Social movement framing within the legal context extends its impact far beyond the confines of the courtroom, yet there remains a significant dearth of knowledge regarding the ramifications of employing legal framing strategies within judicial settings. This paper embarks on the task of addressing this knowledge gap, delving into the repercussions of legal framing with regards to the contentious topics of creationism, creation science, and intelligent design. Over the past eight decades, these ideological battles have unfolded within the legal system, as proponents and opponents alike have resorted to legal action to contest or uphold decisions made by local school boards and state legislatures. Within this legal arena, these movements are perpetually engaged in the intricate task of framing their positions in a manner that resonates with the courts, aiming to secure favorable rulings. However, these frames have far-reaching unintended consequences beyond the realm of law. Employing a comparative historical approach through case studies, we shed light on the profound impact that these legal frames have exerted on policy adoption. Our findings underscore the existence of a reciprocal relationship between legal framing and policy, particularly for movements enjoying staunch support from committed policymakers and widespread public backing. In essence, legal framing carries significant weight, shaping not only courtroom outcomes but also leaving an indelible mark on the broader sociopolitical landscape.
References
[1]
Amenta, E. (2006). When Movements Matter: The Townsend Plan and the Rise of Social Security. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691221212
[2]
Amenta, E., Caren, N., & Olasky, S. J. (2005). Age for Leisure?: Political Mediation and the Impact of the Pension Movement on U.S. Old-Age Policy. American Sociological Review, 70, 516-538. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000308
[3]
Andersen, E. A. (2008). Out of the Closets and into the Courts. The University of Michigan Press.
[4]
Arkansas Anti-Evolution Act of 1929. Initiated Act No. 1, Ark. Acts 1929; Ark. Stat. Ann. 80-1627, 80-1628.
[5]
Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act 590 of 1981. State of Arkansas 73rd General Assembly.
[6]
Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction (1980). Louisiana Revised Section 17:286.1.
[7]
Barnes, R. M., Church, R. A., & Draznin-Nagy, S. (2017). The Nature of the Arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution. Science & Education, 26, 27-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9875-5
[8]
Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2010). Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America’s Classrooms. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511760914
[9]
Binder, A. J. (2002). Contentious Curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American Public Schools. Princeton University Press.
[10]
Boutcher, S. A. (2005). Making Lemonade: Turning Adverse Decisions into Opportunities for Mobilization. Amici, 13, 8-13.
[11]
Crenshaw, K. W. (1988). Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law. Harvard Law Review, 101, 1331-1387. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341398
[12]
Dembski, W. A. (2006). Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement. Inter-Varsity Press.
[13]
Earl, J. (2004). The Cultural Consequences of Social Movements. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 508-530). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999103.ch22
[14]
Edelman, L. B., Leachman, G., & McAdam, D. (2010). On Law, Organizations, and Social Movements. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 653-685. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102209-152842
[15]
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). 482 U.S. 578.
[16]
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968). 393 U.S. 97.
[17]
Fetner, T. (2001). Working Anita Bryant. Social Problems, 48, 411-428. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2001.48.3.411
[18]
Fetner, T. (2008). How the Religious Right Shaped... University of Minnesota Press.
[19]
Forrest, B., & Gross, P. R. (2004). Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford University Press.
[20]
Huskinson, B. L. (2020). American Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design in the Evangelical Market. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45435-7
[21]
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board (2005). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).
[22]
Larson, E. J. (2003). Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution. Oxford University Press.
[23]
Larson, E. J. (2006). Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion. Basic Books.
[24]
Lienesch, M. (2007). In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement. University of North Carolina Press.
[25]
Matzke, N. J. (2010). The Evolution of Creationist Movements. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3, 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0233-1
[26]
McCammon, H. J. (2009). Beyond Frame Resonance: The Argumentative Structure and Persuasive Capacity of Twentieth-Century U.S. Women’s Jury-Rights Frames. Mobilization, 14, 45-64. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.14.1.yr2671812325362v
[27]
McCammon, H. J., Chaudhuri, S., Hewitt, L., Muse, C. S., & Newman, H. D. (2008). Becoming Full Citizens: The U.S. Women’s Jury Rights Campaigns, the Pace of Reform, and Strategic Adaptation. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1104-1147. https://doi.org/10.1086/522805
[28]
McCann, M. W. (1994). Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. University of Chicago Press.
[29]
McLean v. Arkansas (1982). McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed., 529 F. Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982).
[30]
Merry, S. E., Levitt, P., Rosen, M. S., & Yoon, D. H. (2010). Law from Below: Women’s Human Rights and Social Movements in New York City. Law & Society Review, 44, 101-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2010.00397.x
[31]
Meyer, D. S., & Boutcher, S. A. (2007). Brown v. Board of Education and Other Social Movements. Perspective on Politics, 5, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592707070077
[32]
Moe, T. M. (2006). Political Control and the Power of the Agent. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 22, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewj011
[33]
Moore, R., Froehle, A. M., Kiernan, J., & Greenwald, B. (2006). How Biology Students in Minnesota View Evolution, the Teaching of Evolution & the Evolution-Creationism Controversy. The American Biology Teacher, 68. https://doi.org/10.1894/0038-4909(2006)68[e35:HBSIMV]2.0.CO;2
[34]
Numbers, R. L. (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Harvard University Press.
[35]
Ohio Life Sciences Grade 10 Standards, Indicator 23 (200). Final Benchmarks and Indicators Related to Biological Origins.
[36]
Paris, M. (2009). Framing Equal Opportunity: Law and the Politics of School Finance Reform. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804772976
[37]
Pedriana, N. (2006). From Protective to Equal Treatment: Legal Framing Process and Transformation of the Women’s Movement in the 1960s. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 1718-1761. https://doi.org/10.1086/499911
[38]
Polletta, F. (2000). The Structural Context of Novel Right Claims: Southern Civil Rights Organizing, 1961-1966. Law & Society Review, 34, 367-406. https://doi.org/10.2307/3115087
[39]
Revised School Code (2001). Michigan House Bill No. 4382.
[40]
Rohlinger, D. A. (2002). Framing the Abortion Debate: Organizational Resources, Media Strategies, and Movement-Countermovement Dynamics. The Sociological Quarterly, 43, 479-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2002.tb00063.x
[41]
Rosenau, J. (2012). Science Denial: A Guide for Scientists. Trends in Microbiology, 20, 567-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.10.002
[42]
Santorum Amendment (2001). Congressional Amendment to No Child Left Behi.d No. 799.
[43]
Schoenfeld, H. (2010). Mass Incarceration and the Paradox of Prison Conditions Legislation. Law & Society Review, 44, 731-768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2010.00421.x
[44]
Scott, E. C. (2008). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing.
[45]
Scott, E. C., & Branch, G. (2009). The Latest Face of Creationism. Scientific American, 300, 92-99. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0109-92
[46]
Selman v. Cobb County School Board (2006). Selman v. Cobb County School District, 449 F.3d 1320.
[47]
Snow, D. A. (2004). Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 380-412). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999103.ch17
[48]
Stobaugh, J. E., & Snow, D. A. (2010). Temporality and Frame Diffusion: The Case of the Creationist/Intelligent Design and Evolutionist Movements from 1925 to 2005. In R. K. Givan, S. A. Soule, & K. M. Roberts (Eds.), The Diffusion of Social Movements: Actors, Mechanisms, and Political Effects (pp. 34-55). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761638.004
[49]
Toumey, C. P. (1994). God’s Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World. Rutgers University Press.
[50]
Whittier, N. (2004). The Consequences of Social Movements for Each Other. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 531-551). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999103.ch23
