Content uploaded by Juheon Lee
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juheon Lee on Dec 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Integrated Social Sciences
www.JISS.org, 2022 - 12(1): 75-90
Original Article:
ABORTION ATTITUDES IN AMERICAN SOCIETY:
THE ROLE OF SEXISM, WORKING MOTHERS,
AND STATE POLICIES
Zetta Cannedy
Midwestern State University, USA
Juheon Lee, Ph.D.
Midwestern State University, USA
Abstract
Over the past decades, abortion has been among the most controversial topics discussed in
American politics. Despite the long-running debates, existing studies have focused heavily on
individual demographic characteristics affecting people’s attitudes toward abortion; thus, there is
still much to understand about ideational and contextual factors. Therefore, this study utilized the
2018 General Social Survey to examine how American individuals’ attitudes toward abortion are
statistically associated with their sexism, whether their mothers were employed in paid work, and
their (perceived) strictness of state policies on abortion, together with their demographic
characteristics. The results of multivariate regression analysis indicated that individuals’ sexism
was negatively associated with the idea that abortion should be allowed for any reason, whereas
people whose mothers had paid jobs tended to support the idea of abortion. However, the strictness
of state policies on abortion was not a significant factor in terms of abortion attitudes across all
regression models. Among demographic characteristics, level of education, liberal political
ideology, and household income were positively associated with abortion support, whereas the
level of religiousness and the number of children showed the opposite effects. Individuals’ age,
sex, race, and marital status did not show statistically significant relationships with abortion
attitudes in this study.
Keywords: abortion, sexism, working mothers, American society, General Social Survey
_________________
AUTHOR NOTE: Please address all correspondence to Zetta Cannedy, Midwestern State University, 3410 Taft
Boulevard, O’Donohoe Hall 202, Wichita Falls, TX 76308, USA. Email: zncannedy1207@my.msutexas.edu
© 2022 Journal of Integrated Social Sciences
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 76 -
INTRODUCTION
Abortion has been among the most controversial topics discussed in American
politics since the landmark Supreme Court decision made in the Roe v. Wade case on
January 22, 1973 (Fried, 2008). State legislatures have found various ways to restrict
abortions, such as bans on abortions before 13 weeks, bans on abortions between 13 and
24 weeks, bans or restrictions on specific reasonings for abortions (such as a fetus having
a genetic anomaly), clinic restrictions, restrictions on women seeking abortions (waiting
periods), and insurance restrictions (Thomson-DeVeaux, 2019). Along with state
legislatures’ attempts to further restrict abortion access, the increasing polarity in American
politics plays a key role in abortion attitudes. The pro-life movement seeks to ban abortion
for any reason, while some pro-choice activists favor abortion with little to no restriction,
even in the third trimester (Linker, 2019). Ordinary citizens are divided, as the 2021 Gallup
polls showed that 49% of Americans identify as pro-choice, while 47% identified as pro-
life (Brenan, 2021).
Abortion has become an increasingly significant topic to the current political
climate, as whether one is pro-life or pro-choice can determine who a person votes for,
their political values, and their perspective on American politics. Unfortunately, there is
still much to know about the factors related to individuals’ attitudes toward abortion.
Existing studies and public opinion polls have focused heavily on people’s demographic
backgrounds and often lacked a systematic analysis. Public opinion polls often report that
demographic characteristics, such as party identification, gender, age, education, and
political ideology, are critical factors in abortion attitudes (e.g., Brenan, 2021); however,
such analyses, based on counting the frequency of a single survey response, often raise
more questions than they answer (see Hans & Kimberly, 2014). For example, Figure 1
shows the relationship between Americans’ political ideology and abortion attitudes based
on the 2018 General Social Survey. It shows that liberals were more supportive of the idea
that abortion should be allowed for any reason than conservatives (left chart) and that
conservatives were more inclined to be morally opposed to abortion than liberals (right
chart). However, in both charts, the responses with the highest frequencies were those who
identified as neither liberal nor conservative. This result begs the question as to whether
political ideology is a reliable factor in determining abortion attitudes, especially when
other factors are considered together. Therefore, it is necessary to build a statistical model
allowing for the consideration of multiple factors at the same time.
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 77 -
Figure 1. Relationship between Americans’ Political Ideology and Abortion Attitude.
Note: The left chart demonstrates the political ideology of the respondents who
agreed with the statement, “Abortion should be allowed for any reason.” The right
chart demonstrates the political ideology of those who agreed with the statement, “I
am morally opposed to abortion.”
In addition, social science literature on abortion attitudes has focused heavily on
individuals’ demographic backgrounds and has largely ignored individuals’ ideational and
contextual characteristics regarding their families and states. Recent feminist studies have
suggested that individuals’ sexist views on gender roles may affect their attitudes toward
abortion (e.g., Hudson & MacInnes, 2017). Moreover, as most women in the United States
still must choose between paid work and mothering (Dillaway & Pare, 2008), the influence
of having a working mother in a family also needs to be examined. Other studies have
emphasized the social and political contexts in which individuals live (see Hans &
Kimberly, 2014). Building on these previous studies, this paper goes beyond individuals’
demographic characteristics and explores how individuals’ sexism, the presence of
working mothers, and perceived state policies on abortion are associated with abortion
support.
Attitudes toward Abortion
Existing studies have examined various factors associated with individuals’
attitudes toward abortion. Most of these studies have tested individuals’ demographic
backgrounds, including gender, race, religion, education, social class, and marital status,
as well as their political ideology and partisanship. First, gender has been a significant
variable when researching abortion attitudes. Women tend to approve of a woman’s choice
to have an abortion (Loll & Hall, 2018; Patel & Johns, 2009), whereas many men do not
feel that women should have an abortion if their male partner disagrees (Marsiglio &
Shehan, 1993). Despite such conflicting views and interests, the fact that there are still
many women who do not support the complete legalization of abortion is not well
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 78 -
understood. Regarding this, Barkan’s study (2014) suggested that it is women’s religiosity
that suppresses their greater support for abortion.
Race has also been a heavily researched factor in the study of abortion. Wilcox
(1990) used the 1982, 1984, and 1988 General Social Surveys to research declining racial
differences in abortion attitudes over time; however, they consistently found that black men
were less supportive of abortion than white men and that black women were more
supportive than white women. Lynxwiler and Gay (1994) also found that racial differences
in abortion attitudes were declining; they found that black and white childbearing women
did not differ in their abortion attitudes. More recently, Carter et al. (2009) found that white
men and women tended to be more pro-choice, with black women becoming more pro-
choice in the 1990s; they also found that black males have been consistently conservative
toward abortion. More recent studies on race and abortion emphasize reproductive justice
that recognizes intersections of various systemic oppressions, such as racism, sexism,
classism, and heterosexism, that have affected women’s reproductive health (e.g., Eaton &
Stephens, 2020).
Religion plays a key role in a person’s moral and ethical values, which can notably
affect whether a person is pro-choice or pro-life. One of the earliest studies done on
religion’s effect on abortion attitudes was completed by Petersen and Armand (1976), who
found religious conservatism to be positively correlated with opposition to abortion.
Hoffman and Johnson (2005) found that opposition to abortion has increased among
Evangelical Christian compared to other traditional religions. More recently, Adamczyk
and Valdimarsdottir (2018) discovered that higher levels of religious engagement in US
counties tended to make the residents, religious and secular alike, develop more
conservative attitudes toward abortion although a disproportionate rise of the Catholic rate
made Protestant residents become more pro-choice. Over time, however, religion has been
shown to remain a consistent factor in an individual’s abortion attitudes (Barkan, 2014).
Education and income have also been seen as significant factors in individuals’
attitudes toward abortion. Ebaugh and Haney (1980) found that the college-educated
individuals remained relatively constant in their support for abortion, but respondents
whose highest level of education was high school were shown to gradually view abortion
more favorably over time. Other studies found a positive relationship between education,
income, and higher social class and the high approval of abortion (Adamczyk et al., 2020;
Granberg & Granberg, 1980).
Marital status and family size have also been shown to be important predictors of
abortion attitudes. Hess and Rueb (2005) found that a married person was more likely to
be pro-life because the need for an abortion was considered to be less between a married
couple. Miller (1994) found that married couples with smaller family ideals had more
accepting attitudes toward abortions, while couples who wanted larger families (i.e., a
larger number of children) were more conservative toward abortions. Thomas et al.’s recent
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 79 -
study of abortion (2017) also confirmed the fact that married women tend to have higher
odds of anti-abortion attitude compared to unmarried women. Overall, individuals who
considered themselves to be in a secure environment as a married couple desiring a large
family were more likely to be more pro-life, as seen in this research.
An individual’s political ideology and partisanship are strong indicators of their
attitudes toward abortion. Hout (1999) found that both Republicans and Democrats were
divided on the issue of abortion after the Roe v. Wade; and by the late 1990s, Republicans
had developed an anti-abortion stance while Democrats had developed a pro-choice stance.
In addition, Killian and Wilcox (2008) found that between 1982 and 1997, pro-life
Democrats and pro-choice Republicans were more likely to switch political parties. More
recently, Medoff and Dennis (2011) completed research that found that when Republicans
were in control of the government (state legislative and executive branches in this study),
there was an increase in the targeted regulation of abortion providers. Furthermore,
Democratic control was shown to lead to less targeted regulation of abortion providers.
Such research into the connections between political parties and abortion attitudes has
proven that Republicans have developed a strong pro-life stance, while Democrats have
developed a strong pro-choice stance.
Beyond demographic factors, more recent studies have explored some contextual
variables shaping individuals’ attitudes toward abortion. Hans and Kimberly (2014) have
argued that the full context of one’s lived experience and life context should be weighed in
the abortion decision-making process, such as relationship status, balance of work and
family, health issues, and male-partner involvement. Adamczyk et al. (2020) also
conducted a study of the connection between attitudes, laws, policies, and geographical
locations. They found that county population, persistent poverty, and percentage of votes
for George W. Bush in 2004 were significant indicators of abortion attitudes (Adamczyk
et al., 2020). Wetstein and Albritton (1995) found that public opinion influenced abortion
policies and that public opinion and public policy both influenced rates of abortion
utilization by citizens. Based on these findings, one can hypothesize that people living in a
state where abortion is strictly prohibited may generally share conservative views on
abortion, and thus that those living in a state where abortion is legal may generally share
liberal views on abortion.
Other scholars have suggested that individuals’ ideational factors and familial
context are significant factors in abortion attitudes. Feminist scholars have noted that
sexism can be a strong factor in individuals’ abortion attitudes (Begun & Walls, 2015;
Huang et al., 2016). Sexist ideals, such as the view that women are best suited to roles that
limit their access to power and resources, are significantly associated with abortion because
from a feminist perspective, anti-abortion positions and laws seek to control women, limit
their options, and maintain the power imbalance between men and women, legitimizing
the status quo (Begun & Walls, 2015; Huang et al., 2016; MacInnis & Hodson, 2015).
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 80 -
Understanding sexism as the legitimizing myth that justifies sex-based inequality may fully
explain the relationship between ideological predictors and policy support (Hodson &
MacInnis, 2017). Despite the plethora of theoretical discussions, not many studies have
empirically tested the relationship between sexism and abortion attitudes using a large
dataset such as national surveys.
A woman’s choice in pursuing paid careers rather than supporting her husband’s
career have a large impact on children (Kaufman & White, 2014), which can be an
important familial context for children’s views on women’s decisions. Studies have shown
that men whose wives were employed were likely to have more egalitarian attitudes than
men whose wives were not employed because they would benefit, directly or indirectly, if
their wives were treated more equally in the labor force through equal pay and equitable
environments and interactions (Kaufman & White, 2016). Based on previous studies, the
present study hypothesizes that people whose mothers engaged in paid work were more
likely to support the legalization of abortion. Moreover, abortion access, states’ different
policies on abortion, is strongly associated with people’s attitudes toward abortion (Hussey,
2010).
This study builds upon and contributes to the literature by analyzing the most recent
General Social Survey data available. We hypothesized that individuals’ sexism, the
presence of working mothers in their families, as well as state abortion policies could
explain individuals’ attitudes toward abortion.
METHOD
This study used a public dataset provided by the 2018 General Social Survey (GSS).
This national survey, which was the most recent at the time of the present research, was
obtained from the GSS website (gss.norc.org). The GSS gains respondent knowledge
mostly through face-to-face interviews and also utilizes telephone to conduct interviews if
it is difficult to complete a face-to-face interview with a respondent. The GSS collects three
samples (ballots) for its biennial surveys, each with a target sample size of 1,500. The GSS
also targets the population that is 18 years or older living in a household in the United
States (US) and who can complete the survey in English or Spanish. For the 2018 survey,
a total of 2,349 respondents participated in the three ballots with overlapping questions.
Table 1 provides detailed information about each variable. The dependent variable
of this research was the survey respondents’ attitudes toward abortion. The GSS asked the
respondents whether an abortion should be allowed if a woman wants one for any reason.
For this variable, the answer “yes” was coded 1 and “no” was coded 0. Other responses
were removed.
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 81 -
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Dependent, Independent, and Control Variables.
N
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Maximum
Minimum
Dependent variable
Abortion support
1524
0.50
0.50
1
0
Independent variable
Sexism
1559
2.06
0.64
4
1
R’s mother had a paid work
2246
0.75
0.44
1
0
Strictness of state abortion policy
1856
2.45
1.07
5
1
Control variables
Political ideology
2247
4.05
1.50
7
1
Age
2348
49.12
18.24
99
18
Sex
2348
1.55
0.50
2
1
Education
2348
1.68
1.21
4
0
Household income
2340
1.91
0.64
3
1
Race
White
2348
0.72
0.45
1
0
Black
2348
0.16
0.37
1
0
Others
2348
0.11
0.32
1
0
Religiousness
2328
2.48
1.00
4
1
Marital Status
2346
0.43
0.49
1
0
Number of children
2344
1.86
1.67
8
0
There were three independent variables. First, the respondents’ sexism was coded
based on three related questions as follows: (1) “Can a working mother establish just as
warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work?”; (2) “Is
a preschool child likely to suffer if his or her mother works?”; and (3) “Is it much better
for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes
care of the home and family?” For these questions, four possible responses could be
given— “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” The answers were
ordered from 1 to 4, and the average values of the three questions were coded for the
variable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.665).
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 82 -
As another independent variable for familial context, whether respondents’ mothers
had paid jobs was obtained. The GSS asked, “Did your mother ever work for pay for as
long as a year while you were growing up?” The answer “yes” was coded 1, and “no” was
coded 0.
An independent variable regarding the state’s abortion policies—the perceived
strictness of the state’s abortion policies—was included. The GSS asked the respondents,
“How easy or hard do you think it is for a woman to get an abortion?” In response, “very
easy” was coded as 1, “easy” was coded as 2, “neither easy nor hard” was coded as 3,
“hard” was coded as 4, and “very hard” was coded as 5.
The first control variable used for this research was the respondent’s political
ideology. The following possible responses were coded from 1 to 7: “extremely liberal,”
“liberal,” “slightly liberal,” “moderate, middle of the road,” “slightly conservative,”
“conservative,” and “extremely conservative.” The second control variable was the age of
the respondents, and the third was their sex, with 1 indicating male and 2 indicating female.
The GSS also asked the respondents’ sexual orientations and gender identities; however,
all 2348 respondents, regardless of their different sexual orientations and gender identities,
marked their sex either male or female. The fourth variable was education, and the GSS
asked for the respondent’s highest education degree earned. Zero indicated less than high
school, 1 indicated high school, 2 indicated associate/junior college, 3 indicated a
bachelor’s degree, and 4 indicated a graduate degree. The fifth variable was the
respondents’ household income. The following question was asked: “Compared with
American families in general, would you say your family income is?” The possible
responses were “far below average,” “below average,” “average,” “above average,” and
“far above average.” The answers were coded on a 5-point scale. The sixth control variable
was race. “White,” “black,” and “other” were coded. The seventh variable was
religiousness. The GSS asked, “To what extent do you consider yourself a religious
person?” Four indicated "very religious”; 3 indicated “moderately religious”; 2 indicated
“slightly religious”; and 1 indicated “not religious at all.” The eighth variable was whether
the respondent was married. This variable included information regarding whether the
respondents were currently married. One indicated married and 0 indicated not married.
The final control variable coded was the number of respondents’ children. The following
question was asked: “How many children have you ever had? Please count all that were
born alive at any time (including any you had from a previous marriage).”
1
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 83 -
Table 2. Correlation Matrix (Pearson’s Correlations) for Dependent, Independent, and Control Variables (n=564).
Abortion
support
Sexism
R’ s mother
had a paid
work
Strictness of
state
abortion
policy
Political
ideology
Age
Sex
Education
Economic
Status
White
Black
Others
Religiousne
ss
Marital
Status
Number of
Children
Abortion support
1
Sexism
-0.25***
1
R’s mother had a
paid work
0.08**
-0.15***
1
Strictness of state
abortion policy
0.13***
-0.06
-0.02
1
Political ideology
-0.30***
0.15***
-0.01
-0.16***
1
Age
-0.11***
0.17***
-0.21***
0.02
0.10**
1
Sex
-0.01
-0.13***
0.05
-0.16**
0.01
-0.01
1
Education
0.13***
-0.26***
0.06
0.10**
-0.05
0.06
-0.01
1
Economic status
0.19***
-0.15**
-0.01***
0.09
-0.04
0.18***
0.00
0.38***
1
White
0.09**
-0.10**
-0.01
-0.01
0.11***
0.19***
0.01
0.13***
0.21***
1
Black
-0.08*
0.03
0.06
-0.04
-0.12***
-0.08*
0.04
-0.09**
-0.19**
-0.72***
1
Others
-0.04
0.10**
-0.05
0.06
-0.03
-0.18***
-0.06
-0.08*
-0.09*
-0.58***
-0.16***
1
Religiousness
-0.31***
0.17***
-0.01
-0.11***
0.21***
0.27***
0.15***
0.03
-0.01
-0.05
0.07
0.00
1
Marital Status
-0.06
-0.05
-0.02
0.05
0.08*
0.05
0.02
0.14***
0.25**
0.16***
-0.18***
-0.02
0.10**
1
Number of Children
-0.19***
0.18***
-0.11***
-0.03
0.08*
0.33***
0.05
-0.10**
-0.08
-0.06
0.09**
-0.02
0.25***
0.18***
1
Note: * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 84 -
Table 3. OLS Regression of American’s Abortion Support on Sexism, Working
Mothers, and State Policies
Abortion support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Sexism
-0.104***
(0.033)
R’s mother had a paid work
0.097***
(0.033)
0.064
(0.047)
Strictness of state abortion policy
0.012
(0.013)
0.018
(0.013)
0.022
(0.019)
Political ideology (conservative)
-0.084***
(0.008)
-0.081***
(0.009)
-0.083***
(0.010)
-0.072***
(0.013)
Age
-0.0003
(0.001)
0.0001
(0.001)
0.001
(0.001)
-0.001
(0.001)
Sex
0.033
(0.024)
0.036
(0.027)
0.032
(0.027)
0.011
(0.039)
Education
0.050***
(0.011)
0.042***
(0.012)
0.038***
(0.012)
0.010
(0.018)
Economic status
0.060***
(0.021)
0.074***
(0.023)
0.079***
(0.023)
0.122***
(0.034)
Race (reference: Others)
White
0.045
(0.040)
0.075*
(0.044)
0.050
(0.045)
0.056
(0.063)
Black
0.009
(0.048)
0.016
(0.052)
-0.017
(0.053)
-0.042
(0.075)
Religiousness
-0.111***
(0.013)
-0.108***
(0.014)
-0.109***
(0.015)
-0.098***
(0.021)
Marital Status
-0.046*
(0.025)
-0.042
(0.029)
-0.047
(0.029)
-0.070*
(0.041)
Number of children
-0.018**
(0.008)
-0.019**
(0.009)
-0.019**
(0.009)
-0.015
(0.012)
Constant
0.897***
(0.072)
0.795***
(0.089)
0.694***
(0.095)
0.960***
(0.154)
Observations
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
Residual Std. Error
(Degree of freedom)
F Statistic
(Degree of freedom)
1,442
0.202
0.196
0.448
(df = 1431)
36.186***
(df=10; 1431)
1,166
0.200
0.192
0.449
(df = 1154)
26.224***
(df=11; 1154)
1,117
0.213
0.205
0.446
(df = 1104)
24.966***
(df=12; 1104)
565
0.225
0.207
0.445
(df = 551)
12.316***
(df=13; 551)
Note: Coefficients are unstandardized and represent the amount of change in abortion support per unit change in
an independent variable. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 85 -
RESULTS
Table 3 illustrates the results of the regression analysis. In the table, coefficients are
unstandardized and represent the amount of change in abortion support per unit change in
an independent variable. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. Four OLS regression
models were structured hierarchically to determine whether the independent variables
contributed to explaining the overall variance of individuals’ abortion support by
increasing adjusted r-squared values (Models 1–4).
The adjusted r-squared values showed that two independent variables—sexism and
R’s mother had paid work—contributed to the explanatory power of the models; however,
the strictness of the state’s abortion policies did not improve the explanatory power of the
models. The adjusted r-squared value decreased when the strictness of state abortion
policies was added. This result was also supported by the statistical significance of the
coefficients. The coefficients for the variable strictness of state abortion policy were not
statistically significant across all models. This disproved one of the hypotheses that people
who live in a state where abortion policy is strict will be more likely to disapprove of the
legalization of abortion.
However, R’s mother had paid work showed a statistically significant and negative
relationship with abortion support in Model 3 (b = 0.097, p < .01). However, in Model 4,
the coefficients became insignificant when sexism was added to the model. One possible
reason for this change is the number of observations in Model 4. The number of
observations reduced dramatically in Model 4 due to the addition of the variable sexism.
The GSS asked questions about sexism only to the respondents of Ballot 1. Ballots 2 and
3 did not have questions regarding sexism, which dramatically reduced the sample size for
Model 4. Further studies could delve deeper into this problem, but sexism itself showed a
strong significant effect on abortion support (b = -0.104, p < .01), which is consistent with
previous studies (Begun & Walls, 2015; Huang et al., 2016) and supports the hypothesis.
The control variables revealed significant results. First, people’s political
ideologies were strong and significant indicators of abortion attitudes across all models,
which was consistent with previous studies. More conservative respondents tended to
disapprove of abortion (Model 4, b = -0.072, p < .01). However, age and sex did not show
any statistical significance. Education showed a strong positive relationship with abortion
support. In Model 3, education increased abortion support by 0.038 (b = 0.038, p < .01).
Economic status was also a very significant indicator of abortion support across all models
(Model 4, b = 0.079, p < .01).
Unlike previous studies, race did not show statistical significance, which meant that
being white and black (as opposed to being others) were not associated with abortion
support. This dataset did not include additional race categories than the three groups.
Moreover, individuals’ religiousness was negatively associated with abortion support
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 86 -
(Model 4, b = -0.098, p < .01). Marital status showed a negative association with abortion
support in Models 1 and 4, but the effects were very weak. Finally, individuals’ number of
children showed a strong negative relationship with abortion support in Models 1–3, which
was consistent with previous studies.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to better understand how individuals’ abortion
attitudes are related to their ideas regarding sexism and gender roles, whether they had
working mothers in their familial context, and whether the state in which they live has strict
abortion policies. Two of the independent variables showed statistical significance.
Sexism, as measured by individuals’ views on motherhood, childbearing, and gender roles,
showed a strong negative relationship with their abortion support. Although this single-
year data did not reveal a causal link between sexism and abortion attitudes, the significant
and negative relationship showed that people’s attitudes toward abortion were closely
related to traditional gender-role beliefs. Moreover, having a working mother showed a
significant relationship with individuals’ abortion attitudes. Having a working mother was
an important factor in the familial context, as studies have shown that men whose wives
were employed were more likely to be pro-choice (Kaufman & White, 2016). A wife’s
current work status has also been shown to have a particularly strong effect on men’s
attitudes toward family responsibilities (see Kaufman & White, 2016). This familial
context may have influenced the respondents’ perceptions of choice and their attitudes
toward abortion. However, living in a state where abortion policy was strict was not shown
to be an important factor in abortion attitudes. This may be due to the survey question that
asked about individuals’ perceptions of policies rather than the actual policies. This
variable was included in the assumption that people whose state abortion policy was strict
tended to be conservative on abortion issues. However, this study found that people’s
perceived strictness did not affect their abortion attitudes. Further studies can be conducted
to see if this result is due to individuals’ perceptions of state policies rather than actual
policies or if state policies simply did not affect individuals’ abortion attitudes.
The factors of age, gender, and race require further study. This study used the most
recent national survey data; therefore, the insignificant effect of those demographic factors
may mean that those factors no longer influence abortion attitudes. Further comparative
studies with different national surveys or longitudinal studies with the General Social
Survey may clarify this question.
Implications of this research go beyond the field of gender studies. Sexism is not
just a personal characteristic. It is a culture and about the structure of American society that
individuals are exposed to. Abortion controversies have been at the center of US politics
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 87 -
for decades, and state governments’ different policies on abortion have been affecting the
lives of millions of Americans. Therefore, more interdisciplinary studies on sexism and
abortion can provide useful insights into Americans’ attitudes toward abortion.
Conclusion
This study was designed to examine how individuals’ abortion attitudes are
associated with their sexist ideas on gender roles, whether they had or have working
mothers in their familial context, and whether they live in a state where abortion policy is
strict. The results indicated that individuals’ sexism was negatively associated with the idea
that abortion should be allowed for any reason, whereas people whose mothers had paid
jobs tended to support abortion. However, the strictness of state policies on abortion was
not a significant factor in abortion attitudes across all models. The findings of this research
will help establish better predictors of the reasoning behind whether an individual is pro-
life or pro-choice. A single-year dataset does not fully approve these relationships, which
is a limitation of this study; therefore, further studies with a multiple-year dataset are
required for deeper analysis. A comparative study with other countries would also provide
a deeper understanding of this relationship.
REFERENCES
Adamczyk, A., Kim, C., & Dillon, L. (2020). Examining public opinion about abortion: A
mixed‐methods systematic review of research over the last 15 years. Sociology
Inquiry, 90(4), 920-954. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12351
Adamczyk, A., & Valdimarsdóttir, M. (2018). Understanding Americans' abortion
attitudes: The role of the local religious context. Social Science Research, 71, 129-
144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.005
Barkan, S. E. (2014). Gender and abortion attitudes: Religiosity as a suppressor
variable. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(4), 940-950.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu047
Begun, S., & Walls, N. E. (2015). Pedestal or gutter: Exploring ambivalent sexism’s
relationship with abortion attitudes. Affilia, 30(2), 200-215.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109914555216
Brenan, M. (2021, June 9). Record-high 47% in U.S. think abortion is morally acceptable.
Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/350756/record-high-think-abortion-morally-
acceptable.aspx
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 88 -
Carter, J., Carter, S., & Dodge, J. (2009). Trends in abortion attitudes by race and gender.
Journal of Sociological Research, 1(1), 1-17.
Dillaway, H., & Paré, E. (2008). Locating mothers: How cultural debates about stay-at-
home versus working mothers define women and home. Journal of Family
Issues, 29(4), 437-464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07310309
Eaton, A. A., & Stephens, D. P. (2020). Reproductive Justice Special Issue Introduction
“Reproductive Justice: Moving the Margins to the Center in Social Issues
Research”. Journal of Social Issues, 76(2), 208-218.
Ebaugh, H. R. F., & Haney, C. A. (1980). Shifts in abortion attitudes: 1972-1978. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 48(3), 491-499. https://doi.org/10.2307/351894
Fried, M. G. (2008). Thirty-five years of legal abortion: The US experience. IDS Bulletin,
39(3), 88-94.
Granberg, D., & Wellman Granberg, B. (1980). Abortion attitudes, 1965-1980: Trends and
determinants. Family Planning Perspectives, 12(5), 250-261.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2134868
Hans, J. D., & Kimberly, C. (2014). Abortion attitudes in context: A multidimensional
vignette approach. Social Science Research, 48, 145-156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.001
Hess, J., & Rueb, J. (2005). Attitudes toward abortion, religion, and party affiliation among
college students. Current Psychology, 24, 24-42.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-005-1002-0
Hoffman, J., & Johnson, S. (2005). Attitudes toward abortion among religious traditions in
the United States: Change or continuity? Sociology of Religion, 66(2), 161-182.
https://doi.org/10.2307/4153084
Hout, M. (1999). Abortion politics in the United States, 1972–1994: From single issue to
ideology. Gender Issues, 17, 3-34. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-
999-0013-9
Hodson, G., & MacInnis, C. C. (2017). Can left-right differences in abortion support be
explained by sexism? Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 118-121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.044
Huang, Y., Davies, P. G., Sibley, C. G., & Osborne, D. (2016). Benevolent sexism,
attitudes toward motherhood, and reproductive rights: A multi-study longitudinal
examination of abortion attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(7),
970-984. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216649607
Hussey, L. S. (2010). Welfare generosity, abortion access, and abortion rates: A
comparison of state policy tools. Social Science Quarterly, 91(1), 266-283.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00692.x
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 89 -
Kaufman, G., & White, D. (2016). “For the good of our family”: Men’s attitudes toward
their wives’ Employment. Journal of Family Issues, 37(11), 1585-1610.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14546719
Killian, M., & Wilcox, C. (2008). Do abortion attitudes lead to party switching? Political
Research Quarterly, 61(4), 561-573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907312981
Linker, D. (2019, January 30). Why America is becoming more polarized on abortion. The
Week. https://theweek.com/articles/820614/why-america-becoming-more-
polarized-abortion
Loll, D., & Hall, K. (2018). Differences in abortion attitudes by policy context and between
men and women in the World Values Survey. Women & Health, 59(5), 465-480.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2018.1508539
Lynxwiler, J., & Gay, D. (1994). Reconsidering race differences in abortion attitudes.
Social Science Quarterly, 75(1), 67-84. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-13263-
001
MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2015). Why are heterosexual men (vs. women) particularly
prejudiced toward gay men? A social dominance theory explanation. Psychology &
Sexuality, 6(3), 275-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2014.987684
Marsiglio, W., & Shehan, C. (1993). Adolescent males' abortion attitudes: Data from a
national survey. Family Planning Perspective, 25(4), 162-169.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2135924
Medoff, M., & Christopher, D. (2011). TRAP Abortion laws and partisan political party
control of state government. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,
70(4), 951-973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00794.x
Miller, W. (1994). The relationship between childbearing motivations and attitude toward
abortion among married men and women. Family Planning Perspectives, 26(4), 165-
168. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136241
Patel, C., & Johns, L. (2009). Gender role attitudes and attitudes to abortion: Are there
gender differences? The Social Science Journal, 46(3), 493-505.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2009.02.006
Petersen, L., & Armand, M. (1976). Religion and the "right to life": Correlates of
opposition to abortion. Sociological Analysis, 37(3), 243-254.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3710566
Thomson-DeVeaux, A. (2019, May 21). Here’s why the anti-abortion movement is
escalating. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-categorized-
hundreds-of-abortion-restrictions-heres-why-the-anti-abortion-movement-is-
escalating/
Thomas, R. G., Norris, A. H., & Gallo, M. F. (2017). Anti-legal attitude toward abortion
among abortion patients in the United States. Contraception, 96(5), 357-364.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.07.166
Cannedy & Lee Abortion Attitudes in American Society
The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences ~ ISSN 1942-1052 ~ Volume 12(1) 2022
- 90 -
Wetstein, M., & Albritton, R. (1995). Effects of public opinion on abortion policies and
use in the American states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 25(4), 91-105.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a038227
Wilcox, C. (1990). Race Differences in abortion attitudes: Some additional evidence.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(2), 248-255. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749455
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Zetta Cannedy is an undergraduate student studying political science at Midwestern State
University. Her research interests include gender politics, American politics and internet
politics. My current projects include topics such as the gender digital divide in developing
countries, true crime obsessions and the impact on women, and US policy regarding North
Korea food security.
Address: Zetta Cannedy, Midwestern State University, 3410 Taft Boulevard, O’Donohoe
Hall 202 Wichita Falls, TX 76308, USA.
Email: zncannedy1207@my.msutexas.edu
Juheon Lee is an assistant professor of political science at Midwestern State University.
He studies environmental politics, community resilience, social capital, and social
identities. He is working on a variety of projects that span environmental cooperation,
disaster preparedness, and renewable energy policies. His work has appeared in
interdisciplinary journals, such as International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, Environmental Hazards,
Environmental Sociology, and Disasters. He is currently serving on the editorial boards
of Natural Hazards Review and Frontiers in Sustainable Cities.
Address: Dr. Juheon Lee, Midwestern State University, 3410 Taft Boulevard, O’Donohoe
Hall 203 Wichita Falls, TX 76308-2099, USA.
Email: juheon.lee@msutexas.edu
