by Yu-Heng Jung & Zong-Xian Huang
Many democratic nations have faced the challenge of political polarization, which affects both public opinion and policy decision-making. One of the most contentious modern issues is the recognition of rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and more (LGBTQ+) individuals. In Taiwan, the legalization of same-sex marriage became especially controversial due to its relatively conservative culture. Before Taiwan became the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage, both supporters and opponents of LGBTQ+ rights used various strategies in the policy process. These strategies included vibrant street protests, lobbying legislators, filing petitions for constitutional interpretation, and participating in a national referendum on same-sex marriage. Throughout this process, advocacy groups had to effectively use policy narratives and framing techniques to build public support.
The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) suggests that policy actors often use narrative elements and strategies to influence policy decision-making processes. That is, as individuals utilize images, symbols, concepts, and language for communication, their understanding of the world is shaped by the complex interaction of these narrative components. Consequently, narratives are crucial not only for processing information and expressing viewpoints but also for influencing how people interpret and make sense of the world. Although a substantial amount of research has focused on narrative strategies, the NPF framework has yet to thoroughly examine how narrative use may evolve as policy conflicts develop. Additionally, while traditional NPF research has relied on the winning-losing dichotomy to predict narrative strategy usage, recent scholars argue that a coalition’s policy position may serve as a better indicator.
By analyzing the Facebook pages of competing advocacy groups involved in Taiwan’s same-sex marriage debate from October 2016 to May 2019, this study illustrates how these groups adjust their narrative strategies over time and identifies the factors driving these changes. Our findings reveal that, during the same-sex marriage discussions in Taiwan, anti-LGBTQ+ groups consistently employed a “devil shift” strategy in their narratives, while pro-LGBTQ+ groups gradually adopted a less extreme form of this strategy. In view of this, the study suggests that policy positions may provide better predictability for the devil–angel shift than the traditional winning-losing dichotomy.
Furthermore, when examining advocacy groups with varying scopes of conflict strategies regarding the status quo or preferred proposals, a consistent pattern emerges in the narrative strategies of anti-LGBTQ groups. They tend to employ a conflict expansion strategy in narratives related to the legalization of same-sex marriage, while using a conflict containment strategy in narratives aimed at maintaining marriage rights exclusively for heterosexual couples. In contrast, pro-LGBTQ groups strategically adjusted their scope of conflict strategy over time, based on the nature of policy issues, political events, and their target audiences. This suggests that conflict expansion and containment strategies depend on the evolving policy landscape and the social construction of target populations.
The study also highlights that constitutional arrangements and institutional mechanisms enable advocacy groups to engage in venue shopping. This underscores the connection between narrative strategies and a country’s institutional framework, emphasizing the contextual nature of these strategies. Additionally, the findings demonstrate that policy narrative learning occurs as potential policy outcomes converge, illustrating how advocacy groups modify and refine their narratives in response to evolving conditions.
In light of the increasing social awareness of diversity, equity, and inclusion issues in recent years, this research enhances our understanding of how narrative strategies are employed to address contentious social issues. It not only presents a dynamic picture of the narrative strategies adopted by different advocacy groups but also depicts a sophisticated scenario in which the narrative is intertwined with social and political factors. Overall, this study provides a novel perspective on deconstructing narrative strategies and makes significant contributions to both theoretical and practical advancements in the NPF literature.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Jung, Yu-Heng and Zong-Xian Huang. 2024. “ Seeking the High Ground: Exploring Advocacy Groups’ Use of Policy Narratives in the Legalization of Same-sex Marriage in Taiwan.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (3): 671–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12542.
About the Authors
Yu-Heng Jung is a Ph.D. student at the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington. He is interested in the profound impact of rapidly evolving technology and decision-making tools on administration, governance, and society. His current research focuses on bureaucratic professionalism and responsiveness, the digital transformation of government, as well as the role of narrative strategies and social media in political communication.
Zong-Xian Huang is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Public Administration and Policy at the University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). His research interests include digital governance, digital inequalities, information technology management and algorithmic bias.
Policy Studies Journal Blog 