Protests as Discursive Anchor Points: How Parties Respond to Climate Mobilization in Parliament

How do disruptive protests affect parties’ parliamentary activity? While existing research has examined how protest influences issue attention in the parliamentary arena, it has paid less attention to how reactions to protests shape interparty conflict. In particular, we know little about how disruptive mobilization affects parties’ discourse on their own positions and those of their allies and opponents. We address this gap by conceptualizing disruptive protests as discursive anchor points that structure interparty conflict in parliament. Building on the literature on agenda-setting (e.g., Bjarnadóttir, 2025; Wouters et al., 2021) and radical flank effects (e.g., Haines, 1984; Simpson et al., 2022), we argue that disruptive protests not only raise awareness of certain issues, but also provide salient reference points that political parties strategically use to either legitimize or delegitimize political actors and their positions. Empirically, we contrast the effects of two waves of disruptive protests in Germany: one advocating for stronger climate policies—the mobilization of the group Last Generation—and another critical of climate measures—the recent farmers’ protests. We analyze plenary protocols from the German Bundestag during the 20th legislative period (2021–2025), comprising over 36,000 substantive speeches. Using a mixed-methods design, we first apply quantitative dictionary methods to identify references to protest groups and model the propensity of parties to refer to these groups over time. We then conduct a qualitative content analysis of a subset of tagged speeches to examine how parties use protests as discursive anchor points and deploy association and dissociation frames to position themselves, their allies, and their opponents. Our preliminary findings reveal contrasting responses. Right-wing parties—most notably the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD)—are substantially more likely to respond to disruptive climate protests by Last Generation. Rather than engaging substantively with the protesters’ demands, they use protest events as reference points to delegitimize pro-climate parties and policies. By contrast, conservative parties are more likely to express support for farmers’ protests opposing climate measures, selectively amplifying mobilization that aligns with their policy preferences. By improving our understanding of how parties strategically respond to protest, our research contributes to and bridges the literature on party competition and social movements. References Bjarnadóttir, J. Ý. (2025). How parties respond to protests in a changing political landscape. Journal of European Public Policy, 32(8), 2068–2097. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2025.2516126 Haines, H. H. (1984). Black Radicalization and the Funding of Civil Rights: 1957-1970. Social Problems, 32(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/800260 Simpson, B., Willer, R., & Feinberg, M. (2022). Radical flanks of social movements can increase support for moderate factions. PNAS Nexus, 1(3), pgac110. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac110 Wouters, R., Sevenans, J., & Vliegenthart, R. (2021). Selective Deafness of Political Parties: Strategic Responsiveness to Media, Protest and Real-World Signals on Immigration in Belgian Parliament. Parliamentary Affairs, 74(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsz024