Reinforcing and Resisting the Neoliberalization of Disability: Comparing Representative Frames Used in Three Different Parliaments

• In Event: Disability Policy in Comparative Perspective

Abstract

This article explores the framing of disability in political arenas, by examining parliamentary questions asked about disability across three parliaments, Aotearoa New Zealand, Scotland, and the UK, from 2010-2020. It uses critical frame analysis to identify ten different representative frames – each outlining a distinct narrative about how disability is experienced and who is responsible for addressing inequalities and discrimination faced by disabled people. Combining theory and empirics, a two-dimensional typology is outlined which highlights the critical divergences in contemporary disability discourse. Based on this, frames are analyzed in relation to the way they conceptualize of disability, as an individual or collective phenomenon, and how they view the role of the state and other actors in resolving disability inequality. This study finds that while several frames occupy an intermediate ground, the most dominant frames represent polarized approaches to disability and (in)equality; with one set of frames individualizing disability and de-responsibilizing the state, while the other set views disability inequality as a societal problem to be addressed by state-based actors. The polarization of disability politics is most evident in the UK, where neoliberal individualist stances on disability prevail, but are challenged by social constructivist, state-based solutions. Disability is framed in a wider range of ways in Aotearoa New Zealand. Meanwhile Scottish politics has come to be dominated by frames that seek (sub)state solutions to disability as a collective issue. Common framing practices that transcend national contexts also emerge from this study, suggesting that representative frames can be both common and contextualized.

Author

• Ruth Gazsó Candlish, Central European University