Faith, Freedom, and Frameworks: Social Work Education and the Policy Discourse of Texas SB 8

Background and Purpose

The Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards define policy practice as a core competency and require that pre-service social workers demonstrate proficiency in anti-racist practice. Supporting students in developing anti-racist policy practice competency requires an understanding of how structural oppression is employed by political actors through ordinary/neutral language. Since the adoption of these standards, the U.S. federal government and various state legislatures have enacted policies that target anti-racist education and threaten social justice. Texas is emblematic of this new policy regime and has become a focal point in national debates over race, governance, and civil rights, with recent policies reinforcing oppression through legislative means. Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected and exemplifies how state policymaking operates as violence against marginalized identities. In this study, we apply Critical Race Theory (CRT) to examine the legislative text of Texas SB 8 as a tool of White supremacy and structural violence. Our study contributes to growing scholarship on the role of legal discourse in sustaining socially unjust state power.

Methods

Thematic analysis was used to identify themes in the language of and discourse surrounding SB 8. Data sources included the text of SB 8, the legislative record of the debates for each reading of the bill in each house, and the reports from the committees of jurisdiction. Coding occurred iteratively, with multiple coders finding alignment in their emerging code schemas. The use of multiple data sources and coders served as a method of triangulation, thereby bolstering the validity and reliability of our findings.

Results

Grounded in CRT, we find two dominant rhetorical strategies used by both advocates and opponents of SB 8: theocratic moralism and individual rights-based liberalism. Supporters framed the bill using religious language, positioning state intervention as morally and divinely justified. This aligns with White Christian nationalist ideologies that normalize racialized state control and obscure systemic harm. Opponents primarily relied on liberal narratives centered on individual autonomy and choice. These arguments emphasized freedom from government interference but did not address the policy’s disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. CRT critiques this rights-based liberalism for reinforcing racial hierarchies by focusing on procedural fairness while overlooking structural inequality. Ultimately, both sides operated within hegemonic discourses that failed to name or disrupt the racialized foundations of SB 8. Our findings reinforce CRT’s central claim: racism is sustained not only through laws, but also through the ordinary language of policymaking.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that, for social issues, explicit appeals to theocratic beliefs and individual rights-based liberalism are necessary for combating structural oppression. Therefore, to meet CSWE’s anti-racist policy practice expectations, social work education must go beyond traditional policy analysis and engage students in examining how power and white supremacy are reproduced through the language of legislation. Our findings uplift the urgency of preparing students to critically examine how policy discourse operates within and reproduces White supremacy and limits social justice.