Menu
Back

Using language to unite women’s reproductive rights advocates

Women’s reproductive rights are a hot button topic in the US. It’s obvious pro-choice and anti-abortion groups have drastically different opinions, but do advocacy organizations and the average supporter vocalize the same message?

Brands, agencies and charitable organizations are using Relative Insight to determine if brand messaging echoes that of their target audience – and how it can be altered to better reflect the opinions and preferences of consumers and beneficiaries. 

Using Relative Insight, we compared public conversation around women’s reproductive rights on Twitter against messaging used by organizations like Planned Parenthood, Center for Reproductive Rights, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Women’s Health Network. Relative Insight is a text analytics software that compares two textual data sets to uncover the unique words, phrases, grammar, topic and emotion that each use.

Consistent and uniform messaging can unite different groups supporting the same cause. This analysis will show us where advocacy organizations can unite with supporters, educate the public and close any gaps in communication. 

Here’s what we found:

The Public

The recent Texas anti-abortion law was a huge component of the women’s reproductive rights conversation over the past few months. Pro-choice advocates called the decision stupid, dumb, hypocritical, idiotic and ignorant. Organizations were more likely to release formal statements responding to or denouncing the recent law.

Many Twitter users addressed the role of men in limiting women’s reproductive rights. They were more likely to use words like he, him, men and man. Some speculated that men would not oppose abortion if they themselves needed it. 

 

Image: Men

The public was split into two camps: supporters and opponents. While most of the insights came from pro-choice supporters, our analysis discovered a definite group of anti-abortion protestors. We identified this segment of Twitter users through the use of words like murder, killing, god and life. Often these tweets were in direct response to users with pro-choice opinions, which we observed through the use of @. 

Both

Both advocacy organizations and the public discussed the role of government and politics in the country’s current state of reproductive legislation. The difference in how these two groups discuss the topic lies in their chosen course of action. Twitter users encouraged politicians and the greater public to vote for change, while advocacy organizations turned to litigation.

Image: Go vote

Image: Litigation

Organizations

Advocacy organizations focused on education, which we observed through words like learn, information and expertise. By offering educational resources, these groups position themselves as authoritative and reliable entities. Furthermore, by using the words like advocacy, protect and fighting these organizations are able to demonstrate their impact and commitment to the cause.

Image: Pro-choice advocates

The issues addressed by these organizations were regularly positioned as being extremely important. Mission messaging stressed the urgency of the cause through adjectives like essential, fundamental, crucial and critical. This word choice not only relays the importance of women’s reproductive rights to readers, it also demonstrates the dedication of these groups.

As respected organizations, we can’t expect messaging to exactly mirror that of the public – stupid and dumb probably don’t belong in a press release. But we can use this information to confirm that pro-choice individuals and organizations are on the same page about the importance of ensuring reproductive rights for women.

The next step is uniting both groups to pursue the same course of action, and educating the public about meaningful and effective forms of change.

Analyze brand messaging