政策敘事的對比：以2013-2019台灣同婚和反同婚為例

Abstract

時代潮流的轉換可能衝擊到既有政策，然而若涉及到價值觀，往往會激起贊成與反對政策變遷的不同立場人士各自集結力量，尋找盟友，試圖影響決策。我國在2013年多元成家法案送進立法院審查，到2019年5月17日三讀通過《司法院釋字第七四八號解釋施行法》，也出現正反兩極的民意衝突，一方想要挑戰既有婚姻政策，另一方極力捍衛民法傳統。 本論文採取政策敘事架構，從中觀層次切入，試圖藉由質性分析的個案研究法，探討台灣社會上贊成與反對同婚的兩群人，如何藉由政策敘事集結成為倡導聯盟，對比雙方如何建構敘事背景、怎樣安排角色、各自有哪些情節，最後引導出的政策解決方案為何。最後探索雙方提出的政策敘事產生的敘事力。 研究發現，我國贊成與反對同性婚姻的人士秉持著彼此矛盾的政策信念，集結成對立的倡導聯盟，雙方的政策敘事從敘事背景、角色、情節一路針鋒相對，提出的政策解決方案也一樣南轅北轍，幾乎無法對話。 我國實務與政策敘事架構學理明顯的差異。原本捍衛既有政策的倡導聯盟應該採取限縮衝突範圍的敘事策略，我國的反同敘事卻反其道而行。2018年公民投票反同方壓倒性獲勝，是其敘事策略成功影響更多選民的結果。 政策敘事架構脫胎於倡導聯盟架構，對於研究如何透過說故事的力量影響民意，讓決策者思考有相當的解釋力。倡導聯盟的政策敘事如何讓決策者採取政策產出，則還有待進一步的學理發展。

Changes over the time may impact existing policies. However, trying to amend policies concerning certain core values often triggers people supporting and opposing policy changes to fight for influencing decision-making by gathering and finding allies. Conflicts of public opinions between the pros and cons also occurred during the debates over the same-sex marriage legalization during 2013 to 2019 in Taiwan. While one party tried to challenge the status quo of the marriage law, the other party vigorously defends the tradition of civil law.

This dissertation adopted the Narrative Policy Framework’s meso-level, using qualitative case study to analyze the pro and against the same-sex marriage legalization in Taiwan, studying how they form advocacy coalitions with policy narratives, the settings, characters, plots, and the moral of the stories in their narratives, as well as the narrativities of each side. The study found out that the pro and against the same-sex marriage legalization holding contradictory policy beliefs gathered into opposite advocacy coalitions. The policy narratives from both sides were diametrically opposed to each other in terms of narrative settings, characters, plots, and the policy solutions, making dialogues almost impossible. There were obvious differences between Taiwan''s practice and the theory of narrative policy framework. The advocacy coalition which tried to defend the existing policies should adopt a narrative strategy to limit the scope of the conflict, but the against LGBTQ narratives went in the opposite direction. The overwhelming victory of the against side in the 2018 referendum was the result of its narrative strategy, which successfully influenced more voters. Emerge from the womb of the advocacy coalition framework, the narrative policy framework can considerably explain how to influence public opinion through the power of storytelling and make decision-makers to reconsider whether or not a policy shall be changed. Yet it requires further academic development to study how exactly do the policy narratives enables policymakers to adopt certain policy outputs.