This paper presents a method for the measurement of policy controversy based Discourse Network Analysis. It is exemplified by an analysis of the historical debates in Belgian parliament on the liberalization of abortion (1972-1990). It is found that the debate involved increasing levels of controversy and antagonisms, backing claims of the protagonists that jumping the aisles was the only escape from political deadlock. These findings are based on four criteria: firstly, the cluster analysis of the actor co-occurrence network identifies two relatively compartimentalized discourse coalitions. Secondly, the concept co-occurrence network identifies two separate discursive clusters, indicating the existence of conflicting policy frames. Thirdly, the level of discursive antagonisms rises over time. And finally, the discursive structures expand and compartimentalize further over time.
The final section of this paper reflects on how to take this method further to use it as a tool for the prediction of political crisis and deadlock.
