the 1988 example we see a reduction in the dimensionality of the debate in the
analysis performed by Alceste. Instead of the five dimensions of the Steel debate we find only
three dimensions. Table 3 gives a listing of the ten sentences with the highest χ2 values in each
category.
[Table 3 about here.]
We can give an interpretation to these three classes as follows. Class 1 (23 per cent of sentences)
is concerned with the moral and social elements that surround the issue of abortion. These
elements include the circumstances in which abortions are performed, including handicap
(amniocentesis is an issue raised in the debate), youth and age. Speakers from both sides are to
be found in this class, but they characterise the issues differently. Opponents for example draw
attention to the difficulties that parents have in bringing up children who are severely disabled.
Proponents talk about the capacities of the disabled, and use the example of Christopher Nolan a
great deal. Characteristic sentences on both sides are as follows, with the content words used by
Alceste to make the classification in bold:
'The bill lacks compassion. Why should mothers be forced to carry a child with spina
bifida, when 70 per cent of such children die in agony before five, and have to be
sedated because of their pain? Must mothers be forced to go through with such
pregnancies?'
(Thurnham, No, chi-square=34).
14
'One is cherished while its life is fought over, and all the medical resources in the
country are poured into saving it and its parents desperately want it to live, while the
other is willfully destroyed.'
(Widdecombe, Yes, chi-square=31).
We can think of the components of this dimension in terms of the quality of life (disability and its
implications) and the quality of the moral response to that situation. In this context, Dicks
(χ2=10), who characterised himself in the debate as spastic, states an absolutist abortion argument,
which rarely if ever appears in other debates.
The second dimension can be interpreted as concerned with Term Limits on Abortion and Late
Abortions (28%). This is not surprising given the ostensible purpose of the bill. As the minister,
Newton is prominent among the speakers with high χ2 values, as can be seen from the Table. His
task is to set out the situation as he sees it. More generally, examples of characteristic sentences
in this class include the following:
'It has certainly not stood still since the abortion act became law 21 years ago. Many of
the disabilities that opponents of the bill regularly cite as requiring the test of
amniocentesis can now be detected much earlier, indeed as early as the eighth or 10th
week of pregnancy, by a variety of methods.'
(Braine, Yes, chi-square=27).
'A 12 week limit on freedom of choice would be too restrictive and would be certain to
lead to more illegal abortions. A 24 week limit for medical reasons could rule out a
small number of the most necessary abortions'
(Morrison, No, chi-square=24).
The third class is concerned with Parliamentary Procedure and the Rhetoric of Advocacy (49%).
This also includes debate on the role of churches in the issue. Among the key sentences here, the
following illustrate the two sides:
15
'The Hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, Mr Alton, is as he said, a Liberal and
a Catholic, yet we have seen during today's debate and previously that the bill attracts
support, and opposition, on both sides of the house and among people of all religious
and Christian backgrounds.'
(Peacock, Yes, chi-square=26).
'The Hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, Mr Alton, has hinted that
amendments might be accepted in committee. But he has drafted his bill with
remarkable precision. Had he been thinking about extending the time limit, he would
not have tried to define the limit almost to the day. I beg the House to consider the
words of the bill.'
(Richardson, No, chi-square=19).
Hamlet and Semi-Automated Analysis
The Hamlet software provides two general means of depicting the usage of the vocabularies
contained within the established dictionary - as a percentage of total debate and how much each
of the six distinct vocabularies contributes to the total dictionary found within the debate. The
latter is especially useful when comparing and contrasting contributions by individual speakers.
In both cases the measurement is based on words within sentences. Taking the two debates of
July 1966 and January 1988 in full, Table 4 shows the contribution of the vocabularies to each
debate. It should be stressed that all discussion which follows in relation to the vocabularies is
based on figures depicting vocabularies as a percentages of total dictionary present in the debates.
In general terms results of the semi-automated analysis clearly reflect procedural- substantive
dimensions to parliamentary debate suggested by Steiner et al (2004) as well as highlighting
specific substantive and advocacy aspects of the general discussions surrounding the issue, both
inside and outside Parliament, as alluded to e.g. by Lovenduski and Outshoorn (1986, 2-3). There
is also a high degree of compatibility with the results of the Alceste analysis outlined above.
[Table 4 about here]
The first thing to note is that the dictionary only accounts for between thirteen and fourteen per
cent of the total words used in the debates. This is unsurprising given the extensive usage of
16
“general” terminology and indeed quite modest proportions of our dictionary terms may signify
quite important patterns of speech behaviour by protagonists (c.f. Bara, 2005).
It is clear that the most extensively used vocabulary is that relating to procedural discourse which
is hardly surprising given the context and its complex rules of behaviour and address. Of the
substantive vocabularies, the medical is the most widely used, followed by the social.6 The
advocacy vocabulary emerges as reasonably robust but there is poor reflection of the moral
vocabulary. This may not be as surprising as our expectations might suggest since, as suggested
previously by the Alceste analysis, the tenor of most of the debates examined reflects a discourse
directed towards enacting legislation based on an essentially medical rationale which also reflects
a social dimension. We can get a more refined picture if we look in more detail at the specific
elements of the 1966 (Steel) Bill and the 1988 (Alton) Bill Second Reading debates.
The first matter to assess is whether or not there is any substantial difference in terms of the
dictionary overall reflecting significantly lower proportions of debate content overall in 1988 as
compared with 1966. There is indeed the slight diminution, mentioned in Table 1 and there is
some variation in vocabularies used by speakers in the two debates, suggesting that the speakers
generally show a substantial degree of affinity in terms of their use of the vocabularies. The
overall ranking of different vocabularies suggested by our “macro” analysis of all ten debates
during the period concerned is reflected here too, although more closely in the case of the 1966
debate. In both cases the procedural vocabulary clearly dominates, followed by the medical,
social and advocacy vocabularies. Advocacy remains in fourth place. The legal vocabulary is
considerably less in evidence and the moral vocabulary, hardly at all.
[Table 5 about here]
It is interesting to note that in the 1966 case, all of the minor speakers apart from one (Deedes) do
not reflect the full range of vocabularies. In the 1988 case all speakers included in the analysis
reflect all six vocabularies. We can see immediately that in 1966 the overall contribution of the
procedural vocabulary is enhanced even more than usual by its very high contribution (over
50%), to the input of three speakers in particular (Winstanley, Silkin and Mahon). Unusually, the
legal vocabulary figures more prominently than is generally the case overall for two speakers
(Alex Lyon, who also stresses medical terms, and Winstanley, a trained physician, who has no
17
medical input) who also demonstrate much higher usage of the moral vocabulary. They both
adopt a liberal position on the abortion issue and are from different parties.
The social vocabulary emerges more prominently across speaker contributions in the 1988 debate
than in 1966, representing at least one fifth of the input of thirteen speakers. Despite this the
procedural vocabulary continues to dominate for most and two speakers (MacKay and Cyril
Smith) also demonstrate very high usage. Although the moral vocabulary is fairly negligible
overall, the 1988 debate contains the speaker with the largest proportion of moral input overall.
Unsurprisingly this is the Rev Dr Ian Paisley.
Use of procedural vocabulary also often reflects indications of support/opposition and advocacy
indirectly, such as in phrases such as is evident from the following short extract from an
intervention by Peter Thurnham in the 1988 debate, who was opposed to the Bill.
“I should have liked to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool,
Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on his good fortune in being chosen third in the ballot, but I
am sorry that he has proposed this Bill, which is so strongly opposed by hon. Members
and many people outside the House who are so vulnerable in society. The hon.
Gentleman is widely respected for the sincerity of his views and he is on record as
saying that he is opposed to all abortions and to discrimination against the disabled. But
his Bill does not meet either of those objectives.” (22 January1988, HC 1252-3, authors’
emboldening of procedural vocabulary and additional italicisation of
support/opposition/advocacy)
Similarly, in the 1966 debate, Dame Joan Vickers, a supporter of the Bill, commenced her main
contribution in the following way.
“I have pleasure in supporting the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for
Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) on the way in which he introduced
it. I should like the House to take particular notice of what was said by the hon. Member
for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody), because on this matter he has
more experience than anybody in the House, and I thought that he put his points
extremely fairly and reasonably. I realise the sincerity with which she spoke, but I regret
that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made
18
some of the remarks that she did. I think that my hon. Friend rather exaggerated when,
with regard to subsection (l, c), she talked about abortion on demand, because it refers
specifically to abortion when a mother "will be severely overstrained by the care of a
child or of another child as the case may be." (22 July 1966 HC 1107, authors’
emboldening of procedural vocabulary and additional italicisation of
support/opposition/advocacy)
We might well ask therefore whether the Hamlet analysis suggests that “liberals” project different
vocabulary patterns from “restrictionists”? By creating a categorical variable, based on the
method utilised by Marsh et al (1981, 1988) in terms of selecting key votes based on voting
records of MPs in Hansard, comparisons can be made between liberals (i.e. those voting for the
Steel bill of 1966 and against all others in the House of Commons), as opposed to restrictionists
who voted against the Steel bill and in favour of the other Commons bills. (Similar procedures
were adopted in the case of the House of Lords debates.) In the case of the 22 speakers in 1966
debate included here, 15 adopted a liberal position, five a restrictionist position and two
abstained. For 1988 there were 10 liberals, 11 restrictionists and one abstainer. Very few
speakers participating in more than two debates changed their position over time - indeed the only
instance in our sample was Abse - and his input into the July 1966 debate suggests that his vote
was finely balanced even then. The overall impression from Table 6 is that there seems to be little
difference in the use of vocabularies by the two camps. By examining differences between mean
‘scores’ for vocabularies and identifying whether either camp can claim ownership of particular
terms we may obtain a more detailed view.
[Table 6 about here]
Once again, we need to be careful in attributing too much emphasis to these figures, given the
substantial range of positions on all vocabularies between speakers. What the figures do suggest
is that there appears to be a tendency among liberals to make greater use of substantive
vocabularies whereas restrictionists place more emphasis on advocacy and procedural rhetoric.
This can be illustrated by reference to the profiles of some prominent speakers in each camp,
(Table 5) such as Steel and St John Stevas. This is corroborated by examining differences in
means, although the pattern can be variable since Alton, a prominent restrictionist, demonstrates
very low usage of advocacy. Across both debates restrictionists generally use both advocacy and
moral vocabularies more than liberals, although in 1966, restrictionists used medical language
19
more than liberals on the whole. This is probably a function of the fact that Steel was at great
pains to ensure that the debate was framed mainly according to medical and social arguments, and
those opposing him took up some of his vocabulary.
In the 1988 debate, the restrictionists used procedural vocabulary more than liberals, again most
probably because much of the discussion focussed on change of existing regulations enshrined in
the 1967 Act. The range of differences in 1988 at almost 10% was twice as large compared with
1966 at almost 5%.7 This suggests that in addition to each camp having (even a small) dedicated
set of vocabularies, the debate itself generated a language of its own. Given that the focus of 1988
was somewhat different it is hardly surprising that the two camps changed their use of language.
Liberals indeed appear to have made greater changes in 1988 than restrictionists in terms of use
of the specific vocabularies
Looking below the general level of dictionary uptake by the two camps, we can identify words
which are used markedly more by one camp than the other. This is based on Hamlet comparison
of wordlists for each debate where usage of individual words by one camp is twice as great as for
the other- both in percentage and numerical terms. However, we do need to be cautious in
attributing too much emphasis to this since many words are not necessarily used frequently. As in
the case of the vocabulary construction, commonplace words are ignored. Table 7 shows for each
debate which words are favoured by liberals and restrictionists and effectively used little by the
“other”. In addition, where words are present in the dictionary, the appropriate vocabulary title is
provided in brackets. In a few instances, words are very similar to vocabulary input and are
designated as having a vocabulary “word root”.
[Table 7 about here]
Ignoring numbers, 88% of the words favoured by liberals in 1966 and 62% of those favoured by
restrictionists are reflected in the Hamlet dictionary. For 1988, as expected, the proportions fall
(to 66% for liberals and 51% for restrictionists). We should bear in mind that there are many
hundreds of words represented in the dictionary which are used by both camps but do not indicate
a high level of differential use by one or the other. Medical vocabulary represents the largest
vocabulary for both camps across both debates, and the differential use of words across al
vocabularies is interesting. For example, in 1966 with regard to medical terminology, liberals use
“birth”, “doctors” and “contraception” as opposed to restrictionists’ use of “death”,
20
“gynaecologists” and “conception”. Although extent of legal vocabulary is weak, liberals favour
“rape” and “law” as whereas restrictionists favour “kill” and “evidence”. Advocacy words
favoured by liberals include “”reasonable” and “respect”, contrasted with “principle” and
“safeguard”.
For 1988, the use of figures represents concern by liberals to resist restricting legal abortions to
only the early stages of pregnancy. Medical terms favoured by liberals such as “abnormalities”,
“disabled” and “foetal” contrast with restrictionists’ use of “healthy”, “disability”,
“amniocentesis” and “birth”. “Liberal” advocacy terms include “consider” and “aware” contrast
with “restrictionist” words such as “argument” or “refuse”. The moral tone of favoured language
is much more evident for restrictionists in both debates, whereas for liberals moral vocabulary is
much weaker in 1966 and completely absent in 1988.
Overall, the results of the semi-automated analysis provide evidence for differential usage of
vocabularies by individual speakers, grouped differentially. It also clearly distinguishes a certain
dimensionality between substantive, procedural and advocacy based vocabularies. The
similarities in the usage of the vocabulary also suggests that on the whole there is an effort to
maintain a focussed and grounded discussion on the abortion issue which avoids extreme
emotional rhetoric which is often found when this issue is debated in other legislatures, such as
that of the United States (c.f. Schonhardt-Bailey, 2006).
Comparison of Approaches
In their very different ways, the two approaches to content analysing the abortion debates have
led to some similar conclusions.
•
In terms of overall “dimensionality”, Alceste always classifies the vocabulary along a
process/substance dimension. This is also captured in the Hamlet analysis.
•
Both approaches demonstrate that the distinctively moral vocabulary is quite small.
•
The Alceste analysis shows that Steel was successful in framing the 1966 debate in
medical terms. This is shown by the large proportion of vocabulary that falls into this
21
class, and also by the correspondence analysis which shows the 'yes' vote close to this
vocabulary. To a large extent this is corroborated by the Hamlet analysis, given that the
overall contribution of medical vocabulary of over 20% represents the highest of the
substantive vocabularies. Other than procedural vocabulary, it is certainly the case that
medical language figures most prominently for the majority of speakers in 1966.
•
The overall message from both Alceste and Hamlet on six House of Commons debates
(Weale et al, 2007) is that there are few issues that one side abandons to the other. The
“sanctity of life” element is the prime candidate. Otherwise, dimensions of debate are
occupied by partisans on both sides, but they seek to appropriate the issue in different
ways, often through manipulating the same language to suit their contrasting aims.
Conclusions
As expected, we have found that both forms of CATA have produced a rich volume of material
that they each have particular strengths and weaknesses, and that use of one form rather than the
other is of course in part a function of the aims and intentions of the analyst. Given that, we find
that both techniques have produced results which are pertinent to the study of deliberation set
within a parliamentary context, but that each of them have particular strengths in terms of
different and more precise foci. It is clearly the case that Alceste’s strengths lie primarily in the
field of analyzing dimensionality and identifying easily words and their textual locations. The
contribution of speakers to identifying underlying dimensions is also something which can be
carried out relatively quickly. All of this can be underpinned by automatic statistical testing. It
also goes without saying that there is absolutely no chance of human contamination at any stage
of the operation. Preparation of materials can, however, be difficult and time-consuming.
Hamlet’s strengths are different. It is clear that in comparison with Alceste this tool is weaker in
terms of its facility to provide as quick and accurate results with regard to dimensional analysis
and for many people, the fact that the analyst creates the dictionary is problematic. Certainly there
is greater scope for contamination, but at the same time Hamlet is able to produce material which
is able to test hypotheses relating to linguistic patterns and signifiers of more fundamental issues.
It is also able to deal with smaller subsets of text than Alceste, which in this instance have
enabled more detailed examination of individual speakers or small groups over time. It also
facilitates retesting and replication of dictionaries which have been essentially prepared for other
22
purposes. The reliability of coding, after all, is not an issue. Some of the statistical analysis
techniques accessible from within the software are less easily accessible than is the case with
Alceste.
It must be stressed that neither type of content analysis we employ can in themselves explain the
role of factors outside the immediate confines of the debates themselves which have led to
success or otherwise in terms of passing legislation or amendments. In particular, the role played
by discussion within the wider political arena, for example in the media, extra-parliamentary
lobbying by pressure groups or public opinion in general cannot be analysed directly. The most
we can hope for is that speakers will allude to such factors in their individual contributions, and
although this does occur, it is not necessarily widespread. Furthermore, it is clear that one major
reason for the success of the 1966 (Steel) Bill was that the government of the day provided
support in various ways, for example by ensuring time in the busy parliamentary calendar. We
cannot guarantee that such factors are reflected in this type of analysis.
What the analysis can do is underpin the validity of assumptions and conclusions reached by
other forms of analysis, provide a basis for further analytical testing of new conclusions not
necessarily discussed in previous studies and, in this particular case, test the validity of claims
suggested by theorists and commentators, such as Dryzek, Guttman and Thompson, Besette and
Lascher, who touch on use of parliamentary assemblies as sites for deliberation.
23
References
Bara, J. (2001a) ‘ Tracking estimates of public opinion and party policy intentions in Britain and
the USA in Michael Laver ed. (2001) Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors (London
and New York: Routledge)
Bara, J. (2001b) ‘Using manifesto estimates to validate computerised analyses’ in Ian Budge,
Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara and Eric Tanenbaum (2001) Mapping
Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments 1945-1998 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press)
Bara, J. (2005) “With a little help from our friends: An analysis of the transfer of policy
expressions between British and American parties”, Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting
of the American Political Science Association, September 1-4, 2005.
Bara, J. (2006)’Do parties reflect public concerns’ in Judith Bara and Albert Weale eds.
Democratic Politics and Party Competition (London and New York: Routledge)
Benoit, K. and Laver, M., 2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies (London: Routledge)
Bessette, Joseph M. (1994) The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American
National Government (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press)
Brugidou, Mathieu (2003) 'Argumentation and Values: An Analysis of Ordinary Political
Competence via an Open-Ended Questionnaire', International Journal of Public Opinion
Research 15: 4, pp. 413-30.
Budge, I. et al, and (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and
Governments 1945-1998 (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Cowley, P. ed. (1998) Conscience and Parliament (London: Frank Cass)
Dryzek, J. (2001) ‘Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy’, Political Theory 29:5,
651-69
Dryzek, J. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics and Contestations
(Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Fairclough, N. (2000) New Labour, New Language? (London and New York: Routledge)
Greenacre, Michael (1994) 'Correspondence Analysis and its Interpretation' in Michael Greenacre
and Jörg Blasius (eds), Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences (London: Academic
Press), pp. 3-22.
Guérin-Pace, France (1998) 'Textual Statistics: An Exploratory Tool for the Social Sciences',
Population: An English Selection 10: 1, pp. 73-95.
Gutmann A. and Thompson, D. (1996) Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press)
24
Gutmann A. and Thompson, D. (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton and Oxford:
Princeton University Press)
Jones, P. (1995) ‘Members of Parliament and issues of conscience’ in Peter Jones ed. (1995)
Party, Parliament and Personality (London and New York: Routledge)
Klingemann, H-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., Budge, I. and McDonald, M. (2006) Mapping Policy
Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Eastern Europe, European
Union and OECD 1990-2003 (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Kronberger, Nicole and Wagner, Wolfgang (2000) 'Keywords in Context: Statistical Analysis of
Text Features' in Martin W. Bauer and George Gaskell (eds), Qualitative Researching with Text,
Image and Sound (London: Sage Publications), pp. 299-317.
Lascher, E. (1996) ‘Assessing Legislative Deliberation: A Preface to Empirical Analysis’,
Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21:.501-19.
Laver, M and Garry, J. (2000) ‘Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts’ American
Journal of Political Science, 44:3,619-33.
Laver, M., Benoit, K. and Garry, J. (2003)’Extracting Policy Positions form Political Texts Using
Words as Data’, American Political Science Review, 97:2, 311-331.
Lovenduski, J. (1986) ‘Parliament, Pressure Groups, Networks and the Women’s Movement: The
Politics of Abortion Law Reform in Britain (1967-83)’ in Joni Lovenduski and Joyce Outshoorn
eds. The New Politics of Abortion (London and Beverley Hills: Sage)
Lovenduski, J. and Outshoorn, J. eds. (1986) The New Politics of Abortion (London and Beverley
Hills: Sage)
Mackie, Gerry (2003) Democracy Defended (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Marsh, D. and Chambers, J. (1981) Abortion Politics (London: Junction Books)
Marsh, D. and Read, M. (1988) Private Members’ Bills (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)
McLean, Iain (2001) Rational Choice and British Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
McLean, Iain (2006) 'The Dimensionality of Party Ideologies' in Judith Bara and Albert Weale
eds. Democratic Politics and Party Competition (London and New York: Routledge), pp. 127-42.
Reinert, M. (2005) Alceste: Manuel d'utilitisation (Toulouse: Image).
Richards, P. G. (1970) Parliament and Conscience (London: George Allen and Unwin)
Riker, W.H. (1996) The Strategy of Rhetoric (New Haven and London: Yale University Press)
Riker, W. H. (1982) Liberalism against Populism (San Francisco: Freeman and Co.).
Riker, W. H. (1986) The Art of Political Manipulation (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press).
25
Sabatier, P.A. and Jenkins-Smith, H.C. eds. (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy
Coalition Approach (Oxford: Westview Press)
Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2006) “Dimensionality in Debating and Voting. The case of the partialBirth Abortion Ban Act of 2003”, Paper presented at the Conference of Comparative Analysis of
Legislative behaviour, University of San Diego, CA, April 14-15
Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl (2005) 'Measuring Ideas More Effectively: An Analysis of Bush and
Kerry's National Security Speeches', PS Political Science and Politics, 38: 4, pp. 701-11.
Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl (2006) From the Corn Laws to Free Trade: Interests, Ideas and
Institutions in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).
Searle, John (1984) Minds, Brains and Science: The 1984 Reith Lectures (Harmondsworth:
Penguin).
Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. and Steenbergen, M. (2004) Deliberative Politics in
Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Weale, Albert, Bicquelet, Aude and Bara, Judith (2007) 'Debating Abortion, Deliberative
Reciprocity and Parliamentary Advocacy', unpublished paper.
26
Appendix I
Hamlet Dictionary
Advocacy :abhorrence
abhorrent
advocate
agree
agreement
agrees
apologise
appalling
appreciate
appreciates
appreciation
approval
approve
approves
argue
argument
arouse
arouses
avoid
avoids
aware
awareness
back-street
balance
balanced
balances
beg
begs
campaign
campaigning
campaigns
civilisation
civilised
clarification
clarifies
clarify
commend
commends
compare
compares
comparison
compassion
compassionate
comprehensive
compromise
compromises
consensus
considerable
constructive
contrary
controversial
controversy
courtesy
decide
decides
defeat
defend
defends
defies
defy
dilemma
dilemmas
discuss
discusses
discussion
discussions
emotive
emphasis
emphasise
emphasises
enthusiasm
enthusiastic
fair
fairness
heartless
idea
illogical
illogicalities
illogicality
imagination
imagine
imagines
improve
improvement
improves
incapable
independent
irrefutable
issue
issues
jeopardises
jeopardy
jeopartise
joy
justification
justifies
justify
lamentable
liberalising
listen
listens
logic
logical
lottery
metaphor
misery
misunderstand
misunderstanding
misunderstands
movingly
neutral
nevertheless
objection
objectionable
objections
opinion
opinions
opponent
opponents
oppose
opposes
our
overwhelming
propose
prefer
prefers
prejudice
prejudices
prejudicial
principle
principles
proposes
quality
radical
rational
realisation
realise
realises
reason
reasonable
recommends
recommend
reduce
reduces
refer
refers
refuse
refuses
regret
regrets
regrettable
reluctance
reluctant
repugnance
repugnant
respect
respects
safeguard
safeguards
selfish
sincere
sincerely
sincerest
sorry
sufficient
suggest
suggestion
suggests
support
supports
suppose
supposes
surprise
sympathies
sympathy
together
tragedies
tragedy
tragic
trivial
unacceptable
unfounded
unwilling
valuable
viable
vital
want
wholehearted
wholeheartedly
27
Legal :abortionist
abortionists
accuse
accused
acquit
acquittal
acquitted
adjudicate
assailant
assailants
assault
convict
convicted
coroner
coroners
court
courts
crime
criminal
criminals
delinquency
delinquent
delinquents
divorce
evidence
fraud
grounds
illegal
illegality
incest
incestuous
infanticide
injustice
innocent
judge
judges
judgment
jury
justice
kill
law
lawful
legal
legality
license
licensed
manslaughter
misdemeanour
murder
murderer
offence
offences
penal
penalty
policing
prison
proof
prosecute
prosecution
punish
rape
rapist
rapists
sentence
sentencing
tribunal
unenforceable
unlawful
28
Medical :abnormal
abnormalities
abnormality
abort
abortion
amniocentesis
amniotic
anaemia
anaemic
antibodies
antibody
B.M.A.
biochemical
birth
blind
blood
born
caesarian
cancer
chromosome
chromosomes
cleft
clinic
clinician
clinicians
clinics
conception
congenital
contraception
contraceptive
contraceptives
deaf
death
defect
defective
defects
deformities
deform
deformed
deformity
depression
diagnoses
diagnosis
diagnostic
disabilities
disabled
disability
disease
diseased
diseases
doctor
doctors
embryo
embryology
embryonic
embryos
epilepsy
evacuation
expectant
fatal
fertilise
fertilisation
fertility
foetal
foetus
gamma globulin
gene
genetic
gestation
gynaecological
gynaecologist
gynaecologists
gynaecology
handicap
handicapped
handicaps
health
healthy
heart
Hippocratic
hospital
hospitals
hysterectomy
immature
immaturity
infertile
infertility
laboratories
laboratory
Lancet
live
malformation
malformed
measles
medical
medicine
melancholia
melancholic
melancholy
menopause
mental
microbiology
miscarriage
miscarriages
miscarry
mongol
mongolism
mongoloid
mortal
mortality
N.H.S.
natal
nephritis
nurse
nurses
nursing
obstetric
obstetricians
obstetrics
obstetrician
palate
pathological
pathology
patient
patients
perish
peritonitis
physician
physical
physicians
post-natal
postoperative
practitioner
practitioners
pre-natal
pregnancy
pregnant
premature
prematurity
psychiatric
psychiatrist
psychiatrists
psychiatry
psychological
psychologist
psychologists
psychology
R.C.O.G
RCOG
rhesus
rubella
subnormal
septicaemia
spastic
spasticity
spastics
sterile
sterilise
sterilised
stillborn
surgeon
surgeons
surgery
surgical
syndrome
syringe
termination
terminations
thalidomide
therapeutic
thrombosis
tonsillectomy
transfusion
trauma
traumas
traumatic
traumatise
treatment
ultrasound
unborn
uterine
uterus
wean
womb
29
Moral :agnostic
agnosticism
agnostics
Anglican
Anglicanism
Anglicans
atheism
atheist
atheists
Baptist
belief
beliefs
believe
believes
Bible
biblical
Catholic
Catholicism
Catholics
Christian
Christianity
Christians
Church
Churches
conscience
doctrinal
doctrine
doctrines
duties
equality
ethic
ethical
ethics
eugenics
euthanasia
evil
feckless
forbid
forbidden
forbids
freedom
freedoms
God
honour
humanism
humanist
humanistic
humanity
human
inhuman
inhumanity
Jesus
Judaism
Judeao-Christian
liberty
moral
morality
morals
Methodist
New Testament
Old Testament
permissive
permissiveness
philosophers
philosophize
philosophy
philosopher
Presbyterian
progress
psyche
religion
religions
religious
responsibilities
responsibilities
rights
sacrament
soul
Talmud
Talmudic
theologian
theological
theology
tradition
truth
unethical
universal
utilitarian
utilitarianism
values
wanton
war
worth
30
Procedural :Abeerdeen
Act
adjourn
adjournment
St Albans
amend
amendment
amendments
Ashford
Assent
Audley
ballot
Barking
Baron
Baroness
Batley
Belper
Bench
Berkshire
Bermondsey
Berwick
Bill
Billericay
Birmingham
Bishop
Bolton
Bootle
Bow
Bradford
Brent
Brighton
Bromwich
Buckingham
Burnley
Bury
Bute
Cambourne
Canterbury
Cardiff
Cathcart
Central
Chelmsford
Chigwell
Chorley
Clapham
clause
clauses
Clydeside
Coatbridge
Colne
Commission
Committee
Commons
congratulate
congratulates
congratulations
Conservative
constituency
constituent
constituents
constitution
convention
Crosby
Devon
division
Dorset
draft
drafted
drafts
Dunbartonshire
Earl
East
Edgbaston
Edge
Edmonton
election
elections
electors
Ely
Epsom
Esher
Eskdale
Essex
Ettrick
Exeter
Feltham
Friend
Front
Gentleman
Glasgow
government
Grinstead
Hackney
Harrow
Hatfield
Hemel Hempstead
Highlands
Holborn
Hon
Honourable
House
Huntingdon
interruption
Isles
Kilbride
Kinross
Kirkaldy
Labour
Lady
Lauderdale
Learned
Leeds
Lewisham
Liberal
Lichfield
Litterick
Liverpool
lobbies
Lobby
Lord
Lordship
Lordships
Lothian
Loughborough
Luton
maiden
measure
measures
member
members
Minister
Ministers
motion
Nelson
new
Noble
North
Northampton
Norwich
order
St Pancras
paragraph
paragraphs
Parliament
Parliamentary
Peebles
Peer
Peers
Penistone
Plymouth
Pollok
Poplar
prelate
Preston
procedural
procedure
procedures
Queen
Reading
Redcar
Report
Rhondda
Right
Rochdale
Rochester
Roxborough
Royal
Rt
Rye
Secretary
Selkirk
Somerset
South
Southport
Southwark
Sowerby
Speaker
speech
Staffordshire
stage
State
statute
Stevenage
Stockton
Stoke
Stratford
subsection
subsections
Sunderland
Surrey
Sutton
Tamworth
Thurrock
Tiverton
tribute
Tweedale
Twickenham
Viscount
vote
votes
Walsall
Wandsworth
Warwick
Wells
Welwyn
West
Woking
Wolverhampton
Workington
York
31
Social :adolescence
adolescent
adolescents
adopt
adoption
age
babies
baby
boy
boys
child
children
citizen
citizens
daughter
daughters
elderly
families
family
father
fathers
female
females
feminine
femininity
feminism
feminist
feminists
gender
girl
girls
he
homosexual
homosexuals
husband
husbands
individual
individuals
male
males
man
marriage
married
marry
masculine
masculinity
men
mother
mothers
parent
parental
parents
premarital
profession
professional
professions
prostitute
prostitutes
prostitution
public
schoolgirl
schoolgirls
sex
she
social
society
welfare
wife
wives
woman
women
young
youth
32
Table 1: Proportion of Text Analysed by Program
Date
nd
22 July 1966
22nd Jan. 1988
Bill
Steel
Alton
Alceste
Hamlet
40.7%
41.7%
13.94%
13.01%
33
Table 2:
22 July 1966
Classes
and %
of
E.C.U.s
E.C.U.s
Khi2
value
and
Speakers
Class 1
15%
Class 2
10%
Class 3
7%
Class 4
20%
Class 5
47%
The Grounds
of Legislation
The Rhetoric
Of Debate
The Sanctity of
Life
The Character
of Procedure
The Operation of
the Current Law
name_RoyJenkins
name_NormanStevas
name_NormanStevas
name_RoyJenkins
name_DavidSteel
u.c.e. : 719 Khi2 : 64
u.c.e. : 810
u.c.e. : 842
u.c.e. : 698
u.c.e. : 34
I deal, first, with the
provision in clause I, l,
b, that a pregnancy
may be terminated
where there is a
substantial risk that if
the child were born it
would suffer from such
physical or mental
abnormalities as to be
seriously
handicapped.
and learned member for
walsall, north, mr.
william wells, who
moved the amendment,
and, in particular, my
hon. friend the member
for birmingham,
edgbaston, mrs. knight,
who spoke very
movingly. after all, a
woman has much more
right to speak in this
debate than has any
other hon.
name_McNamara
u.c.e. : 587Khi2: 56
nor should one forget
that under this clause
many a normal child
may be sacrificed in
order to avoid the risk
of bearing a
handicapped child. it is
too high a risk to run
and it is too high a price
to pay. subsection, l, c,
contains the phrases
capacity as a mother
and severely
overstrained.
Khi2 : 83
u.c.e. : 845 Khi2 : 52
subsection, 2, is very
different. it provides for
abortion if there is a
substantial risk that
the child may suffer
from physical or
mental abnormalities
so as to be seriously
handicapped.
name_EdwardLyons
Khi2 : 66
but while the
government' s
collective attitude must
remain one of neutrality,
we should be glad to
give drafting assistance
should the house decide
to give the bill a second
reading and should such
assistance be necessary
or desirable either before
the committee stage or
between the committee
and the report stages.
name_DavidOwen
Khi2 : 35
the fourth category
comprises those which are
illegal but have a covering
of legality, those where the
patient, because of her
financial circumstances, is
able to find or be directed to
medical practitioners or
psychiatrists who will sign
the necessary certificates to
cover the existing law on
payment of a fee of perhaps
100 or 200 guineas and
have the operation carried
out in adequate
circumstances.
name_JillKnight
u.c.e. : 302 Khi2 : 76
the hon. member for
roxburgh, selkirk and
peebles, mr. david
steel, said that he had
no children of his own
and remarks were made
by my hon. and learned
friend the member for
walsall, north about how
he might feel if he had a
daughter.
name_ReneeShort
name_NormanStevas
of course, there is
scope for argument
about when the right to
life begins, but it is of
profound significance
that modern microbiology
has confirmed the
assertions of
theologians that human
life is fully present from
the moment of
conception and there is
no qualitative difference
between the embryo and
the born child.
name_JohnDunwoody
name_JohnHobson
u.c.e. : 636 Khi2 : 52
subsection b, deals
with the question of the
possible risk that a
child may be born
subject to a physical or
mental abnormality
and may be seriously
handicapped.
Khi2 : 89
u.c.e. : 862 Khi2 : 65
friend the member for
bradford, east, mr.
edward lyons, on his
maiden speech. as the
hon. member for
stratford on avon, mr.
maude, said, it was a
difficult occasion on
which to make a maiden
speech, and my hon.
friend acquitted himself
extremely well.
name_McNamara
u.c.e. : 627 Khi2 : 59
I only made the point
because of what the hon.
member for roxburgh,
selkirk and peebles, mr.
david steel, said in
moving the second
reading.
name_NormanStevas
u.c.e. : 323 Khi2 : 66
should they be put
down, too? hon.
members: oh. it is an
utterly inhuman
doctrine, yet it would be
a perfectly logical next
step after this bill. once
we accept that it is lawful
to kill a human being
because it causes
inconvenience, where do
we end? society, or at
any rate the majority in
this house, has already
conceded that the life of
a convicted murderer
shall be preserved.
name_JillKnight
u.c.e. : 347 Khi2 : 63
I have seen plenty of
spastics who appear to
be thoroughly enjoying
life. there is something
utterly repugnant to me
here, because it so
reminds me of hitler' s
conception of a race of
perfect physical
specimens.
name_WilliamWells
u.c.e. : 190 Khi2 : 53
I am told I may be
wrong; I know no
medicine that three
weeks after conception
u.c.e. : 430 Khi2 : 43
I support the plea for
this measure to be given
government time.
obviously there should be
a free vote, but leaving
such bills to the vagaries
and difficulties of private
members' time means
that a government is
shirking this
responsibility.
name_MrSpeaker
party_none ne
u.c.e. : 36 Khi2 : 32
estimates of the number of
illegal operations carried
out each year vary
tremendously. I should not
like to assert any particular
figure, but a recent survey
carried out and published
only last week by the
national opinion polls on
behalf of the abortion law
reform association
assessed that, at a
minimum, about 40,
name_ReneeShort
u.c.e. : 2 Khi2 : 42
this debate cuts across
party lines, so I shall
endeavour to balance the
debate, not as between
parties, but as between
supporters and
opponents of the bill,
and also those who give
qualified support or
qualified opposition.
u.c.e. : 869 Khi2 : 27
of course, there has been
variation in the figures put
forward since, but the most
recent national opinion
poll, which, significantly,
was carried out among
women and it is women
who have babies and it is
women who have
abortions, legal and illegal,
name_DavidSteel
name_RoyJenkins
u.c.e. : 96 Khi2 : 38
in conclusion, I want to
deal with two opposite
views on the bill. the first
is the attitude of the
roman catholic church.
I entirely respect the
doctrine and beliefs of
that church in this
matter, but I would point
out that the doctrine of
u.c.e. : 705 Khi2 : 26
how can anyone believe
otherwise when perhaps as
many as 100, 000 illegal
operations a year take
place, that the present law
has shown itself quite
unable to deal with the
problem?
34
u.c.e. : 213 Khi2 : 51
clause 1, l, fc, is
particularly welcome. it
permits the termination
of pregnancy when
there is substantial
risk of a child emerging
with serious physical
and mental
abnormalities.
name_DavidSteel
u.c.e. : 56 Khi2 : 45
would involve serious
risk to the life or of
grave injury to health,
whether physical or
mental, of the pregnant
mother, whether
before, at or after the
birth of the child;
name_EdwardLyons
u.c.e. : 216 Khi2 : 45
it is also unlawful to
terminate where the
mother has suffered
rubella german
measles in early
pregnancy, yet the
deformity rate from
such pregnancies is
said to be 30 per cent.
name_RoyJenkins
u.c.e. : 711 Khi2 : 45
where/ the
continuance of the
pregnancy would
involve serious risk to
the life or of grave injury
to the health, whether
physical or mental, of
the pregnant woman.
name_WilliamWells
u.c.e. : 178 Khi2 : 41
one of the fundamental
objections to the clause
is that it makes doctors
arbiters not of medical
questions, but of social
ones. paragraph, d,
states: that the
pregnant woman is a
defective or became
pregnant while under
the age of sixteen or
became pregnant as a
result of rape.
name_JohnHobson
vote_
u.c.e. : 659 Khi2 : 41
if, however, the reason
is given that there is a
strong possibility that
the mother being a
defective may suffer
serious consequences
as a result of having
the child, why cannot
she be dealt with under
paragraph, a?
u.c.e. : 811 Khi2 : 54
member. I hope, mr.
speaker, that the hon.
lady the member for
wolverhampton, north
east', mrs. renee short,
will catch your eye when I
have concluded. at the
outset, I want to make
my own position plain. I
am not a member of a
cabal, as the hon.
member for pontypool,
mr.
name_ChasPannell
u.c.e. : 651 Khi2 : 53
I do not think that the
right hon. and learned
gentleman is stating the
position fairly. my hon.
friend the member for
falmouth and
camborne, dr. john
dunwoody, did not want
to solve social and
economic problems. he
wanted to solve, as a
doctor, the impact of a
social or economic
problem upon his patient.
name_NormanStevas
u.c.e. : 809 Khi2 : 53
member for roxburgh,
selkirk and peebles, mr.
david steel, on the
manner in which he
introduced the bill, which
he did with extraordinary
moderation and skill, and
I should also like to
congratulate the hon.
name_JoanVickers
u.c.e. : 387 Khi2 : 50
she is anxious not to
create further problems
for herself. I am glad that
the hon. and learned
member for walsall,
north, mr. william wells,
has returned to the
chamber, because I did
not think that he made a
very good case for his
point of view.
the embryo has a heart
which beats. this seems
to be as clear a case of
the existence of an
independent human life
as it is possible to have.
the church is not
necessarily permanent.
name_JoanVickers
u.c.e. : 767 Khi2 : 52
every failure that we
make to plan so that
every life can live out its
full potentiality within its
puny transient span is a
defeat, just as every
hanging of a murderer or
traitor is a defeat for the
community,
u.c.e. : 424 Khi2 : 37
I agree with the
sponsor that it is wrong
that these matters of
great importance should
be left entirely to private
members. so much
depends on the vote
today. I hope that there
will be very strong
support for the bill and
that it can go to
committee for detailed
discussion.
name_NormanStevas
name_LeoAbse
u.c.e. : 843 Khi2 : 52
there is only a
difference of
development. the
embryo has a life of its
own and has the full
potentiality of becoming
a human being.
therefore, it cannot be
treated as mere animal
matter to be excised from
the womb and thrown
aside and discarded in a
dustbin or incinerator.
u.c.e. : 804 Khi2 : 37
if they do not allow this
second reading because
they hold particularly
religious views. this
debate should be voted
upon and I hope that the
bill will be given a
second reading.
name_LeoAbse
name_JohnDunwoody
u.c.e. : 281 Khi2 : 48
I take it further than that
and think of the
community as a whole. if
one looks at it in that
light, one can see that
far from undermining
respect for the sanctity
of human life this bill
could enhance respect
for human life in the
fullest sense, of the
phrase.
name_WilliamWells
u.c.e. : 379 Khi2 : 48
I have pleasure in
supporting the bill, and I
congratulate the hon.
member for roxburgh,
selkirk and peebles, mr.
david steel, on the way
in which he introduced
it.
u.c.e. : 170 Khi2 : 40
if one looks at clause 1,
1, 6, c and d, of the bill, it
is perfectly clear that
this argument is justified.
the very, wording of
paragraph, b, makes it
clear that if the clause
becomes law there will be
a number of embryos
capable of development
and with a chance of
developing into healthy
human beings which will
be destroyed.
name_MrSpeaker
name_JillKnight
u.c.e. : 1 Khi2 : 46
before I call the hon.
member for roxburgh,
selkirk and peebles, mr.
david steel, to move the
second reading of the bill,
may I make an
u.c.e. : 317 Khi2 : 40
there is something very
wrong indeed about this.
babies are not like bad
teeth to be jerked out just
because they cause
suffering. an unborn
name_DavidSteel
u.c.e. : 11 Khi2 : 33
it remains my view that
it is unfortunate that the
practice in the house is
for controversial social
issues of this kind
issues such as the:
abolition of capital
punishment to be left
entirely to private
members to bring
forward.
name_DavidSteel
u.c.e. : 121 Khi2 : 30
it is in that spirit that I
have approached the
drafting of the bill, and I
hope that the house.
name_AngusMaude
u.c.e. : 516 Khi2 : 30
having said all that, and
having shown, I hope,
that I want to look at the
implications of the bill
impartially, I hope that
the house will decide to
give the measure a
second reading so that
the matters that I have
raised can be discussed
more carefully in
committee.
name_JohnHobson
vote_
u.c.e. : 617 Khi2 : 30
this is not only a private
member' s bill, but it is
one of those private
members' bills on which
we all agree that there
name_DavidOwen
u.c.e. : 464 Khi2 : 24
we know that we shall not
stop back street abortion,
but there is a feeling in the
medical profession that
many women are stopped
from going to their doctors
to discuss their pregnancies
because of the present
legal situation.
name_WilliamWells
u.c.e. : 168 Khi2 : 23
catholic nurses cannot
help that because all the
abortions that are carried
out in hospitals at present
have been certified by
doctors as being necessary
for the health of the
patients, and nurses are
there, whether they are
catholics or otherwise,
name_DavidSteel
u.c.e. : 115 Khi2 : 20
she had had an illegal
operation which had been
performed by another
doctor who later committed
suicide. in a case reported
in the evening standard, a 24
year old woman was found
dying in a north london
street, after having had an
abortion.
name_LeoAbse
u.c.e. : 787 Khi2 : 19
there is not the same
reaction when one suggests
that action should be taken
by way of an abortion which
many women regard as an
assault upon their
femininity.
name_JohnDunwoody
u.c.e. : 264 Khi2 : 17
admittedly the position at
the moment depends
mainly on case law. this bill
proposes to change the
boundary between legal and
illegal abortion, but we
shall still have legal
abortion and there will still
be circumstances in which
abortion will be illegal.
name_DavidSteel
u.c.e. : 43 Khi2 : 16
in 1934, there was the first
resolution on the subject,
passed by a substantial body
of people at the conference
of the women' s co
operative guilds. in 1935,
the national council of
women added their support,
and in the same year the
abortion law reform
association was founded.
35
announcement. so far, 32
right hon. and hon.
members seek to catch
my eye in this debate.
members can help each
other and help the case
for and against the bill by
speaking briefly.
baby is a baby
nevertheless. would the
sponsors of the bill think
it right to kill a baby they
can see? of course they
would not.
should be no party view.
name_WilliamWells
u.c.e. : 189 Khi2 : 37
the bill draws in its
provisions a sharp
distinction between the
born and the unborn
child. hon. members, who
would recoil with horror at
the destruction of a live
baby, are perfectly
willing and anxious to
legalise the destruction
of embryos.
I.C.Us
*name_EdwardLyons
997 * 16. 52.
30.77 11.15 *
*name_JohnHobson
999 * 2. 4.
50.00 3.90 *
*name_LeggeBourke
1001 * 15. 51.
29.41 9.13 *
*name_McNamara
1005 * 13. 54.
24.07 3.88 *
*name_ReneeShort
1016 * 16. 52.
30.77 11.15 *
*vote_
995 * 8. 42. 19.05
3.66 *
*name_JoanVickers
1003 * 7. 35.
20.00 3.72 *
*name_NormanStevas
1012 * 30. 238.
12.61 2.03 *
*party_con
985 * 16. 142. 11.27
4.35 *
*gender_f
994 * 15. 44.
34.09 50.54 *
*name_JillKnight
1000 * 6. 39.
15.38 4.09 *
*name_LeoAbse
1003 * 11. 35.
31.43 32.17 *
*name_NormanStevas
1012 * 28. 238.
11.76 11.20 *
*party_con
1017 * 36. 179.
20.11 60.07 *
*vote_no
986 * 128. 535.
23.93 18.00 *
*gender_m
989 * 2. 3. 66.67
3.93 *
*name_ChasPannell
997 * 15. 52.
28.85 2.39 *
*name_JohnHobson
1000 * 13. 39.
33.33 4.16 *
*name_LeoAbse
1003 * 12. 35.
34.29 4.28 *
*name_NormanStevas
1004 * 2. 3. 66.67
3.93 *
*name_PeterMahon
1006 * 16. 44.
36.36 7.23 *
*name_RoyJenkins
1009 * 17. 46.
36.96 8.16 *
*name_WilliamWells
1016 * 15. 52.
28.85 2.39 *
*vote_
990 * 22. 32. 68.75
6.40 *
*name_DavidOwen
991 * 69. 103. 66.99
19.54 *
*name_DavidSteel
996 * 23. 35. 65.71
5.21 *
*name_JohnDunwoody
1005 * 32. 54. 59.26
3.56 *
*name_ReneeShort
1014 * 71. 105. 67.62
21.27 *
*party_lib
1019 * 225. 420. 53.57
19.35 *
*vote_yes
36
Table 3
22 January 1988
Classes and % of
E.C.U.s
E.C.U.s
Khi2 value
and Speakers
Class 1
23%
Class 2
28%
Class 3
49%
Moral and Social
Characterisation of
Abortion
Time Limits on
Abortion and Late
Abortions
Procedure and
Rhetoric of
Advocacy
name_Alton
u.c.e. : 118
Khi2 : 44
men must, of course,
approach the debate with
humility and sensitivity. we
rarely have to suffer the
practical day to day
experience of an unwanted
child. we rarely hear about
unmarried fathers, only about
unmarried mothers. we do not
hear about men having
illegitimate children, only
women, and how often men
smugly talk about fallen
women.
name_Short
u.c.e. : 522 Khi2 : 36
I suggest that men should
approach this question with
humility because the women
bear the consequences. there
is all this talk of care and love
for disabled children.
name_Thurnham
u.c.e. : 414 Khi2 : 34
the bill lacks compassion.
why should mothers be forced
to carry a child with spina
bifida, when 70 per cent, of
such children die in agony
before five, and have to be
sedated because of their pain?
must mothers be forced to go
on with such pregnancies?
name_Gordon
u.c.e. : 899 Khi2 : 34
that old man told me that he
had for many years been
looking after his handicapped
son of 35, who is mentally
disabled. the father was bitter
and told how his wife had died
in her fifties; he put that down to
the strain of looking after their
handicapped child.
name_Widdecombe
u.c.e. : 796 Khi2 : 31
one is cherished while its life
name_Newton
u.c.e. : 666
Khi2 : 33
untra sound scanning is
mostly carried out at 16 to 18
weeks. the later it is done, the
more accurate it is in assessing
foetal abnormality. its main
uses are to assist in
determining the gestational
age, which may be important in
interpreting other tests for
foetal abnormality, to detect
multiple pregnancy and to see
abnormalities of foetal
structure.
name_Braine
u.c.e. : 286 Khi2 : 27
it has certainly not stood still
since the abortion act became
law 21 years ago. many of the
disabilities that opponents of
the bill regularly cite as
requiring the test of
amniocentesis can now be
detected much earlier, indeed
as early as the eighth of 10th
week of pregnancy, by a
variety of methods.
name_MacKay
u.c.e. : 158 Khi2 : 25
medical science has
advanced immeasurably during
the past 20 years so that today
it is perfectly possible for a
child to be born at 24 weeks. I
also believe that abortions on
grounds of disability need not
be performed after 24 weeks,
as tests for disability can be
carried out earlier.
name_Morrison
u.c.e. : 487 Khi2 : 24
A 12 week limit on freedom of
choice would be too restrictive
and would be certain to lead to
more illegal abortions. A 24
week limit for medical
reasons could rule out a small
number of the most necessary
name_Smith
u.c.e. : 470
Khi2 : 31
my right hon. friend the
member for tweeddale, ettrick
and lauderdale, mr. steel, said
that he was not sure about the
view of the church of england.
name_Peacock
u.c.e. : 1007 Khi2 : 26
the hon. member for
liverpool, mossley hill, mr.
alton, is, as he said, a liberal
and a catholic, yet we have
seen during today' s debate
and previously that the bill
attracts support, and
opposition, on both sides of the
house and among people of all
religious and christian
backgrounds.
name_Smyth
u.c.e. : 379 Khi2 : 21
today we are debating the
alton bill. the right hon.
member for tweeddale, ettrick
and lauderdale, mr. steel, the
leader of the liberal party I had
to pause to make sure that I
did not make a mistake,
because things change so
quickly pointed out that we
were debating the principle of
the bill.
name_Widdecombe
u.c.e. : 791 Khi2 : 21
I support the bill because it
asks whether we have that
right, and, if not, why not, and
what should be the correct
limit. the bill has been
described by various hon.
members who oppose it as
muddled. I maintain strongly
that the 1967 act was a
muddle.
name_Braine
u.c.e. : 247 Khi2 : 19
healthy children. that was the
point on which my hon. friend
37
is fought over, and all the
medical resources in the
country are poured into saving
it and its parents desperately
want it to live, while the other is
wilfully destroyed,
name_Gordon
u.c.e. : 911 Khi2 : 31
we have all heard about the
pre 1967 period and the gin,
hot baths, quinine pills, knitting
needles and soap suds. we
know that the best doctors
those who were caring and
kind were often criminalised
and struck off the register.
name_Paisley
u.c.e. : 926 Khi2 : 31
but we are talking about a
child a real person who is
being destroyed. that a child
should be destroyed within the
mother' s womb in that way is
something about which we must
righteously protest.
abortions.
name_Newton
u.c.e. : 623 Khi2 : 24
that reflects in one case it
would be more accurate to say
that it reflected the difficulties
that women have in obtaining
abortions in those countries.
in eire, abortion is illegal. in
france, abortion is available
on demand up to 10 weeks
gestation, but is severely
restricted after that.
name_Richardson
u.c.e. : 744 Khi2 : 24
there are known cases in
which abnormalities or lack of
development appear to be
indicated by early ultrasound
screening. if the pregnancy is
continued with careful
screening and back up, further
tests can reveal and have
revealed that such
abnormality has disappeared.
name_Smith
name_Moonie
u.c.e. : 301 Khi2 : 28
she just knew that she
wanted to go back to a normal
life and that she did not want to
bear a child, and she did not.
the other woman was in her
early 40s with a large number of
children.
u.c.e. : 467 Khi2 : 23
of the remaining 7 8 per cent,
of abortions some would
continue to be allowed under
the bill. most abnormalities
can be detected in fewer than
18 weeks indeed, in 10 weeks
with the results being made
available after a maximum of
two weeks.
name_MacKay
name_Steel
u.c.e. : 131 Khi2 : 27
and know that there is a one
in four chance that that child
might also be grossly
disabled.
name_Wigley
u.c.e. : 23 Khi2 : 26
how does he advise the
mother when the choices are
either to have a disabled child
with whom they cannot cope or
to have a child who will suffer
so much that they are not
willing to see such suffering?
u.c.e. : 613 Khi2 : 23
can the minister tell us howmany of those 29 abortions
were carried out under
section 2 of the act in other
words, that were related to
foetal abnormalities and howmany were carried out under
the main section?
name_Alton
u.c.e. : 12 Khi2 : 21
in framing the legislation, it
was considered necessary to
exclude the case where a
foetus was destroyed at a time
when it was not capable of
being born alive, so a rule of
thumb was created in section
1, 2, of the act to the effect
that,
name_Newton
the member for pembroke, mr.
bennett, sought to gain a
response from the right hon.
member for tweeddale, ettrick
and lauderdale, mr. steel, but
the right hon. gentleman
misunderstood it. that point
remains unanswered, but
perhaps I shall be able to
develop it a little later.
name_Richardson
u.c.e. : 722 Khi2 : 19
the hon. member for
liverpool, mossley hill, mr.
alton, has hinted that
amendments might be
accepted in committee. but he
drafted his bill with remarkable
precision. had he been
thinking about extending the
time limit, he would not have
tried to define the limit almost
to the day. I beg the house to
consider the words of the bill.
name_Savours
u.c.e. : 830 Khi2 : 19
one of the fiercest opponents
of the bill, my hon. friend the
member for preston, mrs. wise,
voted, against a three line
whip, on a very important
measure in 1978 the finance
bill.
name_Peacock
u.c.e. : 1008 Khi2 : 19
in 1966 the right hon.
member for tweeddale, ettrick
and lauderdale, mr. steel,
said:
name_Richardson
u.c.e. : 777 Khi2 : 18
we were all pleased that the
right hon. member for
tweeddale, ettrick and
lauderdale, mr. steel, the
original sponsor of the 1967
legislation, was able to spare
time to speak today.
name_Paisley
u.c.e. : 917 Khi2 : 17
they are entitled to do so, but
surely we are entitled to
speak for voiceless,
defenceless, inarticulate healthy
babies. the house must
concern itself with that matter.
the hon. member for liverpool,
mossley hill, mr. alton, has
made his personal
convictions clear.
u.c.e. : 664 Khi2 : 21
the test usually shows up as
abnormal in an encephaly.
amniocentesis is normally
done at 16 weeks. it is used to
assist in confirming the
presence of a foetus with open
neural tube defect, or to give
cells that can be cultured to
determine whether there is a
38
genetic or chromosomal
abnormality if there is reason
to suspect that they may be
present.
I.C.Us
Names and
Votes
31.52 *
*name_Dicks
987 * 19. 25. 76.00
40.38 *
*name_Gordon
993 * 12. 35. 34.29
2.53 *
*name_Knight
997 * 10. 25. 40.00
4.10 *
*name_Moonie
1002 * 7. 17. 41.18
3.16 *
*name_Paisley
1009 * 3. 3. 100.00
9.98 *
*name_Sheerman
1015 * 13. 36. 36.11
3.54 *
*name_Thurnham
1022 * 7. 17. 41.18
3.16 *
*party_DU
979 * 39. 93. 41.94
10.74 *
*name_Alton
983 * 3. 5. 60.00
2.64 *
*name_Bowman
992 * 3. 3. 100.00
7.90 *
*name_Jessel
999 * 9. 19. 47.37
3.80 *
*name_Morrison
1001 * 42. 76. 55.26
31.96 *
*name_Newton
1005 * 24. 61. 39.34
4.54 *
*name_Richardson
1014 * 20. 51. 39.22
3.67 *
*name_Steel
1021 * 71. 180. 39.44
16.02 *
*party_lib
1025 * 42. 79. 53.16
28.48 *
*vote_abs
988 * 14. 17. 82.35
7.61 *
*name_Gorman
990 * 14. 18. 77.78
5.99 *
*name_Heath
991 * 4. 4. 100.00
4.14 *
*name_Hood
994 * 26. 40. 65.00
4.17 *
*name_MacKay
996 * 10. 10. 100.00
10.43 *
*name_Mallon
1006 * 3. 3. 100.00
3.10 *
*name_Rogers
1008 * 46. 49. 93.88
41.42 *
*name_Savours
1012 * 11. 16. 68.75
2.48 *
*name_Smyth
1018 * 21. 30. 70.00
5.36 *
*name_Wise
1020 * 145. 270. 53.70
3.13 *
*party_lab
1023 * 11. 16. 68.75
2.48 *
*party_OU
39
Table 4
1966 and 1988 debates: Vocabularies as % of total contribution of Hamlet dictionary
Debate
Advocacy
Legal
Medical
Moral
Procedural
Social
vocabulary vocabulary vocabulary vocabulary vocabulary vocabulary
1966
13.67
7.94
20.17
4.94
33.56
19.72
1988
11.96
4.21
21.93
4.37
37.33
20.21
40
Table 5: Vocabulary usage as % Hamlet dictionary by individual speakers, 1966 and 1988
Speaker
Steel
Wells
Elyons
JDunwoody
Knight
Vickers
Owen
Maude
McNamara
Hobson
Jenkins
StJohnStevas
Abse
RShort
ALyon
Pannell
Deedes
LeggeBourke
Winstanley
SSilkin
GDunwoody
PMahon
Debate
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
766
Advocacy
13.61
16.06
8.33
14.19
15.38
12.98
16.09
13.52
15.52
10.26
13.36
17.41
16.04
7.56
16.67
14.71
18.32
4.17
16.67
0.00
7.69
7.69
Legal
12.62
8.03
8.33
7.92
8.83
4.13
2.30
4.98
10.34
6.27
9.12
7.05
4.78
14.86
33.33
0.00
5.45
0.00
33.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
Medical
20.91
21.24
31.67
22.11
22.22
22.71
28.35
16.73
25.86
19.09
16.61
16.07
16.04
24.32
33.33
20.59
13.86
20.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.69
Moral
9.51
5.96
3.33
2.97
6.27
1.77
6.13
8.19
2.37
2.56
2.93
6.79
4.10
1.62
16.67
0.00
6.93
0.00
0.00
14.29
0.00
7.69
Procedural
27.76
35.49
25.00
29.37
19.94
31.86
26.82
35.94
29.09
41.31
46.58
36.79
35.49
28.92
0.00
47.06
43.07
45.83
50.00
85.71
38.46
61.54
Social
15.59
13.21
23.33
23.43
27.35
26.55
20.31
20.64
16.81
20.51
11.40
15.89
23.55
22.70
0.00
17.65
12.38
29.17
0.00
0.00
53.85
15.38
Alton
MacKay
Steel
CShort
Braine
Knight
Thurnham
Newton
Richardson
Gorman
CyrilSmith
Widdcombe
Paisley
Smyth
Mallon
Gordon
Peacock
Morrison
Wise
Bennett
Dicks
Moonie
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
8.58
8.89
13.33
11.07
17.05
10.86
11.02
11.52
8.68
14.39
10.22
20.75
9.64
23.19
27.27
10.34
11.72
9.71
6.78
11.48
10.92
11.56
3.83
3.89
3.67
6.04
2.65
3.17
3.15
5.39
1.84
8.63
2.15
2.59
6.02
1.45
4.55
2.07
2.34
13.59
6.78
3.28
3.36
4.05
27.92
13.33
30.00
18.12
28.41
21.27
17.72
27.94
32.37
17.99
16.13
9.51
16.87
2.90
9.09
24.14
15.63
33.98
16.95
16.39
25.05
22.54
3.28
2.22
6.33
6.71
1.89
4.07
1.18
1.23
1.58
2.88
6.99
7.20
15.66
7.25
6.82
4.83
5.47
1.94
1.13
3.28
5.04
12.14
35.58
53.89
34.67
34.56
30.30
33.94
40.16
40.44
35.00
35.25
53.23
44.09
24.10
47.83
38.64
20.69
43.75
28.16
48.02
42.62
21.01
17.34
20.80
17.78
8.00
23.49
19.70
26.70
26.77
13.48
20.53
20.86
11.29
15.85
27.71
17.39
13.64
37.93
21.09
12.62
20.34
22.95
33.61
32.37
41
Table 6
Comparison of mean differences between liberals and restrictionists
Liberals restrictionists,
1966
Liberals restrictionists,
1988
Difference
between liberals
1966 and liberals
1988
Difference
between
restrictionists
1966 and
restrictionists
1988
Advocacy
-2.70
-4.12
1.13
-0.29
Legal
2.22
2.16
3.68
3.63
Medical
-0.34
5.52
-4.43
1.42
Moral
-1.02
-2.00
0.68
-0.27
Procedural
0.42
-2.97
5.22
-1.17
Social
1.48
1.09
-2.86
-3.25
Vocabulary
(as % total
dictionary
present)
42
Table 7
Differences in word usage between liberals and restrictionists, July 1966 debate
(Dictionary information given in brackets)
‘High’ usage by liberals
and ‘low’ usage by restrictionists
‘High’ usage by restrictionists
and ‘low’ usage bylLiberals
abortion
abortions
attitude
babies
birth
Catholic
Children
Church
Committee
contraception
controversial
doctor
doctors
family
health
hospital
illegal
intercourse
law
legislation
mental
operation
patient
physically
practitioner
pregnant
pregnancy
rape
reasonable
respect
satisfactory
should
social
termination
women
apologise
affected
attack
baby
conception
conscience
contrary
conviction
convictions
death
deformed
deformity
destroy
duty
embryo
evidence
fundamental
future
gynaecologists
humane
humanitarian
inhumane
kill
legally
life
live
logical
moral
nurses
principle
profound
protection
rid
safeguard
sanctity
society
statistics
sterility
suffering
truth
unborn
value
variation
vital
womb
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Social)
(Medical)
(Moral)
(Social)
(Moral)
(Procedural)
(Medical)
(Advocacy)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Social)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Legal)
(Legal)
(Procedural)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Legal)
(Advocacy)
(Advocacy)
(Social)
(Medical)
(Social)
(Advocacy)
(Social)
(Medical)
(Moral)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Moral)
(Medical)
(Legal)
(Medical)
(Moral word root)
(Moral)
(Moral)
(Legal)
(Legal word root)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Advocacy)
(Moral)
(Medical)
(Advocacy)
(Advocacy)
(Social)
(Medical word root)
(Moral)
(Moral word root)
(Advocacy)
(Medical)
43
Differences in word usage between liberals and restrictionists, January 1988 debate
‘High’ usage by liberals and ‘low’ usage by restrictionists
12
22
24
28
abnormalities
(Medical)
abnormality
(Medical)
abortionists
(Legal)
alive
(Medical word root)
amend
(Procedural)
amendment
(Procedural)
attempt
aware
(Advocacy)
balance
(Advocacy)
bodies
capable
consider
(Advocacy word root)
consideration
(Advocacy word root)
criminal
(Procedural)
diagnosis
(Medical)
different
disabled (Medical)
effectively
examine
extreme
family
(Social)
families
(Social)
foetal
(Medical)
foetuses
(Medical word root)
forced
freedom
gestation
(Medical)
health
(Medical)
hospital
(Medical)
law
(Procedural)
limit
medical
(Medical)
natural
poll
practice
(Medical word root)
pregnancies
(Medical)
pregnant
(Medical)
present
opposed
parents
passed
perfect
procedural
professor
reasons
referred
suggest
supporters
termination
week
(Procedural)
(Advocacy word root)
(Advocacy word root)
(Advocacy)
(Advocacy word root)
(Medical)
(Advocacy)
(Social)
44
‘High’ usage by restrictionists and ‘low’ usage by liberals
aborted
absolutely
allow
amniocentesis
answer
argument
arguments
birth
choose
Christian
civilised
clear
comparison
concern
consequences
death
debate
denied
destroyed
disability
gynaecologist
healthy
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Advocacy)
(Advocacy)
(Medical)
(Moral)
(Advocacy word root)
(Advocacy)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Medical)
(Medical)
human
interruption
issues
Labour
men
nature
normal
opportunity
parliament
physical
previously
problem
recognise
reform
refuse
regards
rights
strongly
suggested
support
term
true
unborn
(Moral)
(Procedural)
(Procedural)
(Social)
(Procedural)
(Medical)
(Advocacy)
(Moral)
(Advocacy)
(Moral word root)
(Medical)
45
Figure 1
A
Dimension I
B
C
Dimension II
46
Notes
1
The authors are grateful to The Nuffield Foundation, UK, for financial support with this study. We would
also like to thank Dr Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey of the London School of Economics and Bruno Hopp of the
ZA-EUROLAB, University of Cologne who both gave freely of their time in advising us on technical
matters associated with relevant computer software.
2
Most of the debates required were only available in hard copy format as on-line transcription of debates
by Hansard is only available for the period from December 1988. These hard copies were prepared
professionally for use with the software.
3
Alceste – Analyse des Lexèmes Coocurrents dans lese Enoncés Simple d’un Texte is produced by Image,
Toulouse.
4
Hamlet II has been developed by Alan Brier, University of Southampton, assisted by Bruno Hopp, ZAEUROLAB, at the University of Cologne.
5
Textpack was developed by Peter Mohler and Cornelia Zuell and colleagues at ZUMA, University of
Mannheim. The first version was tested in the early nineteen seventies. It is currently in version 7.5.
6
It is worth noting that analysis for the ten debates covered in the broader study that there is also a
significant bivariate correlation between these two vocabularies at a .001 level, and both are also
significantly correlated with the procedural vocabulary.
7
The mean differences between liberals and restrictionists were subjected to ANOVA testing, the results of
which bear out the suggestions that in the case of 1966 the differences were generally slight, since only
differences for advocacy are significant. For 1988 differences in usage of advocacy, legal, medical and
moral vocabularies all emerged as significant indicating changes in the use of language.
47