Table of Contents

Journalistic Rationale. 2

Introduction.. 3

Research Questions and Conceptual Framework. 4

1.1 Research Questions. 4

1.2 Key Concepts and Variables. 5

1.3 Theoretical Framework. 5

1.4 Contribution. 6

Case Selection. 6

Literature Review.. 7

RQ1: How do existing studies describe typical source hierarchies and framing practices in reporting on trans issues, and how do these patterns differ across the UK, Irish, and US media systems?. 7

RQ2: Which political, institutional, and cultural factors—identified in prior scholarship—are likely to influence whose voices are amplified or marginalised in quality news coverage of trans rights in the UK, Ireland, and the US?. 8

Method and Body. 10

2.1 Research Design. 10

2.2. Sampling & Data Collection. 10

2.3 Operationalisation of Variables. 10

2.4 Coding Procedure & Reliability. 11

Results. 13

1.1 The Guardian. 13

1.2 The New York Times. 13

1.3 The Irish Times. 13

2. Presence and Absence of Trans Voices. 14

3. Framing Patterns. 14

4. Institutional vs Community Sources. 15

5. Coding Decisions and Ambiguities. 16

Discussion.. 17

Implications for Journalism.. 20

Limitations and Future Research. 20

References. 21

Journalistic Rationale

Public debates about transgender rights have intensified across the globe, yet the voices that shape these debates in the media remain unevenly distributed (Mocarski et al., 2019). Politicians and commentators often dominate headlines, while the perspectives of trans people themselves are frequently marginalised. This imbalance has real-world consequences: the way news outlets frame trans issues influences public perception, policymaking, and the safety and dignity of the communities involved (Bracco et al., 2024).

By analysing which sources, politicians, experts, activists, trans people, or ordinary citizens,  dominate coverage in different countries and media types, this research will expose underlying power dynamics in contemporary journalism. Comparing quality newspapers will help reveal how sensationalism, misinformation, and framing choices differ across the media spectrum.

While tabloids and partisan outlets have been extensively criticised for sensationalist portrayals of transgender people (Bailey & Jones, 2024; Desjardins & Hepburn, 2025), less is known about how quality newspapers construct their narratives. Quality media often pride themselves on balance, factual accuracy, and fairness, yet prior studies suggest that quality outlets may still reproduce hierarchies of expertise and marginalisation through their sourcing practices (Paulussen & Harder, 2014). The question, therefore, is not only whether coverage is positive or negative, but whose voices are amplified or silenced.

In an era when trans rights are increasingly politicised, understanding who speaks for and about trans people in the press is essential for fair and accurate reporting. This study therefore contributes not only to media scholarship but also to a wider discussion about journalistic responsibility, representation, and the democratic role of the press.

Introduction

In recent years, the media spotlight on transgender rights has grown significantly. According to research by Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in the UK, coverage of trans issues increased by as much as 400 % between 2009 and 2019 (Coulson-Windebank, 2024).  Yet despite the surge in volume, questions remain about how these stories are being told, and who is doing the talking.

The choice of sources in a news article has profound implications. When politicians, experts or activists dominate the narrative, the perspectives of those directly affected, trans people themselves, can be sidelined. Such omission risks skewing public discourse and policy debates away from lived experience and toward power-centre frames. Indeed, one study in the U.S. found that only 16 % of cable-news segments on anti-trans legislation included the voice of a transgender or gender-nonconforming person (Ring, 2024). Meanwhile, Swedish research linked negative or heavily politicised media coverage of transgender health to fewer referrals to youth gender-identity clinics, underscoring the real-world consequences of source and framing choices (Indremo et al., 2022).

Moreover, cross-national comparative work highlights how societal and institutional context matter: in countries with stronger legal protections and greater public acceptance of gender minorities, media coverage tends to treat trans subjects more neutrally, include fewer mis-genderings and fewer victim-frames (Bracco et al., 2024).This suggests that the mix of sources used—politicians, academics, activists, trans people themselves, ordinary citizens—may vary according to media type (tabloids vs quality press), country, and institutional setting. Yet the systematic measurement of those differences remains uncommon.

Given the escalating policy battles over trans rights, and the central role of media in shaping public understanding, it is imperative to investigate the source-landscape of trans-rights coverage: who gets to speak, in what outlets, in which countries, and with what implications for framing and representation? Against this backdrop, the primary research question guiding this thesis is:

How do quality newspapers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States differ in their use of sources when reporting on trans rights, and which types of voices—political, expert, activist, trans, or ordinary citizen—predominate in this coverage?

Research Questions and Conceptual Framework

This study examines how quality newspapers across liberal democracies represent and construct debates about transgender rights. The research focuses on three influential, high-circulation outlets: The Guardian (United Kingdom), The Irish Times (Ireland), and The New York Times (United States). These newspapers were selected because they each exemplify professionalised, agenda-setting journalism within distinct yet comparable political and cultural contexts. By focusing exclusively on quality newspapers, the study seeks to uncover how even ostensibly liberal and reputable media negotiate questions of voice, authority, and representation in the increasingly polarised discourse surrounding trans rights.

1.1 Research Questions

Building on the theoretical rationale above, the central research question guiding this thesis is:

How do quality newspapers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States differ in their use of sources when reporting on trans rights, and which types of voices—political, expert, activist, trans, or ordinary citizen—predominate in this coverage?

To operationalise this question, five sub-questions are formulated:

1. RQ1. How do existing studies describe typical source hierarchies and framing practices in reporting on trans issues, and how do these patterns differ across the UK, Irish, and US media systems?
2. RQ2. Which political, institutional, and cultural factors—identified in prior scholarship—are likely to influence whose voices are amplified or marginalised in quality news coverage of trans rights?
3. RQ3. What proportion of articles in each newspaper cites politicians, experts/academics, activists/NGOs, trans persons/experiential experts, or ordinary citizens?
4. RQ4. Which outlets most frequently exclude trans persons’ voices altogether?
5. RQ5. Does source dominance vary systematically across the three national contexts?

These questions collectively aim to uncover the structural hierarchies of voice and representation across quality media in three liberal democracies.

1.2 Key Concepts and Variables

Source dominance constitutes the primary dependent variable of this study. Following Gans (1979) and Reich (2010), a source is understood as any actor explicitly quoted, paraphrased, or otherwise invoked as an authoritative voice within the article. Each article will therefore be coded for the presence or absence of five source categories:

1. Politicians and government officials
2. Experts and academics
3. Activists and NGOs
4. Trans persons or other experts by experience
5. Ordinary citizens or ‘vox-pop’ contributors

The key independent variables are national context (UK, Ireland, USA) and framing type. Framing categories are derived from Entman (1993) and Matthes (2011) and operationalised as follows:

• Conflict/politicisation frame: emphasis on dispute, controversy, party politics, or legislative conflict.
• Human-rights frame: focus on justice, equality, legal protection, or policy reform.
• Human-interest frame: emphasis on personal narratives, emotion, or lived experience.

In addition, the study includes an exploratory variable capturing the presence of misinformation or sensationalism, assessed through standardised fact-checking criteria and headline tone.

1.3 Theoretical Framework

This research is grounded in three interrelated theoretical traditions: framing theory, source theory, and representation studies. Entman (1993) conceptualises framing as a process of selecting and highlighting aspects of reality to promote a particular interpretation. Source theory (Carlson, 2009) demonstrates that journalists’ dependence on elite or institutional sources can reinforce existing power hierarchies, even within objective reporting norms. In the context of trans coverage, the over-reliance on politicians and ‘experts’ often sidelines experiential knowledge from trans people themselves (Brennen, 2023).

Representation theory further explains how marginalised identities are mediated through cultural and linguistic framing. Scholars such as Mocarski et al. (2019) and Billard et al. (2020) argue that mainstream coverage frequently portrays trans issues through tropes of controversy, tragedy, or moral panic rather than lived normality. Studying quality newspapers therefore tests whether professional journalistic standards genuinely counteract these tendencies, or merely reproduce them in more subtle forms.

1.4 Contribution

By systematically mapping whose voices dominate quality journalism on trans rights, this study contributes to broader debates about inclusivity and epistemic justice in the media. It bridges normative theories of journalism, as a “voice for the voiceless” (Johnson, 2024), with empirical analysis across different liberal democracies. Ultimately, the findings will illuminate whether elite news outlets fulfil their democratic duty to represent marginalised communities, or whether structural biases persist even within the most respected corners of the press.

Case Selection

The three selected newspapers represent distinct yet comparable media systems, making them well suited for a cross-national analysis of how quality media report on trans rights. The Guardian operates in the United Kingdom’s highly competitive and commercially driven press landscape, a hallmark of what Hallin and Mancini (2004) term the “Liberal model,” where market pressures coexist with strong professional norms and a long tradition of public-interest journalism. Founded in 1821, The Guardian is one of the UK’s oldest national newspapers and reaches a large international audience, with an estimated 20 million monthly readers across its digital platforms (GNM press office, 2025).

The Irish Times, by contrast, reflects a smaller and more consensus-oriented media environment shaped by Catholic legacies and recent processes of social liberalisation (Silke & Graham, 2017), which have made questions of gender identity and minority rights particularly salient in public debate. Established in 1859, The Irish Times is Ireland’s newspaper of record and reaches approximately 2.6 million readers per week through its print and digital editions (The Irish Times, z.d.).

In the United States, The New York Times combines global reach and institutional prestige with the challenges of an increasingly polarised political climate, positioning it as a central agenda-setting outlet in national conversations about trans rights and related legislative conflicts (Castilla et al., 2014). Founded in 1851, The New York Times is among the most influential newspapers globally, with over 11 million subscribers, the majority of whom are digital readers (The New York Times Company, About Us)

To ensure systematic comparison across outlets, the sample was limited to 50 articles per newspaper, resulting in a balanced dataset that allows for meaningful cross-national comparison while remaining feasible for in-depth manual coding. This sample size is consistent with previous exploratory content analyses of elite media and provides sufficient variation to identify dominant sourcing and framing patterns without sacrificing analytical clarity.

The time frame, spanning from January 2024 to November 2025, was selected to capture coverage during a period of heightened political and societal debate around transgender rights, including legislative developments, public controversies, and cultural discussions across all three national contexts. Using a recent and extended time window helps account for short-term news cycles while avoiding distortions caused by singular events or momentary media spikes.

Comparing these newspapers is therefore analytically meaningful for three reasons. First, each is a leading quality outlet within its national context, providing influential and agenda-setting coverage that shapes broader public understanding of minority issues. Second, while all three operate within liberal democracies with comparable press-freedom standards, they differ markedly in political culture, religious history, and institutional media structures—factors shown to influence sourcing practices and framing choices (Entman, 2010). Third, all publish in English and maintain comprehensive digital archives, enabling direct comparison without translation bias. Together, these outlets offer a robust framework for examining how elite media in different democratic contexts negotiate professional norms, political pressures, and representational responsibilities when reporting on trans rights.

Literature Review

RQ1: How do existing studies describe typical source hierarchies and framing practices in reporting on trans issues, and how do these patterns differ across the UK, Irish, and US media systems?

Research on trans representation in the media consistently shows that a small number of institutional voices dominate the coverage, while trans people themselves appear far less frequently. Studies by Gans (1979) and Billard en Zhang (2022) explain that journalists tend to rely on sources who are already positioned as authoritative, politicians, government officials, medical experts, and recognised academics. These actors are easy to reach, available for comment, and perceived as legitimate. Although this practice is rooted in professional norms, it often results in marginalising the experiences and perspectives of trans communities, who may not have the same structural access to the media.

Empirical research supports this pattern. A review found that a substantial share of US reporting on transgender legislation did not include any trans voices at all, demonstrating that even high-quality outlets regularly sideline the people most affected (Ellis et al., 2023). Similar trends appear in the UK (Akrivos, 2022; Montiel-McCann, 2022). Examining coverage in The Times, found that trans individuals were quoted far less often than politicians or lobbyists, and that coverage frequently centred on political conflict or cultural controversy rather than lived experience or human-rights concerns (Mitchell & Mitchell, 2025).

The choice of sources is directly connected to framing. Entman (1993) notes that framing involves selecting certain aspects of reality and making them more salient. When journalists rely mainly on political elites, the resulting frames tend to stress conflict, division, or policy battles. Studies of UK reporting, for example, show frequent use of “political conflict,” “culture-war,” or “public safety” frames, which foreground disputes rather than experiences (Skinner et al., 2023). In contrast, when trans people, activists, or community organisations are included as sources, research shows that coverage is more likely to adopt human-rights or human-interest frames—focusing on discrimination, healthcare access, violence, or personal stories.

Cross-national research highlights that these patterns are also shaped by the characteristics of different media systems. Hallin and Mancini (2004) describe the US and UK as “Liberal model” systems: highly commercialised, competitive, and professionalised. However, the US system is marked by stronger political polarisation, which tends to amplify conflict-oriented frames. Studies of US coverage show that trans issues are often framed through partisan debates, legal disputes, or moral controversies, especially in the context of state-level legislation.

Ireland represents a different environment. As Silke and Graham (2017) note, the Irish media system is smaller, more homogenous, and historically shaped by Catholic influence, although the country has undergone rapid social liberalisation in the past decade. Research suggests that this creates a more cautious and consensus-oriented style of reporting, with less overt polarisation but still a reliance on institutional voices. Trans issues in Ireland are often framed through public policy debates or social change narratives, but the visibility of trans voices remains limited, reflecting similar structural patterns to the UK and US (Fraccari et al., 2024).

Comparative studies across Europe support this view. Bracco, Sczesny and Gustafsson Sendén (2024) found that media in countries with higher social acceptance of gender diversity—such as Sweden—tend to frame trans issues in less negative, less objectifying ways, and include more experiential perspectives. This suggests that the inclusion or exclusion of trans voices is not accidental but linked to broader societal attitudes and institutional structures.

Overall, the literature points to three consistent findings:

1. Trans people are quoted the least, while politicians, experts and institutional actors dominate coverage.
2. Source choices shape framing: political voices produce political and conflict frames, whereas trans voices and activists lead to human-rights or human-interest frames.
3. National media systems influence both patterns: polarised environments (US) tend to amplify conflict, highly commercial systems (UK) reward controversy, and smaller consensus-oriented systems (Ireland) remain cautious but institutional in focus.

These insights provide a clear expectation for the empirical part of this study: that The Guardian, The Irish Times, and The New York Times will each reveal different balances between elite and experiential sources, and that their framing styles will reflect the pressures and traditions of their national media environments.

RQ2: Which political, institutional, and cultural factors—identified in prior scholarship—are likely to influence whose voices are amplified or marginalised in quality news coverage of trans rights in the UK, Ireland, and the US?

Research on media systems shows that the voices included or excluded in news coverage are not random. They are shaped by broader political structures, institutional routines, and cultural histories that influence how journalists work and which actors they turn to for comment.

A first key factor is the structure of national media systems. Hallin and Mancini’s (2004) “Liberal model”, which applies to the UK, Ireland, and the US, describes systems with strong commercial pressures and professional journalistic norms. However, these three countries differ significantly within that model. The US press operates in a highly polarised political climate, where debates around trans rights are often framed through partisan conflict (Castilla et al., 2014). This environment encourages journalists to quote political actors frequently, which can overshadow the voices of trans people. Research shows that US outlets often prioritise legislative battles, court rulings, and policy disputes, creating a structural bias towards institutional sources.

In the UK, the press is commercially competitive and historically adversarial. This encourages the use of conflict and controversy as news values. Studies such as Akrivos (2022) demonstrate that UK newspapers often rely on political sources or commentators who present trans issues as culture-war topics. Even in quality outlets, the pressure to respond to public debates and political disputes can reduce space for experiential voices, reinforcing existing hierarchies where trans people appear mainly as subjects rather than speakers.

Ireland presents a different institutional context. Although also part of the Liberal model, the Irish media system is smaller, more homogenous, and more consensus-oriented (Murphy, 2021). Historically shaped by Catholic influence, and more recently by rapid social liberalisation, Irish journalism tends to be less polarised than British or American coverage. However, this does not automatically result in stronger trans representation. The smaller pool of expert sources and a tradition of cautious political reporting mean that institutional voices, politicians, officials, and mainstream organisations, still hold significant influence. As previous research on Irish media shows, marginalised groups often gain visibility only through specific policy debates rather than through their own narratives (Arnold & O’Brien, 2022).

A second factor is journalistic sourcing routines. As Gans (1979) and Capuzza (2014) note, journalists prefer actors who are easy to contact, familiar, and already recognised as authoritative. Politicians, academics, and established NGOs fit this requirement. Trans people and grassroots activists often do not, simply because they lack institutional access or because journalists perceive them as “riskier” sources. This structural barrier contributes to the systematic underrepresentation observed in studies by Ellis et al. (2023), where many articles on trans rights included no trans voices at all.

A third factor is cultural attitudes toward gender diversity. Comparative work by Bracco, Sczesny, and Gustafsson Sendén (2024) demonstrates that media coverage is shaped by the broader level of social acceptance within a country. In societies with higher acceptance, such as Sweden, coverage tends to be less negative, less sensationalist, and more focused on human experience. In countries where trans rights are heavily politicised, coverage more often emphasises conflict, threat, or moral debate. This scholarship suggests that cultural climate influences not only framing but also sourcing: when a group is socially contested, its members are less likely to be approached as credible commentators.

Finally, news values play an indirect but important role. Issues involving legislation, public controversy, or elite disagreement naturally attract institutional sources. In the trans rights debate, where political actors in all three countries have passed, debated, or challenged gender-related laws, politicians are structurally positioned to dominate coverage. As Fawzi (2017) argues, political institutions are built to generate “newsworthy” material, giving them disproportionate influence over media agendas.

Taken together, the literature suggests that structural, institutional, and cultural factors work simultaneously to shape source inclusion. Political polarisation (US), commercial competition (UK), and consensus-oriented traditions (Ireland) each influence whose voices are heard. Across all three contexts, however, the same pattern appears: institutional actors dominate, while trans people themselves are often included last, if at all. These insights set clear expectations for the empirical analysis of The Guardian, The Irish Times, and The New York Times.

 

Method and Body

2.1 Research Design

This study uses a quantitative content analysis to examine source use and framing in coverage of trans rights in three quality newspapers: The Guardian (UK), The Irish Times (Ireland), and The New York Times (USA). The design is explanatory and comparative: it maps similarities and differences between national media systems and tests how source choices relate to framing styles. The method allows systematic measurement of source dominance, making it possible to answer the empirical research questions (RQ3–RQ5), while the literature review provided the foundation for the context-based questions (RQ1–RQ2).

2.2. Sampling & Data Collection

• Newspapers selected: The Guardian, The Irish Times, The New York Times.
• Justification:
  • All are high-quality, agenda-setting outlets.
  • They represent different media systems within the same Liberal model.
  • All publish in English and maintain accessible digital archives.
• Search terms: “trans rights”, “transgender”, “gender identity”, “trans youth”, “transgender care”.
• Time period: 2024-2025
• Inclusion criteria:
  • News or feature articles discussing trans rights, law, politics, discrimination, or social issues.
• Exclusion criteria:
  • Opinion columns, commentaries, lifestyle pieces, reviews, sport recaps.

2.3 Operationalisation of Variables

To answer the empirical research questions, variables must be translated into observable indicators. This section outlines how the dependent, independent, and exploratory variables are operationalised.

Source dominance refers to which voices appear most frequently in media coverage. Following Gans (1979) and Reich (2010), a source is defined as any actor explicitly quoted, paraphrased, or otherwise invoked as providing authoritative information.

Each article is coded for the presence (1) or absence (0) of the following five source categories:

1. Politicians and government officials
   Ministers, MPs, senators, government spokespeople, regulatory agencies.
2. Experts and academics
   Researchers, medical professionals, policy analysts, lawyers offering expert interpretation.
3. Activists and NGOs
   Advocacy groups, LGBTQ+ organisations, community groups, civil-society actors.
4. Trans persons or experiential experts
   Individuals who identify as transgender or non-binary, or who speak from personal experience.
5. Ordinary citizens / vox-pop contributors
   Unaffiliated members of the public included for general opinion or emotional reaction.

Measuring dominance:
For each category, the percentage of articles that include the source type will be calculated. Higher percentages indicate greater dominance and visibility in the news agenda.

To calculate dominance:

Independent Variables

Country / outlet

Categorical variable:

• 1 = UK / The Guardian
• 2 = Ireland / The Irish Times
• 3 = USA / The New York Times

Framing Type

Frames are coded according to the dominant emphasis of the article, drawing on Entman (1993) and Matthes (2009). Each article receives one primary frame:

1. Conflict / Politicisation Frame
   Focus on disputes, legislative battles, party politics, cultural conflict, or public controversy.
2. Human-Rights Frame
   Emphasis on equality, discrimination, legal rights, policy reform, or institutional protections.
3. Human-Interest Frame
   Emphasis on personal stories, emotion, lived experience, family impact, or individual struggles.

2.4 Coding Procedure & Reliability

All articles will be coded manually using a structured coding sheet. To ensure consistency, a pilot coding round of 5 articles per outlet will be conducted. Coding rules will be refined based on ambiguities detected during the pilot.

Although the study is conducted by a single coder, reliability is strengthened by:

• clear operational definitions,
• a fixed coding sheet,
• a pilot test,
• consistent documentation of coding decisions.

 

 

 

Results

This section presents the findings of the quantitative content analysis conducted on 150 articles: 50 from The Guardian, 50 from The New York Times, and 50 from The Irish Times. The results are organised around the key variables of source dominance, framing, and exploratory indicators, with descriptive comparisons across outlets.

1.1 The Guardian

Across the 50 articles sampled, The Guardian most frequently cited experts (n = 31), followed by politicians (n = 16) and activists (n = 17). Trans persons appeared in 12 articles, while ordinary citizens were cited least often (n = 8).

The average number of source types per article was 2.42, indicating moderate source diversity. The distribution of institutional versus community sources was balanced: 59 institutional sources (politicians + experts) and 62 community sources (activists, trans persons, citizens).

1.2 The New York Times

The New York Times displayed the highest level of source activity across all outlets. Experts were cited in 42 articles, followed by politicians (n = 17), trans persons (n = 18), activists (n = 16), and ordinary citizens (n = 12).

The mean number of source types per article was 3.7, significantly higher than in the UK and Irish cases. Institutional sources were especially prominent (n = 100), although community sources were also substantial (n = 86). This suggests overall denser reporting with a broader spread of voices.

1.3 The Irish Times

The Irish sample showed lower levels of source use overall. Experts appeared in 36 articles, politicians in 14, activists in 8, trans persons in 10, and ordinary citizens in 4.

The average number of source types per article was 2.56, comparable to The Guardian but considerably lower than The New York Times. Institutional sources (n = 85) outweighed community sources (n = 43), making Ireland the outlet where community perspectives are least visible.

Average Number of Sources per Article

Outlet	Average Sources / Article
Guardian	2.42
NYT	3.70
Irish Times	2.56

2. Presence and Absence of Trans Voices

Across all 150 articles:

• The Guardian: 12/50 cite trans persons (24%)
• NYT: 18/50 (36%)
• Irish Times: 10/50 (20%)

Thus, trans voices are most present in The New York Times, and least in The Irish Times. In all three outlets, more than half the coverage contains no trans voice at all, confirming earlier concerns in the literature about experiential underrepresentation.

3. Framing Patterns

The Guardian

• Conflict/politicisation: 23
• Human-rights: 19
• Human-interest: 8

Framing is relatively balanced between conflict and human-rights, with human-interest appearing less frequently.

The New York Times

• Conflict/politicisation: 28
• Human-rights: 21
• Human-interest: 1

The NYT overwhelmingly favours political framing, with almost no human-interest reporting.

The Irish Times

• Conflict/politicisation: 20
• Human-rights: 25
• Human-interest: 5

Ireland is the only outlet where human-rights frames dominate, suggesting a more policy-oriented but less conflict-driven style of reporting.

Source Presence per Newspaper (n = 50 per outlet)

Source Type	Guardian	NYT	Irish Times
Politicians	16	17	14
Experts	31	42	36
Activists	17	16	8
Trans Persons	12	18	10
Citizens	8	12	4

Association Between Sources and Framing

A descriptive pattern emerges:

• Outlets with high political sourcing (NYT, Guardian) show more conflict framing.
• Outlets with more community sources (Guardian slightly > Irish Times) show more human-rights and human-interest frames.
• The near absence of trans voices in the Irish sample aligns with lower levels of human-interest framing.

These findings correspond with existing scholarship indicating that institutional sources tend to promote politicisation, while trans voices and activists are more associated with human-rights or experiential frames.

Dominant Framing Categories

Frame Type	Guardian	NYT	Irish Times
Conflict / Politicisation	23	28	20
Human-Rights	19	21	25
Human-Interest	8	1	5

4. Institutional vs Community Sources

Outlet	Institutional Sources	Community Sources	Ratio
Guardian	59	62	approx. 1:1
NYT	100	86	institutional-heavy
Irish Times	85	43	heavily institutional

The Irish Times shows the strongest structural imbalance, with institutional voices nearly doubling community ones.
The Guardian is the only outlet where community voices slightly exceed institutional ones.
The New York Times, despite its higher overall sourcing, still prioritises institutional voices but includes more community sources in absolute numbers.

Institutional vs Community Sources (Total Counts)

Source Category	Guardian	NYT	Irish Times
Institutional	59	100	85
Community	62	86	43
Institutional : Community Ratio	1 : 1.05	1 : 0.86	1 : 0.51

5. Coding Decisions and Ambiguities

Several actors held multiple identities, such as diplomats, activists, or political strategists who were also transgender. To maintain consistency, coding prioritised the identity most relevant to the article’s framing and quoted context.

Examples include:

• Robyn McCutheon (NYT13), a transgender diplomat, coded as “Trans Person” because the article used her transgender identity as the primary lens of expertise.
• JK Rowling (Guardian 13) was coded as “Activist” rather than “Citizen” due to her active public role in debates about transgender rights.

This approach ensured that each source received one categorical label, preventing inflation of source diversity.

Across all three newspapers, experts and political actors dominate coverage of trans rights, while trans voices remain comparatively rare. The New York Times publishes articles with the highest density of sources and the strongest politicisation frames. The Irish Times relies most heavily on institutional voices and offers the least space for community actors. The Guardian exhibits the most balanced sourcing pattern.

These findings highlight structural inequalities in whose voices shape public discourse on transgender rights and the differing roles that national media systems play in amplifying or silencing marginalised perspectives.

Discussion

This study set out to examine which voices dominate coverage of transgender rights in three major quality newspapers—The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Irish Times—and how these sourcing patterns relate to framing choices. The findings reveal clear cross-national differences, but also common structural tendencies that align closely with broader concerns in the literature about the marginalisation of transgender voices and the dominance of institutional actors in reporting on minority rights.

Dominance of Experts and Politicians in Quality Newspapers

Across all three outlets, institutional sources (politicians and experts) appeared far more frequently than experiential community voices. This confirms longstanding arguments in sociology of news production that journalists default to elite and authoritative sources due to accessibility, perceived legitimacy, and professional norms (Gans, 1979). Experts were the single most frequently cited group in all newspapers, particularly in The New York Times (42/50 articles), which reflects the paper’s strong orientation towards policy-driven, evidence-based reporting.

Political sources also appeared prominently, especially in The Guardian and The New York Times. This pattern echoes Fawzi’s (2017) description of journalism as an “extension of the political institution,” where newsworthiness is often defined by elite conflict and formal decision-making processes. The finding also aligns with Carslon’s (2009) argument that access to voice is stratified and tied to power. Politicians are treated as inherent authorities, even when discussing issues affecting marginalised communities whose lived experiences would arguably offer more relevant insight.

The Irish data provide a contrasting perspective. Though experts appear frequently, politicians are cited slightly less often than in the US and UK samples. This reflects the more consensus-oriented, less adversarial tradition of Irish journalism described by Silke and Graham (2017). Irish political debate on trans rights has also historically been less polarised than in the UK or USA, which may reduce the performative incentive for political actors to dominate media narratives.

Implications of the Underrepresentation of Trans Voices

The limited presence of trans voices has several important implications for how audiences come to understand trans rights. First, the marginalisation of experiential knowledge reinforces what Carlson (2009) describes as a “hierarchy of credibility,” in which institutional actors such as politicians and experts are granted greater authority and legitimacy than those with lived experience. This pattern risks presenting trans issues primarily through external interpretation, rather than allowing trans individuals to articulate their own concerns, needs, and perspectives.

Second, the scarcity of trans voices makes certain types of framing less likely. Human-interest and human-rights frames typically rely on personal testimony or accounts of lived experience, and without access to these voices, journalists are more likely to default to politicised or conflict-oriented interpretations. This structural absence therefore shapes not just who speaks, but also how the story can be told, limiting the range of narrative possibilities available to reporters.

Finally, the underrepresentation of trans perspectives compromises public understanding of trans lives. When political conflict or legal controversy dominate the news agenda, the everyday realities of trans people, including discrimination, healthcare barriers, or social support, remain invisible. This creates an informational gap that may distort audience perceptions, reinforcing the idea that trans rights constitute a political battleground rather than a set of lived social experiences. In this way, journalistic sourcing practices directly influence how the public makes sense of trans communities and their rights.

Cross-National Differences in Framing and Sourcing

The New York Times: High Density, High Politicisation

The NYT displayed the densest sourcing, an average of 3.7 sources per article, far higher than the other two outlets. This aligns with the paper’s reputation for deep, multi-voiced reporting. Yet this plurality does not necessarily translate into representational diversity: trans voices still appear in only 36% of the sample.

The NYT also demonstrated the strongest conflict framing (28/50 articles). This is unsurprising given the polarised US political landscape and the intense culture-war rhetoric surrounding trans rights, particularly in relation to education, sport, and healthcare. As Entman (1993) argues, frames arise from the political environment in which journalists operate, and US politics currently promotes conflict as a dominant interpretative lens.

The Guardian: Balanced but Politically Engaged

The Guardian exhibits a more balanced mixture of conflict and human-rights frames. Experts and activists appear frequently, and community voices are slightly more present than in the other outlets. This reflects the UK’s strong civil-society tradition as well as The Guardian’s editorial ethos, which is often more advocacy-oriented than that of the NYT.

However, the UK context remains highly polarised on trans issues, arguably more so than Ireland and in some cases even the USA. Political actors such as JK Rowling have become central symbolic figures in the debate, and The Guardian’s sourcing choices reflect this politicised environment.

The Irish Times: Policy-Oriented, Less Polarised

Ireland stands apart in two ways:

1. Human-rights frames dominate (25/50).
2. Community sources are significantly underrepresented.

This pattern mirrors literature suggesting that Irish journalism remains cautious, less conflict-driven, and more reliant on institutional or expert voices (Fawzi, 2017). Ireland’s social liberalisation over the past decade (e.g., marriage equality, gender recognition reforms) also produces a context where trans rights are treated as policy and social issues rather than culture-war battlegrounds.

However, the low presence of trans voices suggests that human-rights framing alone is insufficient for full representation; inclusive sourcing still requires active editorial effort.

Relationship Between Source Type and Framing

Across all outlets, articles citing politicians were overwhelmingly likely to use conflict frames. Conversely, articles including trans persons were more often human-interest or human-rights oriented, although these frames remained minority patterns.

This confirms Entman’s (1993) idea that frames ‘follow’ sources: political actors inject conflictual interpretations, while community actors allow for stories centred on human dignity, identity, and lived experience.

The NYT’s extremely low rate of human-interest framing (only 1 article) illustrates the consequences of relying heavily on institutional sources. When the dominant voices are politicians and experts, the narrative becomes abstracted into policy or controversy rather than personal reality.

National Media Systems and Representation

Hallin and Mancini’s (2004) Liberal Model provides a useful starting point for interpreting the cross-national differences identified in this study. The model characterises the media systems of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Ireland as highly professionalised environments operating under strong commercial pressures and maintaining substantial journalistic autonomy amidst fragmented political landscapes. The findings of this research align with these expectations to a considerable extent. Both the UK and US samples reflect a high degree of politicisation, with conflict-oriented frames dominating in The Guardian and especially in The New York Times. This mirrors the adversarial political cultures of both countries, where trans rights have become entangled in broader ideological struggles and legislative debates.

Ireland, by contrast, exhibits a more consensus-driven and policy-focused style of reporting. The predominance of human-rights framing in The Irish Times suggests a more moderate, less polarised political climate in which trans issues are discussed in terms of legal protections and social policy rather than cultural conflict. This is consistent with existing scholarship describing the Irish media system as less confrontational and more institutionally grounded than its UK or US counterparts (Ellis, 2023).

Despite these broad similarities to the Liberal Model, the observed cross-national variation indicates that the model alone cannot fully account for differences in sourcing and framing practices. Factors such as political polarisation, national cultural debates, and the public salience of trans issues play a significant role in shaping journalistic choices. For example, the intense culture-war dynamics surrounding trans rights in the United States appear to drive The New York Times’ reliance on political actors and conflict framing, whereas Ireland’s more recent and less adversarial engagement with trans issues may partly explain The Irish Times’ greater emphasis on human-rights framing.

In other words, while the structural features of the Liberal Model provide a broad framework for understanding the similarities among these media systems, the specific political environments in which journalists operate exert a powerful influence on which voices are prioritised and how trans rights are represented. This suggests that media-system theory must be complemented by attention to national political culture and issue-specific contexts when analysing representation in news coverage.

Implications for Journalism

The findings of this study carry important implications for journalistic practice, particularly within quality news outlets that position themselves as authoritative and socially responsible. Most notably, the results demonstrate that trans people remain structurally under-quoted, even in articles that adopt supportive or human-rights-oriented perspectives. Their limited visibility suggests that experiential expertise is still not regarded as a primary journalistic resource, despite the clear relevance of lived experience to reporting on issues of identity, healthcare, and discrimination. This absence reflects a broader hierarchy of sources in which institutional actors are consistently prioritised over community voices.

The predominance of policy and conflict narratives further constrains the scope of representation. When coverage is shaped largely by political actors and legislative debates, journalistic storytelling tends to flatten the complexity of trans lives into abstract disputes or controversies. As a result, the nuance, diversity, and emotional texture of trans experience risk being overshadowed by the drama of conflict. This dynamic supports earlier arguments that journalistic routines and sourcing norms can inadvertently reinforce existing power structures, even within outlets committed to fairness, accuracy, and equity.

Cross-national comparisons underscore that political context strongly influences how stories are framed, yet they also reveal that editorial culture plays a significant role. While the American context appears to produce more polarised and conflict-driven coverage, the Irish approach, though less adversarial, still suffers from a lack of community representation. This suggests that even in less polarised settings, established professional norms can constrain journalistic practice. Taken together, the findings point to an urgent need for more intentional, inclusive sourcing strategies. Quality newspapers, given their influence and normative commitments, have both the capacity and the responsibility to incorporate trans voices more consistently. Doing so would not only broaden the representational landscape but also encourage a shift away from conflict-oriented framing toward narratives grounded in lived experience and human dignity.

Limitations and Future Research

Like all empirical studies, this research faces several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample is restricted to quality newspapers in three liberal democracies. While this allows for controlled comparison across relatively similar media systems, it limits the generalisability of the findings to more sensationalist or ideologically driven outlets such as tabloids, as well as to non-English-language media. Given that tabloids often play a major role in shaping public attitudes on contentious social issues, future research should investigate whether patterns of source dominance and framing differ significantly in those contexts.

Second, although the sample size of 150 articles is consistent across the three outlets, it remains relatively modest. A larger dataset, potentially including multi-year longitudinal material, could allow for more robust statistical testing and stronger generalisability. Third, coding was conducted by a single researcher. While the use of clear operational definitions and a pilot coding round enhances reliability, inter-coder reliability testing would strengthen the validity of the coding scheme.

Several avenues for future research emerge from these limitations. Comparative analyses including tabloids, broadcast news, or social media platforms would offer a more comprehensive view of how trans rights are represented across the broader media ecosystem. Further work could also examine headlines, visuals, and layout more systematically, as these elements often carry significant framing power. Qualitative interviews with journalists and editors could shed light on structural constraints that shape sourcing practices, including time pressure, newsroom culture, and the perceived risks of engaging directly with marginalised communities. Finally, future studies should consider not only whether trans voices appear in coverage, but how they are positioned, whether they are treated as central narrators, contextual commentators, or occasional tokens within otherwise institutionally dominated narratives. Such analysis would deepen our understanding of the subtler dynamics of representation and voice in contemporary journalism.

References

Akrivos, D. (2022). Transgender reporting in the British press: editorial standards and discursive harms in the post-Leveson era. Journal Of Media Law, 14(2), 406–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2153216

Arnold, S., & O’Brien, A. (2022). Imagining diversity. Alphaville Journal Of Film And Screen Media, 24, 32–48. https://doi.org/10.33178/alpha.24.02

Bailey, A., & Jones, L. (2024). The Language of Inclusion and Exclusion in Sports. Google Books. https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=hrbiEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA193&dq=+(Baker,+2020+tabloids+frames+trans+&ots=NQJvYeqw6g&sig=L9-XJxblFSLzVTKl3tjIw3SuHxU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Billard, T. J., Abbott, T. B., Haimson, O. L., Whipple, K. N., Whitestone, S. B., & Zhang, E. (2020, 14 augustus). Rethinking (and Retheorizing) Transgender Media Representation: A Roundtable Discussion. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/15592

Billard, T. J., & Zhang, E. (2022). Toward a Transgender Critique of Media Representation. Journal Of Cinema And Media Studies, 61(2), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.2022.0005

Bracco, S. E., Sczesny, S., & Sendén, M. G. (2024). Media Portrayals of Trans and Gender Diverse People: A Comparative Analysis of News Headlines Across Europe. Sex Roles, 90(4), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01461-6

Brennen, T. S. (2023). Breaking rules, forging trust: how to report on communities vulnerable to violence. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/RISJ%20Project_Te%20Shima_MT22_Final.pdf

Capuzza, J. C. (2014). Who Defines Gender Diversity? Sourcing Routines and Representation in Mainstream U.S. News Stories About Transgenderism. International Journal Of Transgenderism, 15(3–4), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2014.946195

Carlson, M. (2009). Dueling, Dancing, or Dominating? Journalists and Their Sources. Sociology Compass, 3(4), 526–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00219.x

Castilla, E. B., Rodríguez, L. T., & Quesada, M. (2014). Political polarization and climate change: The editorial strategies of The New York Times and El País newspapers. Interactions Studies in Communication & Culture, 5(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1386/iscc.5.1.71_1

Coulson-Windebank, M. (2024, 24 april). New research on reporting of trans issues shows 400% increase in coverage and varying perceptions on broader editorial standards – IPSO. IPSO. https://www.ipso.co.uk/news-analysis/new-research-on-reporting-of-trans-issues-shows-400-increase-in-coverage-and-varying-perceptions-on-broader-editorial-standards/

Desjardins, B., & Hepburn, T. (2025). The Gender Agenda’s Agenda: How “Tabloid Media Sensationalist Scumbag[s]” Mobilize Affect to Promote Transphobia. Sociological Inquiry, 95(4), 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.70001

Ellis, S. K., GLAAD, Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, & Ranking Digital Rights. (2023). Social Media Safety Index. In GLAAD. https://assets.glaad.org/m/7adb1180448da194/original/Social-Media-Safety-Index-2023.pdf

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal Of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

Entman, R. M. (2010). Media framing biases and political power: Explaining slant in news of Campaign 2008. Journalism, 11(4), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910367587

Fawzi, N. (2017). Beyond policy agenda-setting: political actors’ and journalists’ perceptions of news media influence across all stages of the political process. Information Communication & Society, 21(8), 1134–1150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2017.1301524

Fraccari, R., Kerrigan, P., Hegarty, A. Q., & Jacob, C. (2024). Gender discontents? The emergence of trans and gender nonconforming experiences in Ireland’s Gay Community News (1988–1998). Journal Of Gender Studies, 34(4), 540–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2024.2401037

Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: Story suitability. Society, 16(3), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02701600

GNM press office. (2025, 11 september). The Guardian Media Group publishes 2024/25 annual report. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/2025/sep/11/the-guardian-media-group-publishes-2020425-annual-report#:~:text=Guardian%20editor%2Din%2Dchief%20Katharine%20Viner%20said%3A&text=The%20Guardian%20is%20now%20supported,readers%20care%20about%20Guardian%20journalism.%E2%80%9D

Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Google Books. https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=954NJChZAGoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=The+UK+press+the+guardian+Hallin+and+Mancini+(2004)+describe+as+the+%E2%80%9CLiberal+model,%E2%80%9D+&ots=iBrl3rXCVk&sig=mGqKGyB0nQ-9yN_0yBmkk959AuI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Indremo, M., Jodensvi, A. C., Arinell, H., Isaksson, J., & Papadopoulos, F. C. (2022). Association of Media Coverage on Transgender Health With Referrals to Child and Adolescent Gender Identity Clinics in Sweden. JAMA Network Open, 5(2), e2146531. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.46531

Johnson, P. R. (2024). A News Literate Journalism: Building a More Sustainable Future for Journalism Practice and Education With News Literacy – ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/eb2646c31a117c0d363166d5707dbde1/1?cbl=18750&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar

Matthes, J. (2011). Framing politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426324

Mitchell, T., & Mitchell, T. (2025, 19 september). Americans’ Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/

Mocarski, R., King, R., Butler, S., Holt, N. R., Huit, T. Z., Hope, D. A., Meyer, H. M., & Woodruff, N. (2019). The Rise of Transgender and Gender Diverse Representation in the Media: Impacts on the Population. Communication Culture And Critique, 12(3), 416–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcz031

Montiel-McCann, C. S. (2022). “It’s like we are not human”: discourses of humanisation and otherness in the representation of trans identity in British broadsheet newspapers. Feminist Media Studies, 23(6), 2962–2978. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2022.2097727

Murphy, R. (2021). Trans* Thinking in Irish Television and Film. Journal Of Popular Film And Television, 49(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01956051.2020.1812043

New York Times. (z.d.). Audience & Insights. https://advertising.nytimes.com/audience-and-insights/

Paulussen, S., & Harder, R. A. (2014). Social media references in newspapers. Journalism Practice, 8(5), 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.894327

Reich, Z. (2010). Source credibility as a journalistic work tool. In Journalists, sources, and credibility. Routledge, 31–48.

Ring, T. (2024, 21 maart). Cable news coverage of 2023 anti-trans bills lacked trans voices: Media Matters. Advocate.com. https://www.advocate.com/media/cable-news-transgender-coverage?utm_s

Silke, H., & Graham, C. (2017). Framing Privatisation: The Dominance of Neoliberal Discourse and the Death of the Public Good. tripleC Communication Capitalism & Critique Open Access Journal For A Global Sustainable Information Society, 15(2), 796–815. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v15i2.804

Skinner, S. R., McLamore, Q., Donaghy, O., Stathis, S., Moore, J. K., Nguyen, T., Rayner, C., Tait, R., Anderson, J., & Pang, K. C. (2023). Recognizing and responding to misleading trans health research. International Journal Of Transgender Health, 25(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2024.2289318

The Irish Times. (z.d.). The Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/about-us/advertise/

Excel coding sheet