By Dr Lynlee Howard-Payne and Holly Dragvik

The 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade marked a pivotal moment in the global conversation on abortion rights. In the aftermath, online forums such as Reddit became increasingly active sites for ideological expression, polarisation, and the reproduction of extremist views. The Reddit threads analysed for this briefing became viral touchpoints for extreme anti-abortion sentiment, with a significant proportion of comments explicitly rejecting the value of women’s lives in favour of absolute foetal rights. These conversations occurred within a subreddit that is technically moderated; however, in practice, anti-abortion rhetoric and gendered hate speech appeared to circulate largely unchecked, either due to permissive moderation practices or the alignment of such discourse with the community’s norms.

It is important to note that this briefing does not suggest that all anti-abortion rhetoric constitutes hate speech. Rather, the focus is on a specific subset of such discourse, namely, that which dehumanises women, denies their personhood, and promotes moral or punitive narratives that legitimise harm, as a form of gendered and misogynistic online hate.

Importantly, the narratives emerging from these online spaces do not remain confined to the digital realm. The discourses identified in this study are replicated in mainstream political and legal debates, where they are used to justify increasingly punitive restrictions on reproductive rights. Politicians and policymakers draw upon the same rhetorical frames: 1) moral absolutes, 2) misogyny disguised as rationalism, and 3) vilification and dehumanisation of women, to advance legislation that criminalises abortion and erodes access to reproductive healthcare. In doing so, digital misogyny is translated into real-world harm, particularly for women and people with uteruses, who are disproportionately affected by the systemic denial of bodily autonomy.

Although the threads analysed were primarily situated within a US political context, the discourse they reflect transcends borders, with similar rhetorical strategies appearing in Australian and global digital spaces.

The comments analysed in this briefing were drawn from high-engagement threads on the subreddit r/Abortiondebate. The posts elicited hundreds of responses, many of which reflected highly polarised views. A selection of 80 of the most upvoted and engaged-with comments were subjected to a Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA), a qualitative method used to examine how language constructs power, identity, and social norms. This approach enabled the identification of themes and rhetorical strategies within the data.

Key Findings

Three dominant themes were identified:

1) Moral Absolutism Framing: Users framed their anti-abortion stance as morally righteous, regardless of circumstance. For example:

These comments reflect a rigid worldview in which abortion is treated as universally and unequivocally wrong, regardless of individual context (such as threats to a woman’s life or pregnancy from rape). The invocation of moral absolutes, such as “life for life”, leaves no space for ethical complexity or competing rights, thereby framing those who seek abortions as morally deficient rather than socially or medically vulnerable.

2) Misogyny Disguised as Rationalism: Users employed the language of science, reason, and rights to obscure underlying gender bias. For example:

Here, users position themselves as logical and rights-oriented by invoking legal, biological, or philosophical reasoning. However, these frames mask a deeper gender bias i.e., suggesting that women’s reproductive autonomy is negotiable, secondary, or invalid. The rhetoric of “rights” for the foetus or blaming women for the “risk” of pregnancy reinforces a view of women as irrational or irresponsible, while positioning the speaker as neutral or objective.

3) Vilification and Dehumanisation of Women: Women were depicted as morally deviant or irresponsible. For example:

These comments depict women who seek abortions as inherently immoral, selfish, or even criminal. By framing abortion as “killing” and implying that women should be punished, the discourse shifts from disagreement to condemnation, and from policy debate to moral policing. Such language reduces women to the status of deviant actors, effectively dehumanising them and legitimising punitive responses. 

Implications

These threads exemplify how digital platforms are used to legitimise and normalise gender-based hate. These discourses do not merely reflect opinion – they actively reinforce power structures that devalue women’s autonomy and promote punitive ideologies. Reddit’s upvoting and engagement metrics contributed to the visibility of extreme posts, while limited intervention from moderators allowed hostile narratives to flourish.

Anti-abortion rhetoric, when framed through the denial of women’s personhood and the glorification of foetal rights, constitutes a form of gendered online hate. These narratives are not only discursively violent – they underpin political rhetoric and legal reforms that deny reproductive autonomy, criminalise abortion, and obstruct access to essential healthcare. In this way, online hate becomes structurally embedded in policy, with devastating consequences for women and other marginalised groups.

Recognising the intersections between online discourse and real-world violence is vital for developing more responsive, preventative strategies to combat gender-based online hate.

Recommendations

Platform accountability and transparency:

Reddit and similar platforms should increase transparency around their content moderation policies, including how reproductive rights discussions are monitored and when intervention occurs.

Recognition of anti-abortion narratives as gendered hate:

Digital hate taxonomies should explicitly include anti-abortion discourse when it exhibits dehumanisation, incitement, or targeted vilification of women.

Public and youth education:

Media literacy and gender-awareness initiatives are essential to help users recognise when moral discourse is being mobilised to justify hate.

Continued research and reporting:

Researchers and civil society organisations must continue monitoring how anti-abortion views intersect with other vectors of online hate to inform policy responses.