Análise dialógica da argumentação na nota técnica da Anajure: a polêmica em torno de Rosa Weber sobre o aborto (ADPF 442)

Abstract

This dissertation analyzes the controversy sparked by Justice Rosa Weber’s vote in the Allegation of Violation of a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 442, which favored the decriminalization of abortion up to the 12th week of pregnancy (September 2023). The corpus consists of the “Technical Note on Justice Rosa Weber’s vote,” published by the National Association of Evangelical Jurists (Anajure), which directly opposes the Justice’s position. The general objective is to analyze how this discursive clash is configured through the lens of Dialogic Analysis of Argumentation (DAA), as developed by Nascimento (2018b)—a perspective that articulates Bakhtin’s Dialogism with Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric. Methodologically, the research identifies the antagonistic discursive fields (“pro-life” and “pro-choice”), examines the incompatible axiological hierarchies that underpin them, and mobilizes Hirschman’s (1991) typology of reactionary rhetoric to reveal the structural logic of the discourse. The results demonstrate that, although the Note presents itself as a technical-legal analysis, it operates fundamentally within the realm of morality, translating theological convictions into secular language. The central finding is that Anajure’s entire argumentation is subordinate to the "perverse effect" argument: the claim that decriminalization will produce consequences opposite to those intended, favoring aggressors instead of protecting women. The research concludes that the controversy is not configured as a technical divergence over constitutional interpretation, but as a confrontation between mutually exclusive worldviews, evidencing how polemical events in the legal field reflect and refract deep value-based tensions within Brazilian society.