In a new article in the journal Psychology of Women Quarterly, CORE researcher Rachel Dyer, along with Olivia Checkalski and Sarah Gervais, develops a new theoretical framework for understanding how sexism and objectification can undermine the abortion decision-making of pregnant people.
Dyer and collaborators first examine two main concepts: traditional abortion stigma and “women-centered* anti-abortion rhetoric.”
Abortion stigma – a widely used theoretical tool for understanding psychological implications of abortion – says that people who have abortions are bad, immoral, or wrong.
Women-centered anti-abortion rhetoric – a common frame of recent anti-abortion legislation – argues that abortion harms women’s physical and psychological health, despite evidence to the contrary, and thus should be restricted or outlawed altogether.
To consider these two concepts, the authors use “ambivalent sexism theory.” This theory holds that people with sexist beliefs feel both benevolence and hostility toward women, hence their ambivalence, depending on the degree to which women conform (or do not) with conventional norms of femininity.
Abortion stigma, which suggests that people who have abortions are bad, represents the more hostile side of ambivalent sexism.
On the other hand, women-centered anti-abortion rhetoric presents pregnant people positively and in need of protection from abortions. This rhetoric aligns with the more benevolent side of sexism, offering protection to women who embrace conventional roles.
Thus, abortion stigma and women-centered anti-abortion rhetoric may seem different, but in fact “represent two sides of the same sexist coin.”
“Pregnant people may be subject to benevolent sexism, including when they are in the process of making decisions about abortion, because they conform to feminine norms of motherhood,” the authors note, “but people who decide to terminate a pregnancy would be subject to hostility due to their blatant violation of the feminine gender role.”
Abortion stigma and women-centered anti-abortion rhetoric “represent two sides of the same sexist coin,” the authors note.
The researchers argue that ambivalent sexism can pave the way for objectifying pregnant people and viewing abortion-seeking through a dehumanized lens.
Ultimately, the authors conclude that the ability to decide about a pregnancy, including the decision to have an abortion, can represent an act of resistance against this objectifying treatment and can work to support pregnant people’s humanity. Accordingly, they provide recommendations for clinicians and researchers who work with pregnant people.
Read more in Psychology of Women Quarterly.
*In the article, the authors intentionally use the gender-neutral and accurate word people to describe those who experience pregnancy and have abortions unless citing existing research that used gendered language or theory initially developed to consider cisgender women. Similarly, the authors understand “women-centered” to imply both cisgender women and the imposition of womanhood upon pregnant transgender and gender-diverse people.