Abstract
Background
Television portrayals of medical procedures may contribute to patient anxieties and
cultural myths. We explored how television depicts abortion procedures, focusing on
what these portrayals communicate about abortion access and safety.
Methods
Researchers identified all abortion procedure plotlines on American television from
2008 to 2018 through Internet searches. We viewed plotlines and coded for type of
abortion, health outcome, and whether the abortion occurred on or off screen. We used
inductive content analysis to identify themes.
Findings
We identified 96 television plotlines between 2008 and 2018 in which a character obtains
or discloses an abortion. Of these, 39 plotlines (40%) depict some aspect of the abortion
procedure. Twenty-three of the 39 abortion portrayals (59%) depict a surgical abortion
procedure, of which about one-half were legal abortions and one-half were illegal.
Only 7 of the 39 procedure plotlines (18%) portray medication abortions. Five of these
plotlines depict illegal abortions; only two depict legal abortions. Four plotlines
depict attempted abortions by supernatural means or ingestion of a toxic liquid.
Conclusion
The majority of abortions on television are surgical, contrasting with the reality
of abortion practice in which one-third of U.S. abortions are by medication. Portrayals
of surgical abortion often reinforce the misperception that abortion is a surgical
intervention requiring hospitalization. The few portrayals of medication abortion
also perpetuate inaccuracies, including that it is easily accessible, uncommon, and
dangerous. Portrayals of illegal abortions are overrepresented. This misinformation
may seed unnecessary fear for patients before an abortion, and may create confusion
among the public about abortion access and safety.
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 Women's Health IssuesAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Self-sourced online and self-directed at home: A new frontier for abortion in the United States.Contraception. 2017; 97: 285-286
- State-Mandated (Mis) Information and Women's Endorsement of Common Abortion Myths.Women's Health Issues. 2017; 27: 129-135
- Does state-level context matter for individuals' knowledge about abortion, legality and health? Challenging the ‘red states v. blue states’ hypothesis.Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2015; 17: 733-746
- Crisis pregnancy center websites: Information, misinformation and disinformation.Contraception. 2014; 90: 601-605
- The safety and quality of abortion services in the United States: What does the evidence indicate?.Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018; 168: 878-880
- “I'm not that type of person”: Managing the stigma of having an abortion.Deviant Behavior. 2013; 34: 973-990
- Secrets and misperceptions: The creation of self-fulfilling illusions.Sociological science. 2014; 1: 466-492
- Abortion stigma among low-income women obtaining abortions in Western Pennsylvania: A qualitative assessment.Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2017; 49: 29-36
- Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process.Perspectives on Media Effects. 1986; 1986: 17-40
- Impact of clinic closures on women obtaining abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas.American Journal of Public Health. 2016; 106: 857-864
- “Telemedicine and medical abortion: dispelling safety myths, with facts..” mHealth. 2018; 4
- “As seen on TV: Media influences of pregnancy and birth narratives.” Television and the Self: Knowledge, Identity, and Media Representation: 47.Lexington Books, Lanham, MD2013
- What do obstetricians think about media influences on their patients?.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2006; 46: 379-383
- On not learning from one's own mistakes: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al's findings on cultivation analysis part II.Communication Research. 1981; 8: 3-37
- What are people looking for when they Google “self-abortion”?.Contraception. 2018; 97: 510-514
- Dispatches from the abortion wars: the costs of fanaticism to doctors, patients, and the rest of us.Beacon Press, Boston2010
- Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2014.Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2017; 49: 17-27
- Connecting knowledge about abortion and sexual and reproductive health to belief about abortion restrictions: Findings from an online survey.Women's Health Issues. 2013; 23: e239-e247
- Conceptualising abortion stigma.Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2009; 11: 625-639
- Knowledge of abortion laws and services among low-income women in three United States cities.Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2015; 17: 1811-1818
- Beliefs about abortion risks in women returning to the clinic after their abortions: a pilot study.Contraception. 2014; 90: 19-22
- Abortion as stigma: Cognitive and emotional implications of concealment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; 77: 735
- Women know best—Findings from a thematic analysis of 5,214 surveys of abortion care experience.Women's Health Issues. 2014; 24: 594-599
- Seeking emergency contraception in the United States: A review of access and barriers.Women & Health. 2019; 59: 364-374
- The state of cultivation.Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 2010; 54: 337-355
- Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion.Human Communication Research. 2010; 36: 26-52
- Life's work: A moral argument for choice.Simon and Schuster, New York2018
- Cultivation theory and research: A conceptual critique.Human Communication Research. 1993; 19: 564-601
- Association of facility type with procedural-related morbidities and adverse events among patients undergoing induced abortions.JAMA. 2018; 319: 2497-2506
- Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge1999
- From humor to horror: genre and narrative purpose in abortion stories on American television.Feminist Media Studies. 2019; 19: 239-256
- Telling stories about abortion: abortion-related plots in American film and television, 1916–2013.Contraception. 2014; 89: 413-418
- Facts and fictions: Characters seeking abortion on American television, 2005-2014.Contraception. 2016; 93: 446-451
- Doctors and witches, conscience and violence: Abortion provision on American television.Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2016; 48: 161-168
- Depicting abortion access on American television, 2005–2015.Feminism & Psychology. 2017; 27: 56-71
- “I was close to death!”: Abortion and medical risk on American television, 2005–2016.Contraception. 2017; 96: 25-29
- Qualitative evidence on abortion stigma from Mexico City and five states in Mexico.Women & Health. 2014; 54: 622-640
- Multiple determinants of the abortion care experience: From the patient’s perspective.American Journal of Medical Quality. 2013; 28: 510-518
- Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion.Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2015; 125: 175-183
- This common secret: My journey as an abortion doctor, Public Affairs.2007 (New York, NY)
- Childbirth education, the internet, and reality television: Challenges ahead.Birth. 2010; 37: 87-89
- The safety and quality of abortions in the United States.The American Journal of Nursing. 2018; 118: 16
Biography
Stephanie Herold, MPH, is a data analyst studying portrayals of abortion in film and television at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco.
Biography
Gretchen Sisson, PhD, is a research sociologist studying portrayals of abortion in film and television at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco.
Article info
Publication history
Published online: July 19, 2019
Accepted:
June 18,
2019
Received in revised form:
June 18,
2019
Received:
January 31,
2019
Footnotes
Funding Source: The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and the Packard Foundation.
Disclosures/Conflict of Interest: None.
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc.
