Discussion Board

Regarding the future research paper for this course, I chose to answer the question: What is the relationship between the partisan makeup of the state legislature and abortion restrictions? The topic is inspired by several observations. First, abortion restriction is a controversial topic in the united states, which have significant dynamics in an individual and societal perspective. Secondly, the continued push and pull around the abortion restriction policy has taken extraordinarily long to settle since the Roe v. Wade 1973. Lastly, there is a continuously changing power differential between the Congress, the state legislatures, and the judicially in which partisanship plays a significant role during the enactment of policies.

This issue is crucial since it will help understand partisanship, the relationship and power distribution of the Congress, the judicially, and states legislatures, and predict the fate of abortion restrictions in an increasingly partisan nation. Firstly, partisanship is not a new idea. American politics has ever been themed by political polarization, which is revealed in political parties, the media, and the publics’ ideology concerning what should or should not happen in the US. People who strongly affiliate with a particular party are likely to support the party ideologies and are proposed policies, unlike their counterpart parties. For instance, the Republican party was developed in the same way: A group of people felt that the Kansas- Nebraska Act was not fair, opposed the government, and run a presidential candidature to deregister the Act.

Over time, partisanship has matured to affect other areas of American society besides lawmaking. For instance, partisanship has influenced the power differential between the state legislature and the judicially. While the states may enact some policies, it is the court that verdicts the policy or lawbreakers. Studies have investigated judicial behaviors, and there is evidence that judges and the jury are not free from external influence (Jeffrey, 2011). Their interpretation of the law is partially subject to personal opinions. In that light, partisanship has played a role in the supreme court to shaping some worldview policies such as abortion restriction.


This work will be guided by the prediction that the fate of abortion restrictions lies in the partisanship makeup of the legislature. Concerning null hypothesis, there is a significant correlation between the enactment or repeal of abortion restrictions with the partisan makeup of the state legislature. The study is prone to challenges associated with qualitative “people” research such as self-selection bias, sampling bias, Hawthorne effect, and effects of my predominant expectations. Sampling bias may arise since I do not have enough time and resources to study the topic in-depth concerning all individual states. Also, I will the resources used in this study are those that align with my expectation. Besides, the partisan makeup is dynamic – people change views over time. However, one may work around the challenges through the use of multiple sources and samples, verifying data, and getting reviews from colleagues and supervisors.

Christian researchers, like their counterpart secular researchers, ought to honor ethical considerations in a qualitative study. That is, they have to uphold the respect and autonomy of people, informed consent of samples, and protect vulnerable groups from harm. For instance, abortion in this study is a controversial topic from a Christian perspective, but a Christian researcher has an ethical role in respecting the ideologies and rationale of both pro-life and pro-choice samples. However, the study must seek protection for samples and ensure beneficence for society.


Segal, Jeffrey A. “Judicial Behavior.” Oxford Handbooks Online, 2011. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0014.