Debates, Contestations, and Resistance in Framing Domestic Abuse Policy: the Scottish Case

In 2000, Scotland became one of the first countries in the world to produce a national strategy on domestic abuse. It was unique in its application of a human rights and gendered framing of the problem of domestic abuse, which asserted that domestic abuse is a human rights violation and a cause and consequence of gender inequality. Starting in 1998 and tracing the framing of domestic abuse over twenty years, this paper explores the conditions and arrangements that enabled this change to happen, as well as points of contention and resistance. This paper synthesises feminist and ‘mainstream’ approaches and concepts to advance a feminist institutionalist approach, utilising insights from feminist institutionalism, frame theory and intersectionality. It draws upon my PhD research where I employed a single case study and multi-methods process tracing approach, including interviews with thirty key actors involved in domestic abuse policy-making, service provision, and public sector agencies, and critical frame analysis of domestic abuse policy and legislation documents, to understand what happened, when, and its effects on policy change and continuity. This paper’s overarching argument is how policy problems are framed, whether institutions are amenable, and who is involved in policy debates and policy-making ‘matters’ for successfully introducing new ideas and frames to policy problems, such as domestic abuse, and embedding them into policy solutions. At first glance, Scotland appears to be a ‘feminist success story’ in its policy approaches to domestic abuse, with devolution providing women’s movement organisations and feminist actors opportunities to introduce and ‘lock in’ gendered frames in policy. However, this study complicates this further by highlighting how power inequalities within the movement impacted upon which frames were advanced and integrated into policy, and which frames and victims/survivors’ experiences were marginalised. It illuminates contestations and debates within the women’s movement as well as resistance by external actors, highlighting how they concurrently influenced the framing of policy and policy solutions. This paper provides new empirical and theoretical insights into how and why change is complex and challenging in some contexts, pointing towards the difficulty of reshaping understandings of policy problems to integrate alternative, more inclusive, and intersectional frames in policy. It emphasises that who is included or excluded and what is or is not known about domestic abuse is important not only for scholarly debates but also on the effectiveness of policies and services and has real-life consequences for victims/survivors.