Framing Migration: A Computational Analysis of UK Parliamentary Discourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.14197v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 17:31:57 GMT
• Title: Framing Migration: A Computational Analysis of UK Parliamentary Discourse
• Authors: Vahid Ghafouri, Robert McNeil, Teodor Yankov, Madeleine Sumption, Luc Rocher, Scott A. Hale, Adam Mahdi,
• Abstract summary: We analyse migration-related discourse in UK parliamentary debates spanning over 75 years.<n>Using open-weight LLMs, we annotate each statement with high-level stances toward migrants.<n>We track the net tone toward migrants across time and political parties.
• Score: 5.95326662995992
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We present a large-scale computational analysis of migration-related discourse in UK parliamentary debates spanning over 75 years and compare it with US congressional discourse. Using open-weight LLMs, we annotate each statement with high-level stances toward migrants and track the net tone toward migrants across time and political parties. For the UK, we extend this with a semi-automated framework for extracting fine-grained narrative frames to capture nuances of migration discourse. Our findings show that, while US discourse has grown increasingly polarised, UK parliamentary attitudes remain relatively aligned across parties, with a persistent ideological gap between Labour and the Conservatives, reaching its most negative level in 2025. The analysis of narrative frames in the UK parliamentary statements reveals a shift toward securitised narratives such as border control and illegal immigration, while longer-term integration-oriented frames such as social integration have declined. Moreover, discussions of national law about immigration have been replaced over time by international law and human rights, revealing nuances in discourse trends. Taken together broadly, our findings demonstrate how LLMs can support scalable, fine-grained discourse analysis in political and historical contexts.

Related papers

• Integrating Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs to Capture Political Viewpoints in News Media [3.509771256227556]
  We develop a pipeline to identify the range of viewpoints expressed about a given topic.<n>We also enrich claim representations with semantic descriptions drawn from Wikidata.<n>We evaluate our approach against alternative solutions on a benchmark centred on the UK immigration debate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-16T20:10:55Z)
• The "Right" Discourse on Migration: Analysing Migration-Related Tweets in Right and Far-Right Political Movements [1.9744211364731628]
  We propose a methodology to analyse the MIGR-TWIT corpus of far-right tweets in English and French.<n>We aim to uncover patterns of discourse surrounding migration, hate speech, and persuasion techniques employed by right and far-right actors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T07:45:18Z)
• Latent Topic Synthesis: Leveraging LLMs for Electoral Ad Analysis [51.95395936342771]
  We introduce an end-to-end framework for automatically generating an interpretable topic taxonomy from an unlabeled corpus.<n>We apply this framework to a large corpus of Meta political ads from the month ahead of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.<n>Our approach uncovers latent discourse structures, synthesizes semantically rich topic labels, and annotates topics with moral framing dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T20:30:20Z)
• LLM Analysis of 150+ years of German Parliamentary Debates on Migration Reveals Shift from Post-War Solidarity to Anti-Solidarity in the Last Decade [17.8054316171213]
  Migration has been a core topic in German political debate.<n>Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to partially automate even complex annotation tasks.<n>We evaluate the influence of model size, prompting differences, fine-tuning, historical versus contemporary data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T23:16:03Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• Social media polarization reflects shifting political alliances in Pakistan [44.99833362998488]
  Spanning from 2018 to 2022, our analysis of Twitter data allows us to capture pivotal shifts and developments in Pakistan's political arena. By examining interactions and content generated by politicians affiliated with major political parties, we reveal a consistent and active presence of politicians on Twitter. Our analysis also uncovers significant shifts in political affiliations, including the transition of politicians to the opposition alliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T00:07:48Z)
• XAI in Computational Linguistics: Understanding Political Leanings in the Slovenian Parliament [4.721944974277117]
  The work covers the development and explainability of machine learning models for predicting political leanings through parliamentary transcriptions. We concentrate on the Slovenian parliament and the heated debate on the European migrant crisis, with transcriptions from 2014 to 2020. We develop both classical machine learning and transformer language models to predict the left- or right-leaning of parliamentarians based on their given speeches on the topic of migrants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-08T11:19:21Z)
• Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? [88.35520051971538]
  We investigate the opinions reflected by language models (LMs) by leveraging high-quality public opinion polls and their associated human responses. We find substantial misalignment between the views reflected by current LMs and those of US demographic groups. Our analysis confirms prior observations about the left-leaning tendencies of some human feedback-tuned LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:17:08Z)
• Beyond Digital "Echo Chambers": The Role of Viewpoint Diversity in Political Discussion [24.49418802276767]
  We operationalize two viewpoint metrics proposed for recommender systems and adapt them to the context of social media conversations. We find that while pro-immigrant views receive consistent pushback on the platform, anti-immigrant views largely operate within echo chambers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-18T10:18:15Z)
• Multi-aspect Multilingual and Cross-lingual Parliamentary Speech Analysis [1.759288298635146]
  We apply advanced NLP methods to a joint and comparative analysis of six national parliaments between 2017 and 2020. We analyze emotions and sentiment in the transcripts from the ParlaMint dataset collection. The results show some commonalities and many surprising differences among the analyzed countries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-03T14:31:32Z)
• DEBACER: a method for slicing moderated debates [55.705662163385966]
  Partitioning debates into blocks with the same subject is essential for understanding. We propose a new algorithm, DEBACER, which partitions moderated debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-10T10:39:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.