IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dem/wpaper/wp-2026-007.html

Ideology over evidence: pronatalist media discourse and its (dis)connection from U.S. fertility trends

Author

Listed:
  • Kelsey Q. Wright

    (Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany)

  • Asli Ebru Şanlitürk

    (Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany)

  • Emily S. Mann

Abstract

Pronatalism — the ideology promoting increased birth rates as a political and civilizational imperative — has experienced a resurgence in U.S. media and policy discourse, yet scholars have long argued it functions as ideological framing rather than evidence-based demographic policy. This study tests that argument directly by examining whether empirical changes in fertility rates predict the volume and tone of pronatalism-adjacent media coverage across politically distinct U.S. outlets. Drawing on age- and race/ethnicity-specific fertility data, alongside article volume and tone data from the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) over the period 2017-2022, we analyze coverage of four themes—fertility rates, population and demographic change, aging populations, and reproductive and maternal health—across 23 conservative, progressive, and neutral news outlets. Using linear regression models with year fixed effects, we find that changes in fertility rates do not significantly predict article volume for any outlet type or theme. Results for tone are similarly null, with one exception: increases in fertility among women aged 25–44 are significantly associated with more positive coverage of reproductive and maternal health in progressive outlets, likely reflecting political rather than demographic dynamics. The most pronounced shifts in coverage — particularly conservative outlets' dramatically more positive tone following the 2020 election — appear driven by electoral context rather than demographic reality. These findings provide quantitative support for the claim that pronatalist media discourse selectively deploys demographic evidence in order to operate as an ideological regime of truth.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelsey Q. Wright & Asli Ebru Şanlitürk & Emily S. Mann, 2026. "Ideology over evidence: pronatalist media discourse and its (dis)connection from U.S. fertility trends," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2026-007, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:wpaper:wp-2026-007
    DOI: 10.4054/MPIDR-WP-2026-007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2026-007.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/MPIDR-WP-2026-007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Demeny, 2003. "Population Policy Dilemmas in Europe at the Dawn of the Twenty‐First Century," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 29(1), pages 1-28, March.
    2. Anne H. Gauthier & Stuart Gietel‐Basten, 2025. "Family Policies in Low Fertility Countries: Evidence and Reflections," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 51(1), pages 125-161, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cevat Giray Aksoy & Jose Maria Barrero & Nicholas Bloom & Katelyn Cranney & Steven J. Davis & Mathias Dolls & Pablo Zarate, 2026. "Work from Home and Fertility," ADB Economics Working Paper Series 839, Asian Development Bank.
    2. Yong Cai, 2010. "China's Below‐Replacement Fertility: Government Policy or Socioeconomic Development?," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 419-440, September.
    3. Bruni, Michele, 2022. "Between-Country Global Inequality and Demographic Change," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 56(3), pages 65-85.
    4. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Kène Henkens, 2004. "The Rationality behind Immigration Preferences," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-002/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Samuel H. Preston & Haidong Wang, 2007. "Intrinsic Growth Rates and Net Reproduction Rates in the Presence of Migration," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 33(4), pages 357-666, December.
    6. Tomas Frejka & Jean-Paul Sardon, 2003. "Fertility in Austria: Past, Present and the Near Future," VID Working Papers 0302, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    7. Tomáš Sobotka & Éva Beaujouan, 2014. "Two Is Best? The Persistence of a Two-Child Family Ideal in Europe," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 391-419, September.
    8. Weiss, Volkmar, 2007. "The Population Cycle Drives Human History - from a Eugenic Phase into a Dysgenic Phase and Eventual Collapse," MPRA Paper 6557, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 22 May 2007.
    9. Rondinelli, Concetta & Aassve, Arnstein & C. Billari, Francesco, 2006. "Income and childbearing decisions: evidence from Italy," ISER Working Paper Series 2006-06, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    10. repec:ilo:ilowps:411196 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Wade, Robert Hunter, 2004. "Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 567-589, April.
    12. John Caldwell, 2008. "Three Fertility Compromises and Two Transitions," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 27(4), pages 427-446, August.
    13. Jan M. Hoem, 2008. "Overview Chapter 8: The impact of public policies on European fertility," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(10), pages 249-260.
    14. Jonas Wood & Karel Neels, 2019. "Local Childcare Availability and Dual-Earner Fertility: Variation in Childcare Coverage and Birth Hazards Over Place and Time," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 35(5), pages 913-937, December.
    15. Mikko Myrskylä & Rachel Margolis, 2013. "Parental benefits improve parental well-being: evidence from a 2007 policy change in Germany," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2013-010, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    16. David Coleman, 2009. "Divergent Patterns in the Ethnic Transformation of Societies," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 449-478, September.
    17. Tomáš Sobotka, 2009. "Sub-Replacement Fertility Intentions in Austria [Intentions de fécondité inférieures au seuil de remplacement en Autriche]," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 25(4), pages 387-412, November.
    18. Kox, Henk L.M., 2011. "The future of the fence around the European labour market," MPRA Paper 31722, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Guizhen Ma & Erin Trouth Hofmann & Annie Laurie Hines & Ethan Sharygin & Jack A. Goldstone & Justin Gest, 2025. "Demographic and Economic Implications of Alternative U.S. Immigration Policies," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 44(5), pages 1-26, October.
    20. David S. Reher, 2007. "Towards long-term population decline: a discussion of relevant issues," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 23(2), pages 189-207, June.
    21. John MacInnes, 2005. "Work–Life Balance and the Demand for Reduction in Working Hours: Evidence from the British Social Attitudes Survey 2002," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 43(2), pages 273-295, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:wpaper:wp-2026-007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Wilhelm (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.