This thesis attempts to add to framing theory by identifying a cleavage in the types of framing strategies employed by social movement actors. A thorough analysis of the framing literature reveals that social movement actors either engage in proactive or reactive framing. Proactive framing involves creating new, previously unused frames, while reactive framing is the process through which social movement actors recycle frames. In order to fully understand these different framing strategies, I argue that scholars have to look at oppositional movements in conversation with each other. To further explore this idea, I pull two recent case studies from the contemporary sex education debate—one which explores funding legislation at the federal level, and other which analyzes a debate over curriculum content in Montgomery County, MD
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.