A Sugestão Legislativa nº 15/2014: entrelaçamentos e reenquadramentos de frames semânticos no debate sobre os direitos reprodutivos das mulheres no Brasil

Abstract

This study aims at understanding, by means of the identification of different instantiations of semantic frames (FILLMORE, 1982, 1985) and their intertwining relations, the nets of meaning that (re)frame women's human and reproductive rights in the context of the public audiences that debated the Legislative Suggestion (SUG) n. 15/2014 – this proposal aimed to legalize abortion within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. In this regard, it conducts a frame-based discourse analysis (LIMA; MIRANDA, 2013; MIRANDA; BERNARDO, 2013), considering a discursive notion of frame, in its interaction-cognition continuum (MORATO, 2010), in order to understand the extent to which women's human and reproductive rights are evoked or reframed by the participants, taking into account their intentions (FILLMORE, 1980; TOMASELLO, 2008) when directing their attention towards some aspects of reality instead of others. (TOMASELLO, 1999, 2008; MIRANDA, 2001; SALOMÃO, 2009; VEREZA, 2016a). Concerning the methodological framework, the study proposes a middle-out data approach (CHISHMAN et al., 2018): after describing the SUG institutional context, from a segmentation by subjects enabled by the NVivo tool (top-down approach), a preliminary description of the semantic frames is sketched, which is reviewed and consolidated by means of the processing of keyword lists in the Sketch Engine tool (bottom-up approach) and of the semantic annotation of excerpts that evoke the respective frames. As results, the study shows that the different forms of instantiation of Frame Elements and their intertwining relations not only disclose different perspectives concerning the Legislative Suggestion nº 15 agenda, but also allow the identification and systematization of the ways by which conservative and/or retrograde conceptualizations about women and their rights are evoked, reducing their autonomy in favor of arguments that deviate – and do not refute, because they do not even approach – the SUG proposal.