An Immediate Study on Twitter Reactions to Roe v. Wade’s Overturning: A Digital Feminism Perspective

Jingqi Yang

doi:10.54254/2753-7064/2024.21745

Article Information

Received: 21 August 2024

Published: 7 April 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/2024.21745

Article Type: Research Article

Cite this article

Yang,J. (2025). An Immediate Study on Twitter Reactions to Roe v. Wade’s Overturning: A Digital Feminism Perspective. Communications in Humanities Research,55,208-218.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Disclaimer/Publisher's Note

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

About this Volume

Volume Title: CHR Vol.55

Part of Series: Communications in Humanities Research

ISSN: 2753-7064 (Print) / 2753-7072 (Online)

Copyright & License

[1]Linton, P. (1989). Abortion under state constitutions: A state-by-state analysis. Carolina Academic Press.

[2]Regan, D. H. (1979). Rewriting Roe v. Wade. Michigan Law Review, 77(7), 1569. https://doi.org/10.2307/1288037

[3]Schoen, J., Reagan, L. J., Solinger, R., Kaplan, L., Joffe, C., & Rudy, K. (2000). Reconceiving Abortion: Medical Practice, Women’s Access, and Feminist Politics before and after “Roe v. Wade.” Feminist Studies, 26(2), 349. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178538

[4]Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

[5]Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977).

[6]Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983).

[7]Lazzarini, Z. (2022). The End of Roe v. Wade — States’ Power over Health and Well-Being. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(5). https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp2206055

[8]The New York Times. (2024, January 8). Tracking the States Where Abortion Is Now Banned. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html

[9]Mavodza, C., Goldman, R., & Cooper, B. (2019). The impacts of the global gag rule on global health: a scoping review. Global Health Research and Policy, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-019-0113-3

[10]Coen-Sanchez, K., Ebenso, B., ElMowafi, I. M., Berghs, M., Idriss-Wheeler, D., & Yaya, S. (2022). Repercussions of overturning Roe v. Wade for women across systems and beyond borders. Reproductive Health, 19(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-022-01490-y

[11]Murthy, D. (2012). Towards a Sociological Understanding of Social Media: Theorizing Twitter. Sociology, 46(6), 1059–1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511422553

[12]McGregor, S. C. (2019). Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public opinion. Journalism, 20(8). https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919845458

[13]Ahmed, S., Jaidka, K., & Cho, J. (2016). Tweeting India’s Nirbhaya protest: a study of emotional dynamics in an online social movement. Social Movement Studies, 16(4), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2016.1192457

[14]Goswami, S. (2018). Social Media Activism: A Sociological Perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 666-680.

[15]Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). #Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4–17. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/amet.12112

[16]Chang, H.-C. (2010). A new perspective on Twitter hashtag use: Diffusion of innovation theory. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504701295

[17]Penney, J., & Dadas, C. (2013). (Re)Tweeting in the service of protest: Digital composition and circulation in the Occupy Wall Street movement. New Media & Society, 16(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813479593

[18]ÖZŞENLER, D. (2021). Digital Activism: An Analysis of #challengeaccepted Hashtag Activism Developed for Violence against Women. WORLD WOMEN STUDIES JOURNAL, 6(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.46291/wwsj.v6i1.34

[19]Stache, L. C. (2014). Advocacy and Political Potential at The Convergence of Hashtag Activism and Commerce. Feminist Media Studies, 15(1), 162–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2015.987429

[20]Jaffe, S. (2018). The Collective Power of #MeToo. Dissent, 65(2), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.2018.0031

[21]Yin, S., & Yu, S. (2020). Intersectional digital feminism: assessing the participation politics and impact of the MeToo movement in China. Feminist Media Studies, 21(7), 1176–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1837908

[22]Chayko, M. (2017). Superconnected: The Internet, Digital Media, and Techno-Social Life. SAGE Publications.

[23]Shore, J., Baek, J., & Dellarocas, C. (2018). Network structure and patterns of information diversity on Twitter. MIS Quarterly, 42(3), 849–872. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2018/14558

[24]Freelon, D., McIlwain, C., & Clark, M. (2016). Quantifying the power and consequences of social media protest. New Media & Society, 20(3), 990–1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676646

[25]Jouët, J. (2018). DIGITAL FEMINISM: QUESTIONING THE RENEWAL OF ACTIVISM. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 8(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.22381/jrgs8120187

[26]Couldry, N., & van Dijck, J. (2015). Researching Social Media as if the Social Mattered. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 205630511560417. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115604174

[27]Mendes, K., Ringrose, J., & Keller, J. (2019). Digital feminist activism : girls and women fight back against rape culture. Oxford University Press.

[28]Mendes, K., Ringrose, J., & Keller, J. (2018). #MeToo and the promise and pitfalls of challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 25(2), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506818765318

[29]Jackson, S. (2018). Young feminists, feminism and digital media. Feminism & Psychology, 28(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517716952

[30]González Canché, M. S. (2023). Machine driven classification of open-ended responses (MDCOR): An analytic framework and no-code, free software application to classify longitudinal and cross-sectional text responses in survey and social media research. Expert Systems with Applications, 215, 119265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119265

[31]Westra, L. (2009). Environmental justice and the rights of unborn and future generations: Law, environmental harm and the right to health. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203882892

[32]Cornell, D. (2016). The Imaginary Domain: Abortion, Pornography, and Sexual Harrassment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203760383

[33]Naila Kabeer. (2003). Gender mainstreaming in poverty eradication and the millennium development goals : a handbook for policy makers and other stakeholders. Commonwealth Publ.

[34]Sweetman, C. (2013). Introduction, Feminist Solidarity and Collective Action. Gender & Development, 21(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2013.819176

[35]Locke, A., Lawthom, R., & Lyons, A. (2018). Social media platforms as complex and contradictory spaces for feminisms: Visibility, opportunity, power, resistance and activism. Feminism & Psychology, 28(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517753973