Abstract

The factual existence of deep disagreements has an unclear status in the lite-rature. On the one hand, some authors claim that deep disagreements exist in practice, arguing that the parties involved will use non-rational persuasion tactics to resolve the disagreement. On the other hand, some argue that deep disagreements are only theoretically possible because practical constraints will push the parties to find rational ways to resolve the disagreement. This article empirically investigates the factual existence of deep disagreements by analyzing parliamentary debates on abortion. The analysis results do not allow us to determine whether the debates examined are cases of deep disagreement but rather question whether the distinction between rational argumentation and non-rational persuasion tactics is explanatorily relevant for investigating deep disagreements.