Grading the scholars: Measuring the impact of field dependence on rhetorical analyses of abortion arguments

This thesis describes the pitfalls of writing rhetorical analyses of abortion arguments that are not sensitive to field dependence as described by Toulmin (1958). It examines Lake's (1984), Tonn's (1996), and Railsback's (1984) rhetorical analyses in order to test whether the lack of attention these scholars display toward field dependence detracts from the reliability of their analyses. To accomplish this task, this thesis will compare the scholars' analyses against my analysis of amicus curiae briefs filed with the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade (1973) and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1988) cases. The results show that the Lake's, Tonn's, and Railsback's analyses are problematic when compared to the arguments in these amicus curiae briefs. Thus this thesis concludes that scholars need to pay close attention to field dependence when writing rhetorical analyses not only of abortion arguments but also field specific arguments in general.