The Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in the Greek Media: Political Spectacle over Substance—A Peace Journalism Analysis

Abstract

Millions of LGBTQ+ individuals worldwide continue to face discrimination that affects their rights, opportunities, and everyday lives. In Greece, one of the most debated public issues in recent years has been the legalization of civil marriage for same-sex couples. Media plays a crucial role in shaping public perceptions, often reinforcing stereotypes and societal biases. This paper examines Greek media coverage of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Greece in February 2024, through a peace journalism lens. Using quantitative content analysis, the study analyzes a sample of news stories from the online editions of five Greek media outlets representing a range of political orientations. The analysis applied a broad set of criteria, including the presence or absence of LGBTQ+ voices, conflict framing, and lack of context or solutions, to assess how the issue was framed. Findings indicate a heavy reliance on official sources, with limited or no representation of LGBTQ+ individuals and their lived experiences. The framing often emphasized conflict and controversy, while about one-fifth of the stories portrayed same-sex marriage as a threat to traditional Greek family values and Christian norms. Such coverage hinders visibility, understanding, and the inclusion of LGBTQ+ identities in public discourse.

1. Introduction

On 15 February 2024, Greece legalized same-sex marriage, marking a historic moment celebrated by the LGBTQ+ community. The new law, which made Greece the first Orthodox Christian-majority country to legalize same-sex marriage, also granted same-sex couples the legal right to adopt children. While welcomed by many as a milestone for equality, the decision also sparked significant backlash. Supporters of the Orthodox Church, holding crosses, reading prayers, and singing Bible passages, held protest rallies in Athens, expressing concerns about the law’s impact on traditional Greek values. Although the bill required only a simple majority in the 300-seat parliament, it ignited nationwide debate and exposed deep societal divisions. The influential Orthodox Church, which continues to play a prominent role in public life due to the absence of a formal separation between church and state in Greece, led the resistance, with Archbishop Ieronymos warning that the new law would “corrupt the country’s social cohesion”. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who championed the bill, described it as a bold step to “abolish a serious inequality”. However, he had to rely on support from opposition parties to secure its passage, as many MPs from his own conservative, center-right party voted against it.

Media play a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly for individuals who lack direct contact with queer communities (Joyce & Harwood, 2014). In such cases, media exposure can function as a substitute or extension of real-life interaction, influencing attitudes and beliefs (Schiappa et al., 2006; Sink & Mastro, 2017; Jacobs & Meeusen, 2021). As a result, the nature, tone, and diversity of LGBTQ+ representations in the media can significantly impact societal understanding, either by reinforcing stereotypes and stigma or by promoting empathy and inclusion.

While earlier studies have examined stereotypical portrayals of LGBTQ+ individuals or overt bias against them, this study goes further by applying peace journalism not only to identify representational imbalances but also to assess journalistic practices, such as sourcing patterns (e.g., reliance solely on official sources versus the inclusion of activists and experts), the presence or absence of marginalized voices and human-interest narratives, and the degree of emphasis on human rights-based solutions and institutional inequalities, that often go unnoticed. Within this context, peace journalism serves not only as a diagnostic tool, revealing how these issues are actually covered, but also as a normative framework for inclusive and socially responsible reporting, offering a vision of what fair and inclusive media coverage of LGBTQ+ issues could, and should, look like in practice.

In light of the above, this paper seeks to address the following questions: How was the legalization of same-sex marriage portrayed in the Greek media? And what theoretical tools can help us understand these representations? How does the political orientation of Greek media outlets influence the framing of same-sex marriage? To explore these questions, the study applies framing theory and peace journalism as analytical frameworks, using a quantitative content analysis of 150 news stories published between January and February 2024 across five online Greek media outlets. In this context, framing refers to the interpretative lens, whether aligned with peace or conflict journalism, through which the selected media outlets covered the issue. Additionally, this study adapts the peace journalism model previously applied to the mediated representation of migration (Kalfeli et al., 2020) to examine the portrayal of LGBTQ+ issues, thereby offering a broader and comparative research perspective. This effort not only extends the application of peace journalism beyond war, conflict, and migration coverage but also enriches the analytical criteria used in content analysis of media portrayals of LGBTQ+ individuals. We argue that this revised model provides researchers with a more comprehensive analytical tool, one that moves beyond traditional stereotypical and counter-stereotypical frameworks, and deepens the understanding of how LGBTQ+ identities are represented in the media.

The following sections begin by reviewing key studies that have explored media representations of LGBTQ+ issues, with particular attention to the coverage of same-sex marriage legalization. The paper then introduces the main principles and recent developments in peace journalism, detailing its foundational elements. Afterward, the study’s research methodology is outlined, followed by a discussion of the findings, which shed light on emerging challenges in news reporting of LGBTQ+ topics.

2. Literature Review

Academic research on media portrayals of the LGBTQ+ community has consistently demonstrated that non-heteronormative identities have been subjected to marginalization, stereotyping, and symbolic annihilation. As Bell and Keer (2021) emphasize, the history of LGBTQ+ people has been closely shaped by media representations over the past century, ranging from invisibility to stereotyping, ridicule, and moral panic, shaping both public perceptions and LGBTQ+ self-understandings. These longstanding representational patterns continue to have real-world consequences today, as recent evidence shows that negative representations are linked to increased suicidal ideation and self-harm risk among LGBTQ+ youth, underscoring the urgent mental health implications of exclusionary media narratives (Clark et al., 2024). That being said, earlier works, such as those by Gross (2001) and Sender (2004), identified a persistent lack of diverse LGBTQ+ representation in mainstream media. Gross (2001), in particular, argued that LGBTQ+ people have historically been either absent from or misrepresented in U.S. media, highlighting that even when present, their portrayals have often been confined to stereotypes or marginal roles. In a similar vein, Moscowitz (2010) showed that, much like in early film and television, gays and lesbians in the news were routinely criminalized and depicted as mentally ill, sexual perverts, and radical activists who were framed as threats to the social order. This pattern of delegitimization persists across various contemporary media systems. In Indonesia, for example, a recent study shows that media coverage frequently links LGBTQ+ individuals to sexually motivated crime, staging police raids as spectacles and circulating sensational images that blur the lines between sex, crime, and entertainment, making LGBTQ+ people seem like outsiders who do not belong in public life (Hegarty, 2022). A parallel study of Malaysian online newspapers further illustrates this dynamic, showing that coverage mostly focused on negative portrayals of LGBTQ+ people, relied heavily on government sources, and largely ignored the voices of activists and community advocates (Ting et al., 2021).

At the same time, media representations are not uniform across global contexts. Comparative research in Sweden, the UK, and Italy further demonstrates that media representations of trans and gender diverse (TGD) people vary significantly depending on each country’s level of legal protection and social acceptance, highlighting fewer negative or objectifying portrayals in more gender-egalitarian contexts (Bracco et al., 2024). Alongside these trends, alternative media spaces have also emerged. In the Turkish media ecosystem, queer podcasts have emerged as alternative platforms for visibility and community-building, offering intimate spaces for storytelling, information, and representation that challenge mainstream media’s exclusions (Tufan & Şenyüz, 2023).

At the same time, as Barnhurst (2007) and Moscowitz (2020) argue, increased visibility does not necessarily equate to progress, as it frequently reinforces oversimplified narratives. Building on this argument, Sender (2004) critiques the commercialization of gay identity, noting that media representations frequently prioritize advertiser-friendly depictions—typically white, middle-class, cisgender gay men—while excluding lesbians, transgender individuals, and LGBTQ+ people of color. This lack of nuanced representation in media not only shaped public perceptions but also intersected with broader sociopolitical agendas, which utilized media narratives to reinforce anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment.

An important historical example in this regard comes from the 1970s in the United States, when Anita Bryant, a former Miss America, celebrity singer, and self-identified Christian mother, became the public face of the Christian Right’s hateful “Save Our Children” campaign. This movement succeeded in striking down a local equal rights ordinance in Dade County, Florida, which had aimed to protect gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination in housing and employment. The campaign was framed as a matter of protecting the children against “moral decay”, fueling moral panic and legitimizing anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment under the guise of securing family values. Despite the significant media attention that this issue received back then, most mainstream newspapers remained hesitant to engage with LGBTQ+ issues or amplify queer voices, contributing to a clear imbalance in representation. The limited reporting that did occur frequently portrayed gay activism as a threat; that is, as a politically powerful force endangering the nuclear family and eroding traditional American values (Moscowitz, 2020).

In recent years, the number of LGBTQ+ representations has increased significantly across various media platforms. Indeed, findings from different parts of the world suggest that, between 2010 and 2020, mainstream media coverage of LGBTQ+ individuals steadily increased, which may be seen as a positive signal of growing visibility, representation, and public discussion in mainstream media (Jacobs & Meeusen, 2021; Ng et al., 2024). In Spain, for instance, content analysis of online-only opinion journalism shows a shift toward greater visibility and pluralism in coverage of feminist and LGBTQ+ issues, reflecting both the rise of left-leaning digital outlets and a growing wave of feminist activism (Pineda et al., 2020). However, as Moscowitz (2020) notes, these expanding, yet often problematic, portrayals have emerged within the broader context of evolving, though still contested, LGBTQ+ civil rights, including struggles over marriage equality.

Over the past decades, progress has indeed been made with regard to equal rights for LGBTQ+ people, such as the legalization of same-sex marriage and adoption rights, and the fight against sexual discrimination has moved high on the political agenda (Jacobs & Meeusen, 2021). Still, this quantitative growth in representation has not always translated into qualitative progress. In fiction, for instance, gay characters are still often portrayed as dying, taking their own lives, ending up alone, or living unhappily. In news reporting, increased visibility has often been met with conservative backlash, including accusations that LGBTQ+ individuals are “taking over the media” and undermining traditional societal values (Moscowitz, 2010). As recent scholarship has noted, visibility itself can become a double-edged sword, offering symbolic inclusion while masking persistent inequalities and excluding more complex realities of LGBTQ+ lives (Moscowitz, 2010; Jacobs & Meeusen, 2021). In the 2000s, while gay and lesbian sources were more likely to be directly cited or quoted in news stories than they were in the 1990s, the polarization of gay issues in news reports also resulted in the amplification of homophobic rhetoric from antigay sources (Billings et al., 2015). Moreover, media narratives often celebrate what appears to be a post-gay rights era, assuming that civil rights struggles have been won and equality achieved.

The result is a culture eager to consume the images of gay life, yet all too reluctant to embrace the complexities and lived realities of LGBTQ+ identities. At the same time, the media often presents LGBTQ+ issues in ways that support dominant ideas about gender and sexuality, rather than questioning them. Even when LGBTQ+ voices are included, they’re often used to show that gay people are “just like straight people”, which promotes acceptance but discourages deeper change or resistance to inequality (Barnhurst, 2007).

Same-sex love has historically been scarce and largely invisible in mainstream media, a trend that continues today, across both fictional narratives and news coverage. When queer relationships do appear, they are frequently framed through lenses of sadness and tragic endings, with a noticeable absence of physical affection. In fiction, queer characters are often relegated to supporting roles that serve to advance heterosexual narratives, only to be discarded shortly after. As a result, queer couples are rarely granted sustained presence or happy endings on screen; their romances often conclude abruptly and in tragedy, typically through the death or disappearance of one partner, invoking the well-known “Bury Your Gays” trope. Furthermore, as Moscowitz (2020) argues, there is a symbolic “war” around depictions of same-sex affection, particularly the kiss, which is often censored or avoided altogether. In parallel, public and media discourse surrounding same-sex marriage frequently frames opposition within the language of protecting heterosexual institutions and respecting the will of the majority, rather than acknowledging LGBTQ+ rights as fundamental (Warren & Bloch, 2014).

Several scholars have analyzed how the legal recognition of same-sex relationships has been framed within news narratives. Studies have shown that media often adopt a binary framing: same-sex marriage is either celebrated as progress or vilified as a disruption to morality and traditional values (Becker, 2006). This dichotomy tends to mirror political and ideological divides, influencing how audiences interpret LGBTQ+ issues (Brewer, 2002). Furthermore, reliance on official sources—particularly male figures such as government or religious leaders—often eclipses the lived experiences and voices of LGBTQ+ individuals themselves (Schwartz, 2011). In terms of sourcing, research has shown that news stories frequently fail to directly quote gay men and lesbians on the issue of marriage equality. Instead, LGBTQ+ individuals are often represented through visual imagery, appearing as smiling, successful couples in photographs and television clips, constructed in ways that render their lives non-threatening to mainstream audiences (Bell & Keer, 2021).

Framing theory, as introduced by Goffman (1974) and further developed by Entman (1993), provides a robust lens for analyzing how media select and emphasize certain aspects of reality. In the context of LGBTQ+ media coverage, framing not only influences public understanding but also legitimizes certain discourses while marginalizing others. According to Entman, framing involves selection and salience: by emphasizing certain angles (e.g., conflict, deviance, morality), the media guide audiences toward particular interpretations.

Several studies have applied framing theory to LGBTQ+ topics. For example, Johnson (2012) and Nartey (2021) found that media coverage of same-sex marriage frequently employs “morality” and “family values” frames to draw ideological boundaries. Similarly, Barnhurst (2007) demonstrated that news framing of LGBTQ+ issues can shift significantly in response to political events and broader social contexts. As Warren and Bloch (2014) note, examining the news framing of same-sex marriage is an important avenue for understanding the messages media consumers receive regarding the issue, highlighting the influence of narrative structures on public opinion and policy debates.

The peace journalism model, initially developed by Galtung (1998) as a critique of conventional war reporting, advocates for reporting that avoids polarization and gives voice to all stakeholders, particularly those marginalized by dominant narratives. It enriches the news agenda beyond current events and the guise of “reporting the facts” and broadens the range of sources and voices used in the news beyond officials and technocratic experts. It provides comprehensive reporting on the roots of a conflict, while simultaneously revealing its long-term consequences and possible solutions (Kalfeli & Frangonikolopoulos, 2019).

Over the past two decades, peace journalism has grown into a dynamic and multi-disciplinary field, continually enriched by new scholarship and expanding into diverse areas of academic and media interest (Doll & Moy, 2021). While initial studies primarily addressed the reporting of war, more recent research has broadened the application of peace journalism principles to encompass a wider range of social conflicts. For instance, Youngblood (2017) developed guidelines for covering migration and asylum, highlighting how media can humanize migrants and resist dehumanizing stereotypes. Tivona (2011) examined how peace journalism can integrate gender perspectives by centering women’s experiences in conflict and humanitarian crises. Similarly, Anderson (2015) applied peace journalism to address religious diversity, demonstrating how inclusive reporting practices can counter Islamophobic narratives in the Australian press.

Crucially, studies by Chow-White and McMahon (2011) introduced a hybrid model combining peace journalism with critical race theory to analyze long-term, systemic injustices such as those affecting Indigenous communities in Canada. They proposed adapting peace journalism to “cold conflicts” that may lack visible violence but are shaped by deep-seated structural discrimination, exclusion, and symbolic violence. Their work suggests that peace journalism is not only suitable for wartime coverage but also for examining racism, stereotyping, and institutional inequality in mainstream reporting.

Experimental research by Lynch et al. (2015) further substantiated the model’s potential, showing that audiences exposed to peace-oriented versions of the same story reported greater empathy and reduced fear or anger than those shown traditional conflict framing. These findings confirm the affective and cognitive power of peace journalism and its capacity to shift audience perceptions even in polarized media environments.

Taken together, this body of work demonstrates that peace journalism can be successfully extended to identity-based struggles and social justice debates. Building on this foundation, the present study applies peace journalism to the media portrayal of LGBTQ+ rights in Greece, proposing a revised model specifically adapted to the unique dynamics of this issue.

At the same time, the study contributes to the literature on LGBTQ+ media representation by employing peace journalism to examine not only the presence or absence of bias but also the underlying reporting practices that shape coverage. These include sourcing routines (e.g., privileging official voices over those of activists or experts), the (non)inclusion of marginalized perspectives and human-interest stories, and the extent to which structural inequalities and rights-based solutions are acknowledged. In this way, peace journalism functions both as an analytical lens, revealing how LGBTQ+ issues are framed, and as a normative framework that envisions how journalism ought to be when covering identity-based struggles, emphasizing ethical responsibility, inclusion, and structural awareness. Building on this framework, the present study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: How was the legalization of same-sex marriage in Greece framed in the news coverage of five Greek media outlets, based on indicators of peace and conflict journalism?

RQ2: What were the most frequently used indicators of conflict and peace framing in the media coverage, and how did these vary across ideologically diverse outlets?

3. Method

This study draws on a content analysis of 150 news articles, focusing on the legalization of same-sex marriage in Greece, which took place on 15 February 2024. The articles were gathered from the digital editions of five Greek newspapers: EfSyn (progressive, left-wing), Ta Nea (centrist), I Kathimerini (center-right), Proto Thema (right-wing, populist), and Eleftheros Typos (right-wing). These media outlets were selected based on two main criteria: (1) their readership levels, with Ta Nea, Kathimerini, and Proto Thema ranking among the most widely read according to the SCImago Media Rankings as of January 2024; and (2) their ideological positions, which were chosen to mirror the current political landscape in Greece, marked by a conservative right-wing government and a fragmented mix of extreme right, center-left, and left-wing political forces.

While all selected outlets fall within the category of mainstream Greek media, they differ not only in political orientation but also in editorial tone and style. For instance, Proto Thema is known for a more sensationalist and emotionally charged reporting style, particularly in its headlines and framing choices, compared to the more formal tone of Kathimerini or Ta Nea. These stylistic differences were considered analytically relevant, as they reflect the diverse rhetorical strategies present in Greek media coverage of LGBTQ+ issues and allowed for a more comprehensive examination of framing practices across the ideological spectrum.

The sampling timeframe spanned from January 3 to March 3, 2024, covering the period from the beginning of public debate over the legislation through several days after the law was passed in Parliament. This range was selected to capture both the pre-vote discourse and the immediate post-vote coverage, offering a comprehensive view of media framing during the peak of the news cycle. The unit of analysis was the individual news story, including the headline, subhead, full article text, and quoted sources. Coding was carried out between March and May 2024.

We included all news stories published by the selected outlets within the defined timeframe, excluding only very short briefs that lacked sufficient content for meaningful content analysis. Eligible story types included news reports, op-eds, and feature articles, as long as they met basic criteria for length and topical relevance. All articles were sourced from the Greek-language editions of the selected media outlets. While coding was conducted in the original language, English translations were subsequently produced by fluent team members for the purposes of analysis and reporting in this manuscript, ensuring consistency and accuracy.

Building on the theory of peace journalism (Galtung, 1998), the framing model developed by Kalfeli et al. (2020) for media representations of migration, and insights from a comprehensive pilot content analysis of a representative sample of news stories, a codebook was developed comprising twelve (12) content analysis indicators (see

Table 1. Indicators of a conflict and a peace frame.

Conflict Frame	Peace Frame
1. Absence of LGBTQ+ voices	7. Inclusion of LGBTQ+ voices
2. Reliance solely on official sources	8. Inclusion of diverse voices (NGOs, experts, activists, etc.)
3. Stereotypical portrayals (LGBTQ+ as threats or victims)	9. Emphasis on personal, human-centered stories
4. LGBTQ+ identity framed as the problem	10. Focus on structural violence as the core issue
5. Focus on (political) conflict	11. Focus on human rights-based solutions
6. Use of non-inclusive or emotional (demonizing, victimizing, divisive) language	12. Use of respectful language

). These indicators—six aligned with a conflict frame and six with a peace frame—serve to examine how the legalization of same-sex marriage was framed in Greek media coverage. Broadly, the indicators address the following dimensions: framing approach, problem definition, stereotypical portrayals of threat or victimhood, proposed solutions, inclusion of human-interest stories, use of language, reliance on official sources, reference to international organizations and NGOs, and representation of LGBTQ+ voices. The following sections define each indicator in detail and explain its relevance to the study’s analytical framework.

Within the conflict frame, the first two coding indicators examine the absence of LGBTQ+ voices in news stories and the dominance of official voices, such as politicians and Church representatives, as primary sources of information (Galtung, 1998; Lee & Maslog, 2005). The third and fourth indicators focus on stereotypical framing and problem definition. Specifically, they assess the frequency with which LGBTQ+ individuals are depicted through frames of threat or victimization, and whether the bill is presented as a source of societal disruption, either politically or morally, without contextualizing it as a response to pre-existing inequalities. In particular, these indicators seek to capture how often LGBTQ+ individuals and couples are portrayed either as a threat to traditional family values or as passive victims, rather than as complex human beings with agency. For example, the headline “same-sex marriage is a bomb on the foundations of the family” was categorized as a “threat” stereotype due to its alarmist framing, using explosive metaphors that depict same-sex marriage as harmful to traditional family values. Indicator five evaluates whether the news narrative emphasizes (political) conflict surrounding the legalization of same-sex marriage. This may include tensions between the Greek Church and the State, intra-party disagreements, or clashes between different political factions. For example, a news story titled “Sudden escalation by the Archbishop—Discontent over the government’s decision to bring the same-sex marriage bill to Parliament” would be coded under this indicator for its emphasis on institutional opposition, highlighting elite-level reactions rather than incorporating voices from affected communities or the broader public. Finally, indicator six, adapted from Lee and Maslog’s (2005) application of peace journalism theory, examines the use of non-inclusive and emotive language. This includes demonizing metaphors (e.g., LGBTQ+ individuals described as “flies” or “rats”), victimizing terms (e.g., “trapped” or “helpless”), and war-like rhetoric that frames same-sex marriage as a “bomb” to the Greek family.

Within the peace frame, the next three coding categories are designed to capture the presence of a multi-voiced, inclusive narrative in news coverage. More specifically, the seventh indicator, drawing from Galtung’s concept of “giving voice to the voiceless” (1998) and adapted from the original media framing model on migration (Kalfeli et al., 2020), identifies the inclusion of direct quotes from LGBTQ+ individuals or collective expressions voiced through their representatives. Similarly, the eighth indicator assesses the extent to which news articles complement official narratives with diverse perspectives, including input from NGOs and international bodies. Moreover, the ninth indicator focuses on the presence of human-centered storytelling, highlighting LGBTQ+ individuals as people with names, emotions, goals, and lived experiences. Lastly, the tenth category examines whether structural violence is framed as the underlying issue in the reporting. We use the term structural violence in accordance with Galtung’s (1998) original framework to refer to systemic injustices and inequalities embedded in institutions, laws, and societal structures, for example, legal restrictions on adoption rights or the absence of legal recognition for same-sex couples. While closely related to concepts such as “structural inequality”, the term emphasizes the invisible yet harmful mechanisms through which discrimination and exclusion are normalized and perpetuated. The eleventh indicator examines whether news reports concentrate on solutions grounded in human rights law, for example, by referencing international legal norms, anti-discrimination principles, or equality policies. Lastly, the twelfth coding category examines the frequency with which news reports use respectful language (Galtung, 1998; Kalfeli et al., 2020).

Conflict and peace frames were determined through the application of the twelve coding categories described earlier. Each news article was assessed in this framework, considering elements such as the presence of LGBTQ+ perspectives, representation of multiple sides, and additional relevant factors. Whenever one of these indicators was present, it was recorded with a score of one.

In terms of coding, categories were treated as mutually exclusive only when they referred to the same analytical dimension. For instance, the categories “absence of LGBTQ+ voice” and “presence of LGBTQ+ voice” were coded in a mutually exclusive manner, as they captured opposing conditions related to LGBTQ+ representation. However, when categories measured distinct aspects of media content, they were not mutually exclusive. For example, a news article could be coded as including official sources (such as government or church representatives), while also including LGBTQ+ voices. This approach allowed for a more nuanced and accurate representation of how multiple sources and perspectives coexisted within the same story.

To assess inter-coder reliability, two trained coders independently analyzed a subset of 15 news articles, representing 10% of each of the five media outlets in the 150-article sample. Agreement between coders was measured using the percentage agreement method. The results indicated an average agreement rate of 87.7%, with scores ranging from 80% to 92%, surpassing commonly accepted reliability thresholds (Neuendorf, 2002).

4. Findings

The main findings of this study are presented in the following section, with particular emphasis on the most prominent elements of both conflict and peace framing, as well as the similarities and differences among the different media outlets.

4.1. Most Frequent Indicators of Conflict and Peace Frames

Official sources, such as politicians and representatives of the Orthodox Church, as shown in

Table 2. Indicators of conflict and peace frames (in order of frequency of appearance).

Conflict Frame Indicators	Frequency of Appearance (% of Appearance in the News Stories)
Absence of LGBTQ+ voices	137 (91.3%)
2. Reliance on official sources	131 (87.3%)
3. Focus on (political) conflict	121 (80.7%)
4. Use of emotional (demonizing, victimizing, divisive) or non-inclusive language	106 (70.7%)
5. Same-sex marriage bill framed as a divisive problem	76 (40.7%)
6. Stereotypical portrayals LGBTQ+ as threats LGBTQ+ as victims	60 (40%) 33 (22%) 27 (18%)
Peace Frame Indicators
Focus on human rights-based solutions	68 (45.3%)
2. Use of inclusive and non-emotional language	44 (29.3%)
3. Focus on structural violence as the core issue	41 (27.3%)
4. Emphasis on personal, human-centered stories	27 (18%)
5. Inclusion of LGBTQ+ voices	13 (8.7%)
6. Inclusion of diverse voices (NGOs, experts, activists, etc.)	6 (4%)

, were cited in 131 news stories (87.3%) and dominated the media discourse, with emphasis placed on their statements and positions. In contrast, LGBTQ+ individuals, despite being the main subjects of the stories, were largely excluded from the narrative, with their voices appearing in only 8.7% of the coverage, effectively denying them the opportunity to speak for themselves. A multi-party perspective that included the voices of NGOs and activists was present in just 4% of the news stories, further highlighting the lack of diversity in sourcing. Interestingly, celebrities (e.g., actors, singers) were referenced more frequently, particularly in Proto Thema, appearing in 16% of the coverage on the legalization of same-sex marriage. This pattern may be attributed to the framing of such topics within the realm of entertainment, which tends to invite a sensationalist, tabloid-style approach. For instance, the headline “Petros Xekoukis: The bill on same-sex couples is a mistake that the Greek society will pay for” (Proto Thema, 2024c) exemplifies the tendency to spotlight emotionally charged statements by public personalities (Xekoukis is an actor), even when they lack direct expertise or personal relevance to the issue. While the voices of LGBTQ+ individuals were often absent, celebrity commentary was given prominence, shaping public discourse in ways that prioritize spectacle over informed or representative debate.

One of the most prevalent characteristics of media coverage of the legalization of same-sex marriage is the focus on conflict between different parties (appearing in 80.7% of news stories), whether in the form of tensions between the Greek Church and the State, intra-party disagreements, or clashes among political factions. Rather than highlighting the lived experiences, rights, or social realities of same-sex couples directly affected by the legislation, media coverage primarily centered on the political debate and the negotiations taking place around the bill’s passage. Particular emphasis was placed on the controversy the bill sparked, not only within the ruling party but also among opposition parties seeking to capitalize on the issue for political gain. Coverage often revolved around procedural developments: who would vote in favor, who would oppose it, and who would abstain. For example, a story titled “Sudden escalation by the Archbishop—Discontent over the government’s decision to bring the same-sex marriage bill to Parliament” (Lakasas, 2024) exemplifies this conflict-centered framing. The article highlights institutional backlash from the Orthodox Church, while omitting perspectives from LGBTQ+ individuals or civil society, thus reinforcing elite-centered narratives and neglecting the voices of those most directly impacted by the legislation.

Coverage thus focuses more on the political dimension than on the actual content of the bill, the changes it introduces, or the issues it leaves unresolved. It is largely confined to the level of political confrontation or the conflict with the Church, while offering minimal visibility to the perspectives of the LGBTQ+ community regarding the legislation. Within this context, the passing of the bill is presented primarily as a spectacle or matter of political impression rather than a substantive legislative development. Notably, some articles mention only that a particular MP will abstain or highlight political clashes, without providing any further information about the bill itself, as in the following examples:

“Syrigos abstains from the vote on the LGBTQ+ marriage bill”

(EfSyn, 2024).

“It is notable that 20 MPs voted against the bill, led by former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, who even presented a distinct platform. Additionally, 31 New Democracy MPs abstained, and Minister of State M. Voridis described the government bill as unconstitutional. This major institutional reform would not have been possible without the support of PASOK and other opposition parties, as only 107 MPs from the ruling coalition voted in favor”

(Mpokas & Grigovits, 2024).

In a significant proportion of the coverage (40.7%), the bill itself and its various perceived consequences revolve around the notion that the bill generates problems, which are framed in multiple ways: as a source of conflict, as well as a broader social issue. In approximately one fifth of the news stories (22%), and primarily through statements made by official sources, same-sex marriage is depicted as a symbolic threat to the traditional nuclear family, to the proper upbringing of children, and to the (Christian) values of Greek society, as illustrated by the following excerpts: “Metropolitan Bishop Gabriel: The bill on same-sex couples is a bomb on the foundations of the family” (Proto Thema, 2024a) and “I believe that the draft bill we are discussing today is causing concern in society. Society is not worried because it is materially affected, but rather because it feels affected. What is it that is being affected? It is the fundamental principle of society—its values, ideals, and the principles upon which this society, Greek society, was built, he [MP Salmas] said” (Eleftheros Typos, 2024). This is a pattern consistent with earlier studies that have shown how media frequently frame LGBTQ+ issues as challenges to dominant morality or family values (Barnhurst, 2007; Johnson, 2012; Moscowitz, 2020). In contrast, LGBTQ+ individuals are portrayed as victims in 18% of the stories, primarily due to their status as an invisible group subjected to discrimination or direct bullying.

In fact, in approximately 28% of the news stories, we observe a form of humanitarian securitization (Kalfeli et al., 2024), where opposition to the bill is framed under the pretext of protecting children and evoking the rhetoric of child rights. This narrative is predominantly employed by those resisting the legislation, who present the “protection of children” as a central and legitimizing argument for their stance. Such rhetoric does not focus on children’s welfare in itself but uses it to justify the restriction of LGBTQ+ rights, shifting the discourse from equality to perceived societal threat and harm. This framing, particularly expressed through the voices of official sources, reflects long-standing patterns in media discourse, where LGBTQ+ rights are portrayed as threats to moral order or child development (Moscowitz, 2020), as indicated in the following excerpt:

“Human rights are too serious to be trivialized. This bill is dangerous. (LGBTQ+) Rights are fully protected under the civil union framework. But here, we are talking about the rights of a minor child, not just those of adults. The state is stripping children of their right to have both a mother and a father. That will cause real deprivation, as well as confusion”

(Kathimerini, 2024).

Structural violence, referring to the inequalities and discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly same-sex couples, is rarely addressed, appearing in only 27.3% of the news stories. When it is acknowledged, it emerges primarily through the voices of LGBTQ+ individuals themselves, representatives of their communities, or supporters of the bill, including members of the conservative ruling party, New Democracy. These actors raise issues of discrimination and social invisibility to reinforce their arguments in favor of the bill’s adoption. In the same vein, the bill is often presented as a human rights solution in 45.3% of the news stories.

In addition, human stories, featuring the personal experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals, appear in approximately 18% of the news coverage. When included, these narratives primarily highlight what the bill represents for LGBTQ+ people and the challenges they have faced, as illustrated in the following excerpt: “Michael Economou: If something happens to my partner, our child can be taken by social services.” (Proto Thema, 2024b).

In conclusion, media coverage of the same-sex marriage bill in Greece was overwhelmingly shaped by a conflict-oriented framing, dominated by official sources and centered on political confrontation, institutional tension, and ideological clashes, particularly between the State and the Orthodox Church. LGBTQ+ individuals, despite being at the heart of the legislation, were notably marginalized in the discourse, their voices largely absent or included only in limited ways. The bill itself was often framed not as a legislative response to structural inequalities, but as a source of social and political disruption, with frequent appeals to the protection of traditional family values and children. While elements of a peace frame, such as references to human rights, structural violence, and personal narratives, were present, they remained secondary to the prevailing sensationalist and polarizing tone. This imbalance reveals a media landscape that prioritizes spectacle over substance, and institutional voices over those most directly affected, ultimately undermining the potential of journalism to foster inclusive and empathetic public dialogue on LGBTQ+ rights.

4.2. Differences and Similarities Between Different Media Outlets

The coverage of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Greece varied across the selected media outlets. However, the research also reveals notable similarities, most prominently the widespread absence of LGBTQ+ voices and the predominance of political and Church elites as primary sources in all outlets.

Content analysis revealed that political affiliation, whether left- or right-leaning, can influence the frequency with which conflict or peace indicators appear. For example, LGBTQ+ identities were framed as a threat to the traditional Greek family and Christian values in approximately one-fifth to one-fourth of news stories in most media outlets, such as 25.8% in Proto Thema and 21.2% in Kathimerini. In contrast, this framing appeared in only 5% of news stories in the left-leaning EfSyn.

Inequalities, injustices, and human rights violations linked to laws, state structures, and institutional practices were more prominently emphasized in the left-leaning EfSyn, appearing in 25% of its news stories, compared to 8% in Ta Nea and 9.5% in Eleftheros Typos (with the exception of Proto Thema, where references to structural violence were more frequent, primarily due to the inclusion of personal stories and statements by celebrities). Reflecting its oppositional stance, EfSyn partly used this framing to critique the conservative New Democracy government for its internal divisions on the bill.

Nevertheless, in this study, the influence of political affiliation on media coverage was less pronounced than might have been expected. This is largely because the bill, though divisive, originated from the government and received support from opposition parties such as SYRIZA and PASOK, leading to relatively moderate endorsement across the media spectrum.

Particularly noteworthy in this study were the similarities in news coverage across media outlets. Notably, official sources predominated, accounting for an average of 87.3% of news items. This reliance is largely due to the frequent use of politicians and Church representatives as the sole sources of information. In terms of voice, there was a striking absence of LGBTQ+ perspectives across all outlets, including the left-leaning EfSyn. Human-centered stories were similarly scarce. These findings suggest that certain topics, regardless of a media outlet’s political orientation, are consistently underrepresented, contributing to an inadequate portrayal of LGBTQ+ issues in Greek media.

A notable exception to the above is Proto Thema (right-wing, populist), which featured LGBTQ+ voices in 19.4% of its news stories, compared to only 2.5% in left-leaning EfSyn. Similarly, human-interest stories appeared in 22.6% of Proto Thema’s coverage, again significantly higher than EfSyn’s 2.5%. This can be attributed to Proto Thema’s focus on lifestyle and sensational content, which tends to highlight such topics, not out of genuine interest or commitment to representation, but rather through a voyeuristic, tabloid-style lens. As a result, the visibility granted to the community is often superficial and instrumental. At the same time, this suggests that certain topics, regardless of a media outlet’s political orientation, remain consistently underreported, resulting in a limited and often reductive portrayal of LGBTQ+ issues in the Greek media.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This study examined how the Greek media framed the legalization of same-sex marriage through the dual lenses of framing theory and peace journalism. Despite the diversity in political orientation among the five selected media outlets, the analysis revealed recurring patterns that, while resonating with concerns raised in prior research on LGBTQ+ representation (Gross, 2001; Barnhurst, 2007; Moscowitz, 2010, 2020), also expose deeper editorial routines that remain underexplored, particularly in the Greek context.

Most notably, official sources, namely politicians and representatives of the Orthodox Church, dominated the news narrative, appearing in 87.3% of stories. In contrast, LGBTQ+ individuals, though directly affected by the legislation, were largely marginalized, with their voices present in only 8.7% of the coverage. This pattern reflects longstanding trends identified by Schwartz (2011), who found that media coverage frequently privileges institutional—and predominantly male—sources. Such representational imbalances are not merely editorial oversights; when minorities are underrepresented or depicted through narrow frames, their social recognition and full inclusion as legitimate participants in public discourse can be undermined (Jacobs & Meeusen, 2021). This, in turn, reinforces symbolic exclusion and constrains public understanding of their lived experiences.

Furthermore, the study revealed a prevailing tendency to frame the issue through a conflict-oriented lens, aligning with Johnson’s (2012) findings that LGBTQ+ rights are frequently mediated through moral frameworks. Rather than focusing on the structural inequalities the bill seeks to address, media coverage often portrayed same-sex marriage as a source of social tension. This reinforces the observations of Becker (2006), who noted that LGBTQ+ issues are frequently cast in terms of social disruption, particularly when they intersect with debates about family values or religious identity. At the same time, the continued use of moral panic and humanitarian securitization frames, especially those invoking the supposed threat to children, reflects longstanding media strategies of framing LGBTQ+ as a danger to social cohesion and moral order (Moscowitz, 2020).

Interestingly, political affiliation appeared to influence media framing to a lesser extent than expected. While the left-leaning EfSyn was more likely to highlight inequalities and institutional injustices (25% of its coverage), the overall tone across outlets was that of (moderate) support, likely because the bill had backing from multiple parties in Parliament.

What stands out most, however, are the structural similarities across the media spectrum. The perspectives of same-sex couples were largely absent, and human-centered narratives were notably underrepresented, even in more progressive outlets such as EfSyn. While some media outlets, including Proto Thema, featured LGBTQ+ voices and human-interest stories more frequently, this visibility was often confined to lifestyle or entertainment sections, rather than being integrated into hard news or political reporting. This reflects what Sender (2004) described as the tendency of media to present queer identities in ways that are appealing to advertisers and mainstream audiences, focusing on surface-level representation while avoiding deeper political or social issues. In doing so, LGBTQ+ identities are made more “marketable” but stripped of their complexity and struggles for rights. Rather than promoting meaningful representation, such coverage reinforces what Barnhurst (2007) called the “visibility paradox”, where increased representation does not necessarily translate into empowerment or progress.

While the findings largely reflect certain tendencies previously identified in the literature on LGBTQ+ media coverage, namely, the marginalization of queer voices and the dominance of conflict-oriented framings, this study moves the discussion forward by applying a peace journalism framework to analyze the media portrayal of same-sex marriage legalization. In doing so, it introduces a novel methodological contribution by adapting peace journalism principles, originally developed for conflict zones, to the context of a domestic human rights issue. This recontextualization extends the theoretical scope of peace journalism as an analytical and normative tool and demonstrates its relevance in the analysis of social justice issues and identity-based struggles in the media.

Although elements of the peace journalism model were present, they remained marginal. The coverage largely reflected broader industry norms that routinely marginalize minority voices and overlook structural injustice. In this context, the findings suggest that factors such as political alignment, deadline pressures, limited resources (particularly in small and competitive markets like Greece), and insufficient training or awareness around diversity and inclusion significantly shape how LGBTQ+ issues are reported across the media spectrum. Even progressive outlets showed only limited engagement with queer perspectives. This points not only to ideological factors but also to what has been described as a journalism of conventions lens (Kalfeli et al., 2020), a subframe that, while not overtly biased or sensationalist, follows routine practices that often go unquestioned. These include the habitual reliance on official sources, the exclusion of minority voices, and a lack of critical engagement with deeper social issues. As such, the findings support previous arguments (Kalfeli et al., 2024) that peace journalism remains underutilized in mainstream reporting on minorities, despite its potential to foster more inclusive, empathetic, and context-rich public discourse.

The Greek case offers a clear illustration of these dynamics, illustrating how political spectacle and commercial pressures often leave little room for deeper, rights-focused reporting. Yet, this does not suggest a dead end. Rather, it highlights the need for frameworks like peace journalism that challenge conventional reporting practices and propose more ethical alternatives foregrounding inclusion, empathy, and structural awareness.

Does this sound too idealistic? Perhaps, but only if peace journalism is misunderstood as a utopian prescription, rather than what it truly offers: a critical framework that interrogates deeply rooted practices and opens up space for more inclusive and socially responsible reporting. Importantly, this normative model is not just an abstract goal. As demonstrated in our previous research (Kalfeli et al., 2025), journalists in Greece, specialized in covering minority groups and working even within conventional media outlets, are already taking individual steps to incorporate inclusive sourcing, highlight systemic inequalities, and amplify underrepresented voices. While such efforts may not shift dominant patterns of representation on their own, they reflect a professional commitment to ethical journalism, shaped by education, ongoing training, and editorial decision-making, even in the absence of broader institutional reform. In this light, the study does not simply reaffirm existing patterns but reorients scholarly attention toward both the structural barriers and the tangible, grounded possibilities for transforming how journalism engages with identity-based struggles.

In conclusion, while the legalization of same-sex marriage in Greece represents a major step forward for LGBTQ+ rights, the media coverage surrounding it illustrates the persistence of conflict-driven, elite-centered, and morally charged narratives that have been well-documented in the literature (Gross, 2001; Becker, 2006; Moscowitz, 2020). This study builds on that body of work by applying and adapting the peace journalism model to a domestic human rights context, thereby expanding its scope and demonstrating its relevance for identity-based media analysis. It also highlights the structural and institutional barriers that continue to hinder inclusive, justice-oriented reporting.

Moving beyond these limitations requires journalism to adopt more inclusive practices, amplify marginalized voices, and engage with frameworks such as peace journalism that emphasize empathy, structural insight, and social justice. While immediate transformation may be unlikely, peace journalism offers a normative compass that can guide media practitioners, educators, and scholars toward more equitable and ethically responsible reporting. In doing so, this study contributes both empirically and conceptually to ongoing debates on media responsibility in covering LGBTQ+ communities and rights-based issues within a landscape still shaped by routine, exclusionary, and often stereotypical framing practices.