Author Type

Graduate Student

Date of Award

Summer 7-9-2026

Document Type

Dissertation

Publication Status

Version of Record

Submission Date

July 2026

Department

Curriculum, Culture, and Educational Inquiry

College Granting Degree

College of Education

Department Granting Degree

Curriculum and Instruction

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Thesis/Dissertation Advisor [Chair]

Dilys Schoorman

Abstract

This study is contextualized in the growing wave of book challenges targeting LGBTQ+ inclusive picture books in public schools, examining how these decisions are shaped by policy, language, and ideology. While national data document the scale of book bans, less is known about how these policies are interpreted and enacted at the local level, where their impact is most directly felt. This research addresses that gap by analyzing how one Florida school district, Escambia County Public Schools, responds to challenges under recent state legislation.

Using Critical Policy Discourse Analysis, this qualitative case study investigates how Florida’s state laws such as the “Parental Rights in Education Act” of 2022 [HB 1557], commonly known as the “Don’t Say Gay” law; the “K-12 Education Act” of 2022 [HB 1467], commonly known as the “Curriculum Transparency” law; and the “Education Act” of 2023 [HB 1069], commonly known as the “Don’t Say Gay Expansion”, are translated into district-level practices. The study draws on publicly available documents including challenge forms, advisory committee recommendations, school board meeting transcripts, and final decisions, to trace the trajectory of book challenges from complaint to resolution. The analysis examines how language constructs certain books and identities as problems, how “common sense” narratives such as children and parental rights are mobilized, and how these discourses shape decision-making.

Findings reveal that censorship operates not only through formal policy, but through discursive framing of LGBTQ+ content as inappropriate or harmful. Vague policy language enables wide variation in interpretation, allowing local actors to enact exclusionary practices while maintaining the appearance of neutrality. These dynamics contribute to a broader chilling effect, where educators and librarians engage in self-censorship to avoid risk. As a result, LGBTQ+ identities are marginalized not only through book removal, but through the narrowing of what is considered acceptable knowledge in schools.

By illuminating how policy, discourse, and power intersect at the district level, this study offers insight into the mechanisms driving contemporary book bans. It contributes to scholarship on censorship and educational policy, providing a framework for understanding how language shapes access, representation, and belonging in public education.

Download

Share

COinS