Volume 48, Issue 4
Pages 161 - 168

Doctors and Witches, Conscience and Violence: Abortion Provision on American Television

CONTEXT

Popular entertainment may reflect and produce—as well as potentially contest—stigma regarding abortion provision. Knowledge of how providers are portrayed on-screen is needed to improve understanding of how depictions may contribute to the stigmatization of real providers.

METHODS

All abortion provision plotlines on American television from 2005 to 2014 were identified through Internet searches. Plotlines were assessed in their entirety and coded for genre, abortion provision space, provider characteristics, method and efficacy of provision, and occurrence of violence. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes in how these features were depicted.

RESULTS

Fifty-two plotlines involving abortion provision were identified on 40 television shows; a large majority of plotlines appeared in dramas, particularly in the subgenre of medical dramas. Medical spaces were depicted as normal and safe for abortion provision, and nonmedical spaces were often portrayed as remote and unsafe. Legal abortion care using medical methods was depicted as effective and safe, and legal providers were presented as compassionate, while providers operating outside of medical and legal authority were depicted as ineffective, dangerous and uncaring. Fictional providers were largely motivated by the belief that abortion provision is a necessary and moral service. Plotlines linked abortion provision to violence.

CONCLUSIONS

The differing ways in which legal and illegal abortion are portrayed reveal potential consequences regarding real-world abortion provision, and suggest that representations situated in medical contexts may work to legitimate and destigmatize such provision.

Authors' Affiliations

Gretchen Sisson is research sociologist, and Katrina Kimport is assistant professor, both at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco.

Acknowledgment

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (grant 2014–40029) provided funding for this analysis. The authors thank Brenly Rowland and Aliza Gordon for research assistance.

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Guttmacher Institute.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Support Our Work

Your support enables the Guttmacher Institute to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and globally through our interrelated program of high-quality research, evidence-based advocacy and strategic communications.