Although abortion policy is often discussed as a black-and-white conflict characterized by polarization and a lack of compromise, this study explores the validity of such a presupposition by asking how advocates articulate their belief systems about abortion policy and in what ways—if at all—are those beliefs shared within and across coalitions and create fissures within and between coalitions? Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we interviewed advocates, representing both pro-abortion-access and anti-abortion-access perspectives, about their beliefs, coalition allies, and opponents in Colorado. The result reveals nuanced belief systems that address competing conceptions of morality, gender, and life with a tendency toward deep core beliefs. This paper contributes to the ACF literature by highlighting a policy issue not often raised by ACF scholars, bridging morality policy and abortion policy literature with more mainstream policy process research, and surpassing simple “pro-life vs. pro-choice” dichotomies to reveal complex belief systems about abortion.

尽管堕胎政策经常被讨论为以两极分化和缺乏妥协为特征的黑白冲突，但本研究通过询问倡导者如何阐明他们对堕胎政策的信念体系以及以何种方式表达他们对堕胎政策的信念体系，探讨了这种预设的有效性——如果所有——这些信念是否在联盟内部和联盟之间共享并在联盟内部和联盟之间造成裂痕？应用倡导联盟框架，我们采访了代表支持堕胎和反对堕胎观点的倡导者，了解他们的信仰、联盟盟友和科罗拉多州的反对者。结果揭示了微妙的信仰体系，这些信仰体系解决了道德、性别和生活的相互竞争的概念，并倾向于深入的核心信仰。本文通过强调 ACF 学者不常提出的政策问题、将道德政策和堕胎政策文献与更主流的政策过程研究联系起来、超越简单的“支持生命与支持堕胎”二分法来揭示复杂的问题，为 ACF 文献做出了贡献。关于堕胎的信仰体系。