REPRESENTATION OF PAKISTAN, IRAN AND SAUDI ARABIA IN UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSIONS: A COMPARATIVE FRAMING PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

Framing refers to the construction of opinion by assigning meaning to reality. Framing studies, in general, are important to provide meaning to an event or phenomenon. Framing in political discourse plays a crucial role in influencing an individual’s understanding of issues and events. The present study examines the types of frames employed in political discourse and especially how these particular frames are used by state representatives to serve their national interests. Purposive Sampling method is used and the speeches delivered by representatives of Muslim majority countries, e.g., Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia in United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session, from 2020 to 2024, are taken as a sample for this study. This study follows the deductive approach of framing for content analysis of UNGA speeches and builds on the media framing theory proposed by Boydstun, et al., (2014) in their work “Tracking the Development of Media Frames within and across Policy Issues”. Speeches are analyzed for recurrent themes and frames to explore the typology of frames are used in the speeches of Muslim majority countries. The findings reveal that Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia employ security & defense, fairness & equality, constitutionality & jurisprudence, economic, morality and policy prescription frames frequently. State representatives strategically link various themes in UNGA speeches to promote their national interests, often emphasizing regional stability, economic leadership, religious custodianship, and global cooperation. The comparative framing analysis emphasizes how UNGA speeches are used as a strategic tool to shape international perceptions, legitimize national policies, and expand alliances globally. The use of specific framing choices reflects broader ideological stances and aligns with their respective foreign policy goals.