Christopher M. Weible

Many theories and approaches to policy studies have recently begun to question and research how emotions interact with peoples' understanding and behaviors, especially in policy and politics. This paper builds on and contributes to studying emotions in policy and politics via the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). In applying Emotional‐Belief Analysis, this paper examines the legislative testimony on one of the US' first gender‐affirming care (GAC) bans. It shows that those testifying can be organized in competing advocacy coalitions with distinct emotion‐belief expressions in combination with deep core and policy core beliefs. Moreover, expressions of negative emotions and policy core beliefs display significant and the largest effects in explaining coalition affiliation and shared views of the bill banning GAC. The conclusion summarizes the paper's empirical themes with suggestions for incorporating emotions more into the ACF and the broader policy studies field.