Reviving the Schoolmaster

• Date: 01 June 2012
• Published date: 01 June 2012
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912911404564
• Subject Matter: Articles

404564PRQ65210.1177/10659129114045
64Hanley et al.Political Research Quarterly
Political Research Quarterly
65(2) 408 –421
Reviving the Schoolmaster:
© 2012 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Reevaluating Public Opinion
DOI: 10.1177/1065912911404564
http://prq.sagepub.com
in the Wake of Roe v. Wade
John Hanley1, Michael Salamone1, and Matthew Wright1
Abstract
Many recent studies of the judiciary and public opinion adopt a model that views court decisions as aggravating division
within the public. The authors question the image of Court as polarizer, arguing that the persuading influence of the
U.S. Supreme Court is broader than contemporary authors acknowledge. Using a potential outcomes framework, the
authors analyze public attitudes in response to the decision in Roe v. Wade, the original test case in Franklin and Kosaki’s
seminal article. The authors’ evidence suggests that members of diverse groups who were aware of the Roe decision
were more supportive of abortion than their decision-unaware counterparts.
Keywords
Matching, public opinion, supreme court, structural response, abortion
Do citizens follow the guidance of the Supreme Court on
empirical evidence supporting a legitimacy-conferring
controversial issues? To a greater degree than for other
effect of the Court, particularly in the prominent ruling in
American political institutions, the question of public
Roe v. Wade (decided January 21, 1973), which entered
assent is important for the Court. In Federalist 78,
into the divisive political issue of abortion. Addressing the
Alexander Hamilton declared that “[t]he judiciary . . . has
apparent inability of data analysis to demonstrate a causal
no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direc-
link between Roe and aggregate public opinion change,
tion either of the strength or of the wealth of the society;
Franklin and Kosaki contend that the Court instead acted
and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be
as a polarizing force in American politics, producing a
said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.”
restructuring of opinion along socioeconomic and sec-
This statement articulates the Court’s fundamental weak-
tarian lines. Nevertheless, a number of studies that have
ness: a body with no formal enforcement mechanism nat-
emerged since Franklin and Kosaki’s article—particularly
urally depends on its ability to convince the other branches
those utilizing an experimental research design to exam-
and their constituents of the legitimacy of its judgments.
ine cases other than Roe—have found an overall opinion
And unlike the legislative or executive branches, the
change in the direction of Supreme Court rulings.
Supreme Court cannot be forced to quickly respond to
Franklin and Kosaki’s finding is not easily reconcil-
public disapproval, as the norm of stare decisis constrains
able with these newer works, but their article has never-
the Court from reversing itself in the face of an unreceptive
theless remained hugely influential in the literature on the
public even if it were so inclined. During the past half
Supreme Court and public opinion. This apparent con-
century—a time of significant activity by the Court—a
flict recommends closer examination and specifically as
debate has emerged over the Court’s ability to convert its
to whether the methodological assumptions present in
stores of legitimacy in the public’s mind into support for
Franklin and Kosaki’s observational analysis may be
specific political stances. While early scholarship posits
the Court as “republican schoolmaster” (Lerner 1967),
efficacious in bringing public opinion to its side, the past
1University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
two decades have seen the rise of a view emphasizing the
divisive fallout from decisions.
Corresponding Author:
John Hanley, University of California, Berkeley, Department
Franklin and Kosaki (1989) contend that the republi-
of Political Science, 210 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720
can schoolmaster theory has suffered from an absence of
Email: john.hanley@berkeley.edu

---

Hanley et al.
409
responsible for the founding of the structural response
from credible and likeable sources, individuals are more
hypothesis.
likely to be persuaded (Chaiken 1980; Petty, Cacioppo,
This article revisits the question of how the public
and Goldman 1981). While there has been debate as to
reacted to Roe v. Wade using a more explicit causal model
whether or not perceptions of procedural fairness contrib-
based on the potential outcomes framework. Its key find-
ute to the Supreme Court’s high marks in this area (Gibson
ing is that, contrary to Franklin and Kosaki, the public
1989; Tyler and Rasinski 1991), survey data have repeat-
actually responded positively to the Court’s decision in
edly shown that the public holds the Court in high esteem,
Roe; moreover, the increases in public support are almost
particularly when compared to the other two branches of
uniformly nonnegative across social groups said to be
government (Mate and Wright 2008). As such, this high
polarized in Franklin and Kosaki’s article.
regard for the institution combined with psychological
theories of persuasion are at the foundation of Supreme
Legitimation versus
Court legitimation theory.
In attempting to build on this notion that the Court
Structural Change
may act to legitimate certain policies, several studies have
Much of the literature on the Supreme Court has discussed
struggled with the lack of findings that would readily indi-
to the institution’s ability (or inability) to legitimate vari-
cate such a phenomenon. Many of these look, as we do,
ous policies (Adamany 1973; Casper 1976; Dahl 1957;
at Roe v. Wade and the subsequent shifts in public opin-
Funston 1975; Hoekstra and Segal 1996; Lerner 1967). At
ion on abortion. Although some have noted positive
the heart of this discourse is the idea that the Supreme
trends in favorable attitudes toward legal abortion fol-
Court enjoys a certain degree of public standing and that
lowing the Court’s 1973 decision (Arney and Trescher
it is able to transfer that legitimacy to the policy positions
1976; Ebaugh and Haney 1980), others have found an
its decisions favor. Lerner (1967) argues that early in the
absence of any causal evidence that connects these shifts
Court’s history, the justices were aware of their roles as
on abortion opinions to the Court decision (Blake 1977;
civic educators and intentionally used their position to
Rosenberg 1991; Uslaner and Weber 1979). In addition,
influence the citizenry. Lerner’s argument is that the
studies that have analyzed other cases have had mixed
founding generation understood the necessity of public
results in their attempts to show a causal link between
support for “the faithful discharge” of judicial power to
Supreme Court rulings and aggregate opinion (Adamany
occur and organized the practices of the Court—such as
1973; Marshall 1987).
the requirement that justices ride circuit—to encourage
Franklin and Kosaki organize this strain of research
understanding of the judicial system and to develop civic
into what they call the “positive response” model, which
virtue generally. In more recent times, the Court has taken
predicts a positive net change in public opinion on a given
cognizance of the public when issuing some of its most
issue in response to a Court’s ruling. Using Roe v. Wade,
important rulings, a noted instance being Brown v. Board
Franklin and Kosaki challenge the positive response hypoth-
of Education (1954), in which Chief Justice Earl Warren
esis, countering with a “structural response” hypothesis,
took pains to compile a unanimous Court and also sought
which does not depend on an aggregate change in public
to limit the length of the Court’s opinion to help ensure
opinion. Instead, the structural response hypothesis pre-
that newspapers would reprint the decision in its entirety
dicts a polarization of attitudes between groups that were
(Abraham 1977, 372). Scholars have also shown on many
already on one side or the other of the issue in question.
occasions that the Court maintains a high degree of pub-
Their findings with respect to Roe indicate that certain
lic confidence as an institution—the Court’s legitimacy
groups, such as Catholics and blacks, who were already
has been tied to core understandings of the democratic
disposed to oppose abortion, became more disapproving
process and is believed to be fairly unshakeable (Caldeira
of the practice in “discretionary” situations. Within other
1986; Caldeira and Gibson 1992; Gibson, Caldeira, and
groups, attitudes became more favorable toward abortion.
Spence 2003). It has been suggested that this institutional
Considered together, such opposing changes may preclude
legitimacy acts as political capital that the Court may
a noticeable net effect in the entire population. Franklin and
choose to spend (Grosskopf and Mondak 1998; Mondak
Kosaki argue that this polarization can be substantial and
1992). However deep the roots, the Court’s good stand-
that Court decisions therefore remain vital to under-
ing with the public is thought to be a key factor in gaining
standing public opinion. They conclude that the positive
a positive public reaction the nature of its substantive
response hypothesis cannot...