Queer Frame Analysis as a Novel Approach for Studying EU Discourses on SOGIESC Equality

The fight against discrimination based on gender and sexuality has been enshrined in the EU Treaties for many decades, and with the launch of the “Union of Equality” in 2019, the promotion of LGBTIQ* rights has taken on an even more prominent place on the European political agenda. However, academic research as well as current studies and surveys show that the EU’s equality efforts have had only limited scope and that not all parts of the LGBTIQ* community have received the same amount of attention. Accordingly, it is imperative to review the EU's approach to LGBTIQ* equality policy. However, doing so requires to comprehend how EU institutions and actors perceive, represent and construct “equality” in regard to sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). In my paper I introduce Queer Frame Analysis (QFA) as a methodological framework to address these issues. Guided by the assumption that SOGIESC (in)equality and, accordingly, LGBTIQ* rights are contested concepts whose interpretation varies across contexts, QFA builds on the core tenets of Critical Frame Analysis (CFA) as developed by Verloo and which is a useful tool for tracing patterns in policy discourses and exploring the diversity of meanings different actors attribute to a policy problem. This will be supplemented with insights from Queer Linguistics (QL), which examines, inter alia, how language shapes the construction of sexuality and gender and to what extent discourses are permeated by restrictive and exclusionary normativities. My goal is to introduce QFA as a useful tool for researching constructions of SOGIESC (in)equality and LGBTIQ* rights in political discourses. After providing an overview of my foundational Queer-theoretical assumptions and methodological starting points, I outline the core tenets of QFA and how it can be employed in research practice. I then provide a brief empirical showcase of this approach by examining select instances in which EU actors have actively spoken out in favor of LGBTIQ* equality. Because even such declarations of “allyship” can reproduce harmful sexual and gender normativities – albeit perhaps unintentionally –, an analysis of the underlying framing of SOGIESC equality is needed.