Rhetorical Analysis of “Abortion Has Never Been Just About Abortion” by Thomas B. Edsall

“Abortion is among the most intractable issues [...] with little or no room for compromise” (Edsall). In a political environment, abortion has become a contentious issue. Political specialist and guest writer Thomas B. Edsall, who wrote “Abortion Has Never Been Just About Abortion,” published on September 15, 2021, on the website for The New York Times, argues that when abortion and politics connect, they become a highly disputed combination. As a result, these two topics link to racial and religious issues, which play into the abortion debate from a political perspective. Edsall establishes credibility for his argument by citing recorded statistics from studies and using memorable historical events associated with abortion rights to convince the reader by appealing to the ethos and logical devices successfully proving his argument; however, his use of pathos devices and their reliability challenge his claim and credibility throughout the article.

To start,  Edsall uses many sources within his particular interest in political science to make his credibility in ethos more reliable. Edsall cites an abundance of studies that have linked abortion with contemporary issues such as “Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University”, “Michele Margolis, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania”, and “Darren Dochuk, a professor of history at Notre Dame and the author of “From Bible to Belt to Sunbelt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism”. Referencing these experts with whom Edsall shares the same significant experience gains his credibility and claim of his argument by building up his ethos appeals to prove that there is the support of his effort to convince his belief to an association of his passion. Additionally, Edsall uses past histories, told by himself and others, to prove that his argument that abortion divides the political environment into both parties persists today. As far back as the 1970s, abortion has been a divisive issue. 

In addition to his strong ethos appeals, Edsall powerfully appeals his logos devices as he credits several abstract statistics and clear explanations of how the two different political parties perceive the controversy of abortion, and most importantly,  prove his entire argument. Edsall immediately grabs attention by opening his opinion-ed paper with, “As recently as 1984, abortion was not a deeply partisan issue” (Edsall). Edsall then immediately goes on to cite then include fellow participant Alan Abramowitz’s email as a resource; and uses it to compare the statistics of the percentage of political identifiers supporting pro-choice, in the middle, or pro-life; to establish a point of how abortion gets caught in the finger of politics and how it supports Edsall’s overall argument. Edsall continues to furtherly analyze opinionated abortion statistics using a poll from the familiar analytical and advisory company Gallup, finding that:

Over the same 20 years, Gallup asked whether abortion is morally acceptable or unacceptable. In 2001, 42 percent said the procedure is morally acceptable and 45 percent said morally unacceptable. Over those two decades, the numbers varied modestly year to year but effectively changed very little: In 2021, 47 percent said acceptable, 46 percent said unacceptable. (Edsall)

A survey conducted by a public company gives Edsall grounds to prove his opinion of abortion being an issue that affects not just the political history of America but society at large. The statistics and numbers that Edsall pulls out through the article induce his logos to appeal in becoming one of the main strengths of his writing, to prove how relevant and contemporary his argument of how abortion has been a prolonged dispute between politics and the traditional non-politically subjected society.

Contrary to the determined use of logos and ethos throughout his writing, Edsall does exhibit weaknesses with pathos. As an example, whenever Edsall wants to illustrate his overall thesis, he relies solely on personal anecdotes and stories from other individuals who are emailing him their own opinions and evidence to support his position, including a professor who argued that there has "...always been a tension in Southern life between the ideals of rugged masculinity and expectations of evangelical propriety" (Edsall). This quote would have been more powerful and relate to the audience personally if Edsall had written this himself. Edsall's statement from the email sent by the separate individual is one of the prime examples that undermine his thesis and credibility of his claim to connect with his readers through his own experiences.

In summary, while Edsall's pathos falls short of adequately supporting his argument, logos and ethos devices he uses throughout the article establishes and asserts the validity of his argument that abortion has become universally controversial due to its associated problems interfering with the political figures beliefs. It is an urgent issue for the audience to consider abortion as a problem to be concerned about because not only does this affect racial and religious opinions, it additionally unhappily gets caught in the finger of the political crowd, causing severe implications with its associated laws. Continuing to be a controversial topic, writers like Edsall continue to bring this issue to attention through his writing because abortion policies may negatively affect many people if they are not adequately informed.