Abstract
Objective
I examine Twitter discussion regarding the Texas omnibus abortion restriction bill
before, during and after Wendy Davis’ filibuster in summer 2013. This critical moment
precipitated wide public discussion of abortion. Digital records allow me to characterize
the spatial distribution of participants in Texas and the United States and estimate
the proportion of participants who were Texans.
Study design
Building a dataset based on all hashtags associated with the bill between June 19th
and July 14th, 2013, I use GPS locations and text descriptions of locations to classify
users by county of residence. Mapping tweets from accounts within the continental
United States by day, I describe the residential composition of the conversation in
total and over time. Using indirect estimation, I compute an estimate of the number
of Texans who participated.
Results
About 1.66 million tweets were sent using hashtags associated with the bill from 399,081
user accounts. I estimate counties of residence for 160,954 participants (40.3%).
An estimated 115,500 participants (29%) were Texans, and Texans sent an estimated
48.8% of all tweets. Tweets were sent from users estimated to live in every region
of Texas, including 189 of Texas’ 254 counties. Texans tweeted more than non-Texans
on every day except the filibuster and the day after.
Conclusion
The analysis measures real-life responses to proposed abortion restrictions from people
across Texas and the United States. It demonstrates that Twitter users from across
Texas counties opposed HB2 by describing the geographical range of US and Texan abortion
rights supporters on Twitter.
Implications
The Twitter discussion surrounding Wendy Davis’ filibuster revealed a geographically
diverse population of individuals who strongly oppose abortion restrictions. Texans
from across the state were among those who actively voiced opposition. Identifying
rights supporters through online behavior may present a new way of classifying individuals’
orientations regarding abortion rights.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Understanding family change and variation. Towards a theory of conjectural action.in: Stillwell J. Understanding population trends and processes. vol. 5. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands2011
- The measurement of public opinion on abortion: the effects of survey design.Fam Plan Perspect. 1997; 29: 177-180
- Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement.Psychol Bull. 1988; 103: 299-314
- Intense Ambivalence.in: McGraw K.M. Aldrich John H. Improving public opinion surveys: interdisciplinary innovation and the American national election studies. Princeton University Press, 2011: 303-322
- 72% of online adults are social networking site users.Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C2013
- A tale of cities: urban biases in volunteered geographic information.in: ICWSM 2014. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA2014
- Geography of Twitter networks.Soc Networks. 2012; 34: 73-81
- #Yesallwomen takes Twitter by storm: a rundown of the numbers.([cited 2014 June 18, 2014]; Available from)
- Laws affecting reproductive health and rights: 2013 state policy review.The Guttmacher Institute, NY:NY2013
- Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998.Soc Forces. 2004; 83: 759-789
- Abortion politics in the United States, 1972–1994: from single issue to ideology.Gend Issues. 1999; 17: 3-34
- Culture wars and opinion polarization: the case of abortion.Am J Sociol. 2001; 106: 913-943
- The making of pro-life activists: how social movement mobilization works.University of Chicago Press, 2009
- Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter.Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2010; 30: 316-327
- Mapping the global Twitter heartbeat: the geography of Twitter.First Monday. 2013; 18
- The tweets they are a-changin’: evolution of Twitter users and behavior.in: Proceedings of the Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. AAAI Press, Ann Arbor, MI2014
Article info
Publication history
Published online: July 21, 2014
Accepted:
July 16,
2014
Received in revised form:
July 8,
2014
Received:
June 19,
2014
Identification
Copyright
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
