Exit Interview is an audio series produced by the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. Co-hosts David Mayorga, associate dean of public affairs and communications, and Ambreen Ali, senior communications and media strategist, speak with graduating students who won prizes for their senior theses, which are the culmination of a year’s worth of research, interviews, and analysis on a policy topic.

Lexi Madsen won the School of Public and International Affairs Thesis Prize, awarded to the seniors who write the best thesis on racial justice, for her work on what happened to abortion rights after the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, returning the issue to individual states.

Listen now:
 

The transcript below was auto-generated.

Intro: This is Ambreen Ali, and this is David Mayorga. You're listening to Exit Interview, a conversation with Princeton SPIA graduates about their senior year research.

Lexi Madsen: My name is Lexi Madsen. I am from New York City, and my major was SPIA.

Ambreen Ali: Wonderful. Okay, so let's hear about your thesis, just in your own words. Tell us what it was about. 

LM: To put it broadly, I would say that my thesis was about what's happening with abortion rights after Dobbs, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. So instead of now there being a federal constitutional protection for abortion, it's been actively devolved back to the state. So I was really interested in what was happening at the ground level, and how people were shifting abortion policy from the ground up. So I looked at state-level ballot initiatives, specifically in Ohio, Kansas, and Missouri, and I examined the various components contributing to these initiatives. So what actually happens with a citizen-led petition? How you get it on the ballot, the signature requirement, the geographic distribution rules, et cetera, what their campaign strategies were. So I analyzed a lot of campaign messaging to see what the overall themes were, and then also if voter turnout changed through the demographic shifts that these ballot initiatives might have led to. So I was really interested in how people are now using direct democracy through the form of ballot initiatives to protect or restore abortion access in their states.

AA: Amazing. So what drew you to this topic? How did you get to being so curious about this?

LM: So I think I've always been interested in the topic of abortion, just because I see it as a fundamental issue of women's rights and healthcare access more broadly. But in my junior research seminar in the fall of last year, I took the seminar titled "Women, Gender, and Policy," which was taught by Dr. McConnaughy, who actually became my thesis advisor this year. And we delved into a lot of different facets of abortion, the abortion movement, what that policy looked like. And I ended up writing my first junior paper on SB 8 in Texas, which was, at the time, the most restrictive state-level abortion bill. It banned abortion after the detection of fetal cardiac activity, which is around five to six weeks, and before most women know they're even pregnant. So I looked at the consequences of this bill, and the demographic variation of who was actually able to access abortion, so in neighboring states and whatnot. And I would say that my thesis kind of built off of that. From doing that initial work, I was really interested in this idea of who actually gets to access abortion, if it's banned or highly restricted in your state. So I wanted to see what was happening now, because this was my junior paper focused on pre-Dobbs, so I wanted to see how that shifted now, especially with there just being access deserts for abortion, and what people were doing to kind of fight this tight regulation that's happening now. But at the core, I think I was just interested in what happens when fundamental rights become politically uncertain, and then abortion specifically, because I personally just really care about it as a woman, as a young woman, specifically. So yeah, I would say that it started with this junior paper, but it's always been an interest and a passion of mine.

AA: Tell me why you picked the three states that you ended up focusing on. 

LM: So that was actually a long process. I have a whole notebook where I just have scribbles of different states that have had abortion ballot initiatives after Dobbs. And I was trying to figure out which I wanted to choose. I chose these three. They happened in 2022, '23, and '24, so I want to see if there was any shift. I was really interested in the different years to see if it got more complex and whatnot. But at the end of the day, it was also very much about which states had data available on them. I would say that was very restrictive, because this is so recent, a lot of states don't have voter turnout data available yet, or they don't have the demographic breakdown or whatnot. I started with public-opinion data about abortion from the National Election Survey, and I was interested in which states had similar turnouts for these public opinions and voting on the bill. So I go, I would compare that, see where there was variation, what the history of abortion laws looked like in that specific state. And I landed on these three because I think they all had, for lack of a better phrasing, rich histories with abortion regulation throughout time. And then also had really interesting public-opinion data where it wasn't just straight, it wasn't stagnant, it kind of fluctuated over time, and that also led to some interesting analysis, I would say, because that changed it and changed in response to a lot of laws and bills they passed. So I land on these three. You could say that it was somewhat random at a certain point, but I think that they ended up being rich case studies to analyze what I was looking for with this.

AA: And the three states, Kansas, Ohio, and Missouri, are also different from one another, right? They offered kind of a point of comparison. Can you talk a little bit about that and how each of them maybe presented a different lens on this issue?

LM: With Missouri, so that's the last one, the most recent one I analyzed, that was in the 2024 election, and that one had the least support for abortion. So I looked at this question of, do you support or oppose? And then the question was, always allow women to obtain an abortion as a matter of choice, and in Ohio and Kansas over time, especially after Dobbs, it grew significantly in favor of support. But with Missouri in 2023-'24, it was only around 54-55%, so that specifically was that state was more hesitant, I would say for abortion access to vote in favor of that. So I was really interested in how a highly restrictive state would approach a pro-abortion ballot initiative. Also, I looked a little bit into what was happening in Missouri. I would say Missouri, as I just said, was really reluctant for legalization of abortion. It was completely banned prior to this ballot initiative, but after, it stalled in courts, and it took a while to even implement this. So I would say that was unique, because even though this ballot initiative was passed, it didn't necessarily guarantee that it was going to be implemented. Kansas was unique and particularly interesting to me, because it was actually placed on the ballot by the legislature. It was an anti-abortion ballot initiative, which I kind of treated as a pro-abortion win, just for the sake of cohesion throughout my thesis. But that was especially interesting because it won with high margins, and no one expected it to. That was a huge victory for abortion rights in the country. So I wanted to look more at that, and why something that was expected to win by so much actually lost 59%. 59% of people voted no. So that was different, because it wasn't actually-citizen initiated, but it showed that people can rally together to defeat the anti-abortion coalitions trying to ban it entirely. And then Ohio, I would say there was a little bit less nuance there, but it was still very interesting, because it was one of the first decisions in 2023. I would say it followed similar patterns to the other two, or to Kansas, at least. But it kind of showed that over time, I would say this public opinion specifically trended very heavily towards support of abortion access, following 2013 around there, I believe it was, so I would say that was interesting to really show that there is a correlation between people's voting patterns and public opinion on how they have they view abortion access and abortion legalization.

AA: So did you learn anything that surprised you or challenged or assumptions going into this?

LM: I would say I did learn a lot that challenged my assumptions. I approached this topic, which I hate to admit, but with little knowledge about what was happening at the state level. I would obviously see the news headlines and read articles about abortion win here, ballot initiative passed there, but I didn't know the actual intricacies of how people organize and what these campaigns look like, so I learned a lot about that. I think the thing that surprised me most, especially about Ohio and Missouri, was the citizen-led ballot initiative petition process, how people tried to raise thresholds. People try to raise signature thresholds or geographic distribution rules. And I think I was, I wouldn't say, surprised, because I think it made sense to me with politicians and government interfering in these kinds of things, but I think I was surprised how much they had to overcome to actually even get this on the ballot in the first place. There was so much happening before it even made its way there. You had to have really intricate organizing. You had to have people willing to help, volunteers. You had to go to different counties. And I think that that kind of surprised me, because I didn't know about it. I grew up in New York City. I've lived in New Jersey for college. This isn't something I'd come face to face with, really, aside from reading about it, but I thought it was interesting and really admirable how much work these people put in from the ground up to even get this in front of voters. So I would say that was one of the more surprising things I learned. Because, I think if you don't need to know about these different processes, you don't need to know them. And I think reading about that, not even in the three states I chose, but any state, I did a lot of reading into Florida and how they raised the threshold to 60% and just learning about that, I think was very informative and helpful to know what it actually takes to even get this in front of the mass public. So I think that that was the most surprising to me.

AA: So has working on your thesis changed the way you think about what you're going to do next? 

LM: I'm going to work as a legislative assistant at a law firm. And I've always been interested and kind of known that I wanted to pursue law in some capacity. And I think that working on this and researching this topic has really reaffirmed that that's something I'm interested in doing. While I focused a lot on politics and politicians and what not, I think that actually reading these different laws and learning about the intricacies behind them has reinforced for me that this is something I want to do with my future. I would love to be involved in some kind of lawmaking. I definitely do not want to go into politics, but I think it definitely helped me realize that this is something that I am passionate about and would like to pursue further. Just not sure what that exactly looks like.

AA: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm curious what you thought was the hardest part of, kind of the whole process of putting your thesis together. And kind of connected to that, what kind of advice would you give someone who's about to start the thesis process this fall? You know, for incoming seniors.

LM: For advice, I think one thing I would say to incoming seniors is that your thesis doesn't necessarily have to be perfect per se, but it should be something that you're proud of. I genuinely enjoyed researching and writing mine because this was a topic I was passionate about and eager to learn more about. So when I was writing it, it felt less like a chore and more like an experience for further learning. If it's something that you care about, I think the process becomes a whole lot easier and more enjoyable and more meaningful. I would say, I think the hard part for me was finding data to work with. I think that that's really challenging. I went through probably two or three different topics before I landed on this one, I initially approached this process thinking I wanted to write about the rise of single-issue abortion voters, but when combing through the data, it was just really insignificant how many people listed that as their top choice when compared to the economy, for example. So I think that was definitely really hard, first narrowing down what you actually want to research, having a specific interest, rather than a really broad frame, which was a big challenge for me, if you ask my thesis advisor. But then also, once you know what you want to write about, being able to have the empirics to ground your research. I think that was definitely really challenging. But again, once you figure out all the logistics and what not, I think that the writing for me was super meaningful. I learned a lot. I feel much more educated about this. I'm really grateful for the opportunity to have worked on this, and to have worked with my thesis advisor, who's very knowledgeable about this topic, and just learn from her as well.

AA: That's great. Thank you so much, Lexi for your time, and congratulations on finishing this thesis and graduating.

LM: Well, thank you very much for organizing this.