Which framing approach tends to engage a broader audience regarding reproductive rights?

Pro-choice framing is effective in engaging a broader audience regarding reproductive rights because it emphasizes individual autonomy and the right of individuals to make their own choices about reproduction without interference. This framing often resonates with various audiences, including those who may not identify strictly as "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion," as it broadens the conversation to include issues of personal freedom, health care access, and social justice.

By focusing on the principle of choice and the implications for personal agency, pro-choice framing can unite people across different perspectives who support women's rights and health issues, even if they have nuanced views about abortion itself. This approach tends to create a more inclusive dialogue, inviting support from those who may prioritize family planning and women's health, rather than polarizing the issue through terminology that might alienate potential allies.

In contrast, other framing approaches might narrow the focus and limit engagement. For instance, pro-abortion framing could deter those who may not agree with abortion but support reproductive freedoms. Anti-reproductive framing is inherently oppositional and may alienate individuals who advocate for women's rights and healthcare access. Pro-family framing, while appearing supportive, can also limit the conversation to traditional family structures, potentially leaving out broader reproductive rights issues.