The HPV Mandatory Vaccination Controversy: Creating a Frame of Perspective for Public Health Initiatives

Abstract

In June 2006, the vaccine GARDASIL® was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a way to prevent infection from four strains of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) responsible for cervical cancer and genital warts. Less than one year after FDA approval, Texas Governor Rick Perry issued an Executive Order requiring HPV vaccination for girls entering sixth grade as of September 2008. A debate soon emerged regarding state government’s obligation to safeguard the health of its people and the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about matters affecting their health and
their children’s health. Two prominent sides emerged and competed to classify HPV and its causes to support or counter mandatory vaccination. To understand the dynamics of discussions about vaccination policy, this case study applies frame analysis to the central rhetorical texts (Goffman, 1974) shaping the mandatory vaccination debate. In doing so, this case study examines the implications of political framing as a communicative strategy used to legitimize, or delegitimize, particular policy actions to illuminate the types of factors policymakers consider when promoting particular policy actions.