ABSTRACT

An important aspect for understanding democratic institutions is an examination of how actors justify their decisions. Framing, the presentation of information through a specific reference point, is relevant to understand the underlying intentions of an author when addressing and persuading an audience. Judges take great care when crafting the frames of their argument to satisfy various goals while on the bench and craft their opinions to satisfy those goals. We ask to what extent do judges vary when framing their arguments concerning salient and non-salient issues? Also, to what extent do judicial frames differ depending on the decision in a case? We focus on two specific cases types, death penalty and education, to examine the easy v. hard issue dichotomy effects frame choice. Utilizing a structured topic modeling approach, we calculate the topic prevalence of various judicial frames, and examine the extent these frames vary based on institutional and personal characteristics of the judge.