Courts can change what communities talk about and how they think about law. This study examines whether major judicial decisions shaped issue attention and attitudes toward courts in media serving the LGBTQ+ community.

📚 Coverage Collected and Cases Studied

An original database of LGBTQ+ magazine coverage was assembled across an extended period to capture reporting on court cases. Major decisions included:

• Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
• Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health (2003)
• Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services (2004)

🔎 How coverage was analyzed

• Computational social science techniques were combined with qualitative analysis to assess changes in both the volume and tone of coverage.
• Analyses tracked topic attention, co-occurrence of court-related discussion with particular issues, and qualitative patterns in how legal and political implications were communicated to readers.

📈 Key findings

• Increased attention to same-sex marriage followed the decisions in Lawrence, Goodridge, and Lofton.
• Discussions of courts coalesced around the issue of same-sex marriage after Lawrence, indicating a tighter link between judicial coverage and marriage-equality debates.
• Judicial rulings influenced both the volume (how much courts were covered) and the tone/affect toward courts in LGBTQ+ media.
• LGBTQ+ media played an informative role, explaining the political and legal stakes of struggles over marriage equality to their readership.

💡 Why this matters

These findings show that judicial decisions can reorient issue salience and public legal consciousness within specialized media communities. The study highlights how courts not only decide cases but also shape political discussion and legal understanding among affected publics.