Reproducing Inequality through Neoliberal-Ableist Discourse: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Ontario Disability Support Program Policy Directives for Employment Supports

Introduction
Since the 1990s, Canadian social policy has been increasingly shaped by neoliberal ideologies that emphasize market citizenship—where social rights are granted based on an individual’s economic productivity and labor force participation. Within this context, the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) promotes employment as a central strategy for social integration and economic independence for people with disabilities. However, the policy’s framing raises concerns about how language and ideology construct disability, responsibility, and citizenship. This study examines how the ODSP employment supports policy reflects and reproduces the intertwined ideologies of neoliberalism and ableism, ultimately marginalizing individuals who cannot meet narrow definitions of productivity and employability.

Methods
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) interrogates how discourse constructs and maintains power and ideology. This study adopts Norman Fairclough’s dialectical-relational approach to examine how ODSP policy directives construct knowledge, power, and social relations. This framework investigates both textual and contextual elements to understand how policy language legitimizes dominant ideologies. The analysis focuses on key sections of the ODSP employment supports directives—such as program eligibility, client responsibilities, and service provider roles—to reveal how discourse frames disability and citizenship within neoliberal-ableist assumptions.

Findings
The analysis reveals that ODSP policy constructs disability primarily through a biomedical lens, attributing employment barriers to individuals’ impairments rather than recognizing broader systemic obstacles such as racism, poverty, and inaccessible workplaces. Applicants must demonstrate readiness for competitive employment by proving stable health, housing, and motivation—criteria that reinforce ableist assumptions and overlook intersecting social disadvantages. The policy language emphasizes self-sufficiency and economic independence, constructing ‘active citizenship’ as contingent upon paid employment and individual accountability. Furthermore, the policy assigns significant power to professionals—such as ODSP workers and service providers—who assess eligibility and determine employability, reinforcing hierarchical power relations. People with disabilities are thus required to prove their worthiness while being denied agency in defining their own needs and capacities. Those who do not meet the employment criteria are framed as “others”—unproductive, unmotivated, or dependent—and excluded from full participation in society. The frequent use of terms like “avoid duplication of services” reflects a neoliberal push for austerity and cost-efficiency over inclusive and supportive care.

Conclusion
This study demonstrates how ODSP employment policy embeds neoliberal and ableist ideologies that reinforce social exclusion and economic inequality. By prioritizing market participation and individual responsibility, the policy marginalizes disabled individuals who face structural barriers beyond their control. The directives neglect intersectional identities—such as race, gender, immigration status, and age—that compound marginalization in the labor market. To move toward a more equitable framework, disability employment policy must shift from a biomedical and neoliberal model to one informed by the social model of disability and principles of social justice. This research urges policymakers, social workers, and advocates to critically examine the discursive strategies embedded in disability policies and to challenge the systems that perpetuate oppression and exclusion.