This thesis provides an analysis of claims about veiling in parliamentary debates between 2007 and 2019. In my research, I have further build on Saharso and Lettinga’s work, who have analyzed...Show moreThis thesis provides an analysis of claims about veiling in parliamentary debates between 2007 and 2019. In my research, I have further build on Saharso and Lettinga’s work, who have analyzed public debates about veiling (1999-2006). Developments of the past fourteen years called for a comprehensive analysis of the use of frames in political debates with an updated framework to see if these developments signify new (clusters of) frames. I have defined five clusters of frames: (1) state-church frames, (2) integration frames, (3) discrimination frames, (4) gender frames, and (5) security frames. Based on a content analysis of parliamentary debates, I conclude that there have been developments in debates about veiling, which signify either new frames or new clusters of frames. Research showed that the use of security frames indeed signifies a new cluster of frames, particularly resonant in burqa debates. Another observation is that the integration, discrimination and gender frames are part of larger debates and, in contrast to the state-church and security frames, cannot be linked to particular debates or specific public realms, neither can they be organized in time. While the discrimination frames seem to be a separate cluster in relation to the integration frames, this does not mean that the integration frames have become less relevant in debates about veiling. Another outcome is that the Judeo-Christian heritage frame is incidentally used in parliamentary debates and does not represent a certain trend or development. Lastly, the state-church frames are still relevant in debates about veiling, particularly in debates about accommodation of headscarves in the police force.Show less
