Treating the Pro-Life Movement as a monolithic entity creates a blind spot regarding the cognitive effect of the fetal personhood rhetorical framework. This study applies an interpretive lens, using legal and discourse analysis as tools, to provide a critical analysis of personhood laws and web content to shed light on how linguistic patterns construct, and are informed by, worldview. Examining variations in proposed Human Life Amendments—and asking how, or if, proposed bills achieve their specified aim—reveals tension in state and federal jurisdiction of abortion regulations. It also exposes conflicts concerning tactical preferences for attaining fetal personhood and ending abortion that are useful to differentiating the Pro-Life and Personhood Movements.

Framing and discursive practices of the Personhood Movement reflect a ‘black and white’ mentality and an overly-simplified worldview. Movement cognition is shaped by patterns of omission and exclusion, inclusion, repetition, troubling phrases, and the power of labels. The linguistic choices demonstrate, constitute, and reinforce the dominant narratives of the movement and are integral to advocacy, praxis, and legislative efforts. While the struggle to pass personhood-compliant legislation has not been successful, the rhetorical practices and representational framework of the Personhood Movement have succeeded in altering the national discourse surrounding beginnings of life and abortion. The extreme views of the Personhood Movement reconstitute the middle—making tactics of the mainstream Pro-Life Movement seem moderate and reasonable by comparison, which allows dangerous legislation to slide by under the radar.