Anna M. Crawford

One of the most significant innovations within policy process theories is the concept of advocacy coalitions, namely how policy actors self‐organize to collectively pursue shared goals. Despite the centrality of advocacy coalitions and extensive research spanning decades on this concept, questions remain about their functional purpose in a democracy. For this paper, we introduce the novel concept of “advocacy coalition representation” to describe how advocacy coalition members act as representatives of their constituencies. Taking an Advocacy Coalition Framework perspective, this paper begins with an argument incorporating democratic representation into the theoretical infrastructure of the Framework. It illustrates this argument by examining advocacy coalition representation in Colorado's abortion policy subsystem through interviews with pro‐ and anti‐abortion‐access actors. Ultimately, we find that the two coalitions offer patterns of advocacy coalition representation distinct from one another along two key variables: constituencies ( who advocates represent) and engagement ( how advocates represent). This paper ends with theoretical and empirical implications before returning to the theme of democracy and policy process research. Related Articles: Myers, N., A. T. Ann Pendergast, H. A. Gage Atwood, W. Brian and H. Danielle. 2025. “Roles in Resilience: The Intersection of Genetic Counseling, Policy Advocacy, and Community Resilience.” Politics and Policy 53, no. 2: e70023. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70023 . Silagadze, N. 2021. “Abortion Referendums: Is There a Recipe for Success?” Politics and Policy 49, no. 2: 352–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12398 . Swigger, A. and B. T. Heinmiller. 2014. “Advocacy Coalitions and Mental Health Policy: The Adoption of Community Treatment Orders in Ontario.” Politics and Policy 42, no. 2: 246–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12066 .

This paper builds on the burgeoning literature of emotion analyses in the policy process by examining how emotions are used and portrayed in locating a contentious renewable transmission line in Southern California, US. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as the theoretical guide, this paper finds evidence that actors experience similar emotions about beliefs to those within their coalition and dissimilar emotions about beliefs to actors in rival coalitions. This trend holds for diffuse (positive/negative) and most, but not all, discrete (e.g. anger, dismay, affinity) emotions expressions. Negative emotions also tend to define coalitions more strongly while positive emotions have varied patterns. The conclusion lays out future research directions to further our understanding of emotions and beliefs in policy and politics.

While emotions are an inherent component of the human experience that influence behavior, values, and beliefs, they have largely been left out of policy process studies theoretically and methodologically. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), with its focus on how individuals coalesce into coalitions around a set of common beliefs, we begin to situate emotions as a critical component of belief systems and discourse about public policies. This study analyzes legislative testimony from four policies debated during the 2021 Colorado Legislative Session using discourse analysis to identify the emotions and coalitional beliefs. We find that policy actors express emotions and beliefs similarly to other policy actors in the same coalition and differently from policy actors in the opposing coalition. We conclude this paper by discussing the theoretical and methodological contributions of including emotions in the ACF. The move to incorporate the analysis of emotional expressions, and hence the study of affect, into the ACF mirrors the ongoing incorporation of how people feel in politics and not just how they think.