“It Could Have Been Us”: media frames and the coverage of Ukrainian, Afghan and Syrian refugee crises – Springer

The power of media frames

According to Hansen (2006), representational practices, such as those used by media sources, can situate political problems or issues through a specific frame with significant influence on how that issue or problem is understood (Hansen 2006, p. 6). Frames, according to Goffman (1974), are ‘schemes of interpretation’ that ‘endorse a particular problem definition or causal interpretation of an issue’ (Heidenreich et al. 2019, p. 173). This means that frames can structure people’s experiences and understating of the world, providing a way of organising ideas, interpreting events, and building up narratives (Goffman 1974). The concept of frames was further developed by Entman (1993) who, in his seminal essay Framing: Toward Clarification of A Fractured Paradigm, defines framing as the process of selecting certain aspects of a perceived reality and making them more salient in a communication context. Frames, as such, can define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments, and suggest remedies, according to Entman (1993, p. 52). Importantly, none of these functions is neutral or value-free. To select and emphasise aspects of a perceived reality and make them more prominent than others is a way of exercising power (Entman 1993, p. 56; Klein and Amis 2021, p. 1325) and deciding what counts and qualifies as an issue or a solution in the first place. Writing in the early 1990s, Entman provides the example of the first Iraq war by way of illustrating the emergence and function of frames in news media. He contends that

in the pre-war debate over U.S. policy toward Iraq, there was a tacit consensus among U.S. elites not to argue for such options as negotiation between Iraq and Kuwait. The news frame included only two remedies, war now or sanctions now with war (likely) later […] The Iraq example reveals that the power of news frames can be self-reinforcing. During the pre-war debate, any critique transcending the remedies inside the frame (war soon versus more time for sanctions) breached the bounds of acceptable discourse, hence was unlikely to influence policy. By conventional journalistic standards, such views were not newsworthy […] Unpublicized, the views could gain few adherents and generate little perceived or actual effect on public opinion, which meant elites felt no pressure to expand the frame so it included other treatments for Iraqi aggression, such as negotiation. (Entman 1993, p. 55)

In this sense and by making certain issues or remedies more noticeable and meaningful, frames can act as signposts whose function is to cognitively orient audiences towards certain views and interpretations while obscuring others in the process. And when a certain issue or solution is emphasised at the expense of another, this can affect what the audiences and policymakers consider as salient thereby affecting public opinion in general (Shen 2004; Kühne and Schemer 2015). As Ramasubramanian and Miles (2018, p. 4490) put it, ‘[m]edia frames have agenda-setting power to shape public discourse on social issues by promoting specific interpretations and opinions of public policies by cueing in particular considerations.’ It is no wonder then that frames have become an important object of study in various disciplines, and particularly for scholars interested in examining how news media select, process and represent issues to audiences (Iyengar 1991; Gamson 1992; Nelson et al. 1997; Tuchman 2002; Lakoff 2004; de Vreese 2003; Vreese 2004).

Studies concerned with news frame analysis often regard the framing process itself as an ‘interpretative package’ (Lecheler and de Vreese 2012, 2018; Liu 2023) made up of various elements including metaphors, word choices, visual images, descriptions, quotes and so on, each of which constitutes a ‘framing device’ (Gamson and Modigliani 1989) and together ‘construct and offer an edited social reality’ (Roslyng and Dindler 2023, p. 13). News is thereby depicted as ‘a task of packaging information’ (ibid.) to help individuals make sense of social, political, economic, and ethical issues within a broader societal context, ‘so that they for instance index a bombing as a terrorist attack, although “terror” is not uttered in the process’ (ibid.). The process of framing is therefore not just about what information is presented, but how it is presented and what is emphasised. For example, describing protesters as “activists” versus “rioters” evokes very different frames, and using emotionally charged words or imagery can frame an issue positively or negatively. Similarly, words such as “expats” and “immigrants’ activate different perceptions and emotional pathways that are likely to be based on differing characteristics such as ethnic or national origin and social class (Torkington and Ribeiro 2019, p. 25). A such, frame analysis is in essence ‘a critique of objectivity in media’ (Roslyng and Dindler 2023, p. 13) and a reminder of the undeniably constructed nature of news production.

Media frames and migration

As a highly contested issue in political discourse and social imaginary, migration is one of the most recurring topics in news coverage. Academic research into media representations of migration often examines how migrants are framed; whether from an economic, security, or humanitarian perspective, for instance (e.g., Balch and Balabanova 2016; Meeusen and Jacobs 2017). These perspectives are usually connected to (implicit) evaluations. For example, the security frame implies a danger for the receiving countries, while the humanitarian frame focuses on migrants’ need to be protected (Benert and Beier 2016; Maurer et al. 2022). These frames can influence the perception of news as positive, neutral, or negative, and may present a distorted or biased picture of events. Frames are also not mutually exclusive. For example, a news article may express sympathy for the plight of asylum seekers while voicing concern over the settlement of refugees. However, and as mentioned earlier, news articles tend to often frame one issue at the expense of another (Entman 1993; Otieno et al. 2013; Elsamni 2016; Liu 2023). An imbalance between the occurrence of each framing—depending on the ethnic/national background of refugees—may signal a sense of prejudice. This prejudice may percolate to the masses, resulting in more negative associations directed towards migrants of a particular ethnicity. This is not to say that the media have no right to report on the potential difficulties, practical or otherwise, of hosting refugees. A host nation might face issues resettling refugees, and the media have a responsibility to report on these issues. However, where there is a clear imbalance between the coverage of different refugees, this may point to an unfair bias with discriminatory real-world consequences.

Various commentators have observed a tendency in European media to prioritise the use of a ‘security frame’ when reporting on Syrian refugees, as opposed to a ‘humanitarian frame,’ which is present but often less prevalent (Georgiou and Zaborowski 2017; Sales 2023). Many have argued that this is a consequence of racial prejudice. The case is made by Varghese (2023) who asserts that ‘[t]he politics of fear and othering of migrants of color has created several ramifications that are apparent in today’s immigration policies.’ Telbrant and Haraldsson (2022, p. 25) conducted a comparative study of the media framing of Syrian and Ukrainian refugees in Sweden’s biggest news outlets. The author observes that when referring to the arrival of Syrian refugees, ‘the words target the influx as a crisis threatening to destroy the economic and social system of the receiving countries.’ But when referring to Ukrainian refugees, ‘the words shift meaning and the war is now the crisis instead.’ This means that the Syrian refugees are themselves securitised, whereas in the case of Ukrainian refugees, it is the war they are fleeing from what is being securitised.

Many studies at the intersection of media and migration touch on the moral frame within which migration and refugee issues are invested with meaning. This frame often intersects with questions of security or humanitarian ideals and is further complicated by the link between media representations and questions of identity. The issue of identity formation during crisis or conflict situations does complicate the questions raised by a security or humanitarian approach to migration by introducing concepts of solidarity and compassion for refugees. Cinalli et al.’s (2021) volume, Solidarity in the Media and Public Contention over Refugees in Europe, provides an overview of the importance of these concepts in understanding interactions within media systems and the impact of media habits on public attitudes towards migration in general. In this work, the public sphere is conceptualised as a place of political struggle, and at the same time, a space where the boundaries of solidarity and identity are defined (Cinalli et al. 2021). Mass media provides an important sphere of public discourses which is structured by news coverage routines and journalistic practices, privileging representatives of corporate actors (e.g., public authorities, interest groups, scientific communities). In addition, online media has also come to dominate the public sphere, and this means that news audiences and consumers have become part and parcel of the media ecosystem and mass mediated public opinions, according to Cinalli et al. (2021).

Indeed, the media landscape of the 21st century has evolved dramatically. Studies of contemporary migration reception have been taking into account the expansion of news sources beyond legacy media, and an increasingly diverse audience. Nerghes and Lee (2019) consider the impact of new forms of news consumption in challenging established media representations. They consider the ways in which news and Twitter coverage diverge. They note that ‘mainstream-media content plays a major role in shaping discourse about events such as the refugee crisis, while social media’s participatory affordances allow for the narratives to be perpetuated, challenged, and injected with new perspectives’ (Nerghes and Lee 2019, p. 275). They conclude that mainstream and social media form a ‘complementary media space, where narratives are created and transformed’ (ibid.). Yet, while social media play a significant role in information exchange, mainstream media remain a crucial and trusted informational source for officials and publics. Hence our focus also on mainstream news outlets in this study.

The ‘refugee crisis’ of 2015–2017

The first decades of the 21st century have been marked by mass migration and conflict. In 2014, conflict-related forced displacement globally reached the highest level since World War II; by the end of 2014, the total displaced population ‘stood at an unprecedented 54.9 million persons’, according to the United Nation Refugee Agency (UNCHR 2015). Studies of migration since 2015 must contend with the public discourse of the ‘refugee crisis’ which appeared in media reports in 2015. Some scholars trace this term to the death of a Syrian child, Alan Kurdi^{Footnote 1}, which received heightened attention in the UK press. Kurdi’s tragic death occurred in the context of an ongoing migration across Europe and resulted in a distinct shift in media narratives about migrant arrivals in the UK. Balch and Balabanova (2020, p. 413) claim that the terms ‘migrant crisis’ and ‘refugee crisis’ have become synonymous with a set of events that began in 2015, with the deaths of large numbers of people attempting to travel to Europe by boat. Pruitt (2019) argues that ‘from 2015 to 2016 in the United Kingdom, the dominant discourse around migration, including by asylum seekers and refugees, represented the situation as a “crisis of borders,” which turned those seeking safety and refuge into a discursive threat to European stability’ (Pruitt 2019, p. 384). The author adds that,

media reports constructed increased migration to Europe, including the movement of refugees and those seeking asylum, as a threat to European borders, security forces, people, social order, and identity. This discursive enactment marginalised the danger and insecurity that refugees and asylum seekers experienced, including in violent conflicts, and depicted them primarily not as people seeking freedom from violence, but rather as perpetrators of crisis (Pruitt 2019, p. 383)

Balch and Balabanova (2020) contributed further to the debate about the mediatisation and politicisation of the ‘migrant crisis’ by assessing how the ‘normative system’ underpinning refugee protection was upheld or challenged in the public arena in Eastern and Western Europe. They argue that, rather than being a crisis of migration or borders, as such, the ‘crisis’ of 2015 is best understood as a crisis of political action (Balch and Balabanova 2020), a crisis of hospitality (Balch 2016), or a crisis of European integration (Bauböck 2018). And, while observation of international norms was debated and contested, the suffering experienced by refugees was rendered abstract. Balch and Balabanova (2020) note that this crisis of hospitality can also be seen as part of a longer crisis of confidence around the international refugee system and the norms which underpin it. In this context, the media emerge as an important site for competing interests, either supporting or undermining the appropriateness of different legal and policy frameworks, and ‘legitimising or de-legitimising the international normative terrain’ (Balch and Balabanova 2020). Attending, therefore, to the mediatised aspects of migration and refugee crises is extremely important, especially in instances where, as noted by Maurer et al. (2022, p. 222) and De Coninck (2022, p. 580), there is a claim of differential treatments in media portrayals of migrant groups depending on their countries of origin.

Afghan refugees

According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), ‘Afghan refugees continue to make up one of the largest and most protracted displacement situations under UNHCR’s mandate’ (UNCHR 2023). Forty years of political instability and conflict have left millions of Afghan people as refugees. The roots of the crisis are traced back to the late 1970s when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, sparking a violent conflict that lasted nearly a decade forcing Afghans to seek refuge in other countries, including Pakistan and Iran. Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, Afghanistan plunged into a period of civil war characterised by competing factions and warlords vying for control. This further destabilised the country and prompted continued displacement of civilians. The situation took a new turn in the late 1990s when the Taliban seized power, leading to another wave of displacement. After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, The United States deployed troops in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime. This, however, did not bring much stability to the country as Afghanistan continued to be marred by ongoing conflict, insurgency, and the emergence of other militant groups. Civilian casualties, infrastructure damage, and a struggling economy prompted a steady stream of people leaving the country. Since 2014, the United States started withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan, and in August 2021, the United States and its allies, including the UK, fully withdrew their troops from the country leading to the return of the Taliban regime to power. Since then, more than 1.6 million Afghans have fled the country (UNHCR 2023), fearing the repercussions, especially that many Afghans had collaborated with Western troops over the past decades providing crucial services such as interpreting.

Focusing on the framing of Afghan refugees in Canadian media, Sohail (2023, p. 222) observed a tendency to construct Afghan women as ‘passive victims’ and Afghan men as ‘bordering the line between victim and enemy’. This is while Canada is portrayed as the ‘benevolent saviour.’ For Sohail, media frames also contribute to reinforcing the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and the process of ‘othering’ through which Afghan refugees are perceived as others and outsiders. In a study comparing the BBC reports on refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan, Strömberg (2023, p. 21) also observed that reports on the Ukrainian situation had a ‘higher proportion of personalization and positivity’ while those relating to Afghan refugees had a higher proportion of negativity and superlativeness.’ The author went on to explain that, in the Ukraine related reports, more personal stories about the refugees were included in the narrative, whereas in the Afghan related reports, the narrative drew primarily on statements from the UK officials and politicians instead of personal accounts from the refugees themselves. For Strömberg (2023, p. 21), this stems from the process of ‘othering’ and a perceived lack of proximity and relatedness towards Afghan refugees. Conversely, in their study of the representation of Afghan refugees in the online media news reports of the United States, Sultan and Abid (2023, p. 19) conclude that the representation of the Afghan refugees in these reports ‘appears to be done in a positive way. This is to demonstrate that the Americans feel guilty, because they feel responsible for the situation in there.’

Ukrainian refugees

Studies of the representation and reception of population displacement following the 2014 conflict in Eastern Ukraine offer an important background to the circumstances of Ukrainian refugees in 2022. A common feature in studies of media coverage of displaced Ukrainians focuses on the distinct difference of terminology and framing of this group compared to other significant migrant populations such as those mentioned above. Furthermore, studies of media discourse relating to the forced displacement of Ukrainian refugees in 2014 tend to be localised to disciplines such as area studies, politics, and international relations. The following studies touch on the media representation or reception of Ukrainian refugees and offer interesting perspectives on analysing media sources.

Ojala et al. (2017) examined the visual coverage of the Ukraine conflict of 2014–2015, in The Guardian, Die Welt, Dagens Nyheter, and Helsingin Sanomat in terms of three dominant frames: the Ukraine conflict as national power struggle, as Russian intervention, and as geopolitical conflict. They argue that ‘the interplay between visual and textual devices is central to the production of hegemonic meanings, particularly when shaping public perceptions of key actors and their roles in international conflicts’ (2017, p. 474). Ojala et al. claim that research on the effects of visual framing suggests that news images tend to shape reader and viewer perceptions of the reported issue more effectively than textual content. They note that media sources are used as a means to legitimise differing perspectives in modern conflicts and claim that visual framing is a key part of the emotive effect of the media on public opinion. They further note that the heightened geopolitical nature of this conflict has contributed to its marked visibility and mediatisation. Both government sources and various nonstate actors have sought to control the public’s interpretation of events and the legitimacy of the conflicting parties’ actions. National and international news media have therefore become important arenas of debate on the Ukraine conflict, reflecting a contested set of narratives of the causes of the conflict (2017, p. 475). Ojala et al. also acknowledge that news providers actively frame events through interpretation and definition, selecting and emphasising certain aspects and excluding others. Like verbal framing devices, visuals are used to make certain aspects of the reported events more noticeable, memorable, and affective. As images communicate nonverbally and are often processed unconsciously by the reader, they can be used to gradually normalise certain points of view and interpretations of the issues, or to subtly affect impressions of the actors involved (Ojala et al. 2017, p. 475).

A study by Roman et al. (2021) examined media coverage of Ukrainian people displaced by the 2014 conflict in Eastern Ukraine as the crisis unfolded. This study provides a comparative perspective across the UK, US, Russian and Ukrainian press. The authors conclude that the media representation of displaced Ukrainian people differed significantly from previous frames of migration in these countries: ‘English-language newspapers were more likely to focus on statistics, while Ukrainian and Russian press devoted more attention to various aspects of migrants’ resettlement. The “security threat” and “crime” frames, which are often used in media coverage of refugees, were nearly non-existent in the articles about displaced Ukrainians’ (Roman et al. 2021, p. 153).

Given the contemporary nature of the war between Russia and Ukraine, there are fewer existing studies of the media impact on public perceptions of Ukrainian refugees in the UK following the forced displacement of a significant percentage of the population in 2022. A key, if brief, article by De Coninck (2022) compares the reception of Afghan refugees in 2021 and Ukrainian refugees in 2022, arguing that ‘[a]lthough the situations in Ukraine and Afghanistan are (somewhat) comparable, the reactions of the American and European public to the reception of these two different groups of refugees are clearly different.’ De Coninck notes that the positive reception of Ukrainian refugees stands in stark contrast to the negative reactions to Afghan refugees. He suggests that several cultural factors make Anglo-American audiences feel closer to Ukrainian refugees and consider them as more ‘deserving’ of aid and less ‘threatening.’ He suggests that ‘the perceived symbolic threat toward the Ukrainian refugee is likely to be limited for both the European and American public’ (De Coninck 2022, p. 3). Symbolic threat refers to the fear that migrants challenge the in-group’s religion, values, belief systems, ideology, or worldview. De Coninck also refers to the concept of a ‘conscience collective,’ understood as the perceived cultural proximity of a group achieved through shared interaction in social and cultural events (De Coninck 2022, p. 4). He points to Ukraine’s participation in global sporting and cultural events, which constitute important opportunities for common cultural rituals that are not present for other nations. He further notes that assumptions about ethnicity and religiosity contribute to perceptions of symbolic threat and membership in a shared cultural sphere. Importantly, De Coninck raises the prospect of European identification with Ukrainian refugees as a projection of their fears of further aggression from Russia (De Coninck 2022, p. 5), specifically fears of the possibility of other countries getting invaded by Russia and the spill-over of the conflict beyond the boundaries of Ukraine. This provides an additional axis for frame analysis based on what De Coninck (2022, p. 5) refers to as ‘aggressor-based threat.’

With all the above in mind, we approached our selected news articles through the lens of media frame analysis, looking at the discursive elements animating these articles and the central organising ideas of their narrative. This with the aim to identify the dominant frames deployed in the sampled articles and establish whether different refugee groups are subjected to certain frames more than others.

This study focuses on the UK context and seeks to understand the framing of refugees from different countries in the local news, using frame analysis approach. Part of the challenge of conducting media frame analysis is the absence of an integrated conceptualisation of what constitutes a frame analysis methodology. Despite (or because of) the growing usage of this approach within various academic disciplines, frame analysis has not evolved into a homogenous theory or a unified methodology as such. The “scattered” nature of frame analysis has been indeed the subject of many academic articles, especially within the fields of communication studies, sociology and psychology (Giles et al. 2009; Vliegenthart and van Zoonen 2011; Linström and Marais 2012; Scardigno et al. 2024). In fact, Entman’s (1993) above mentioned key essay was, in essence, an attempt to foment some conceptual cohesiveness vis-à-vis frame analysis by providing precise working definitions for frames and framing. But as Vliegenthart and van Zoonen (2011, p. 105) argue, despite Entman’s call for conceptual preciseness, academic work on frames and framing contains ‘a cacophony of new definitions, divergent operationalizations and a wide, often incompatible range of empirically established content features.’ Our aim in this article is not to entertain all the different definitions and possible operationalisations of frame analysis but to tease out the most useful elements for our present enquiry while, of course, being mindful of the surrounding debates. As Giles and Shaw (2009, p. 382) argue, ‘methods for analysing framing are as good as the purpose for which they are fit’. In the main, we followed Goffman’s foundational definition of frames as schemes of interpretation and Entman’s definition of framing as the act of selecting certain aspects and making them salient. These well-known definitions provide the starting points for identifying the main frame(s) adopted in each article. In practical terms, we also relied on Linström and Marais’ (2012, p. 29–33) highly useful methodological approach to qualitative frame analysis of news media, which consists of a series of steps that we adapted as following:

Step 1: choosing the medium

We selected online news articles from Britain’s top two news brands, BBC and The Sun. With audiences of 37.9 million and 24.7 million respectively, the BBC and The Sun are considered the most visited news outlets in the UK, according to the latest report by Statista from December 2023 (Statista 2023). Due to their widespread readership and influence, they are both regarded as agenda setters that have an impact on understandings and perceptions of refugee issues. They also represent different segments of the media spectrum; while The Sun is known for its tabloid-style reporting, the BBC is often perceived as adhering to a more formal and balanced reporting style. These two distinct news sources can thus capture divergent angles due to their varying journalistic styles and target audiences, potentially offering contrasting perspectives on the refugee crises.

Step 2: determining a time-frame

We selected articles about the Syrian refugee crisis published between September and December 2016, articles about the Afghan refugee crisis between August and September 2021, and articles about the Ukrainian refugee crisis between February and March 2022. All these periods were important moments for each of these refugee crises, marking either the starting phase of the crises (the case of Ukrainian and Afghan crises) or a crucial period of resettlement and integration (Syrian case).

Step 3: drawing a sample

We selected a total of 30 articles: five articles written by the BBC and five written by The Sun were sampled for each of the three different crises (Syrian, Afghan and Ukrainian) (Appendix 1). A set of keywords was used to guide the search for relevant articles in the news sections of the BBC website and The Sun online archives. These comprised words like “refugee,” “asylum seeker,” and specific crisis names (“Syrian refugee crisis,” “Afghan refugee crisis,” and “Ukrainian refugee crisis”). Articles were selected based on their relevance to the research topic. Commentaries and non-news articles were excluded to maintain the focus on factual reporting. Each article was given a unique code to facilitate analysis (Appendix 1).

Opting for a small sample of 30 articles instead of a larger corpus has many benefits but also some limitations. The main benefit of a small size sample is that it allows more in-depth focus on each article which facilitates closer reading and a more thorough qualitative examination of the frames and underlying meanings, which is the objective of this study. This, in turn, enables an analysis that is richer in description and insights as well as an enhanced awareness of the nuances of each studied article. Some of the limitations of a small sample size include the inability to reach generalisable and representative findings and conclusions. Media coverage can vary widely based on factors such as crisis intensity and political context. A small sample cannot capture the full spectrum of representations and nuances that exist within the media landscape. Moreover, with a delimited and short timeframe, it is not possible to provide conclusive answers regarding long-term media discourses and how they are developing throughout the unfolding of refugee crises. But despite these noted limitations, there is still value in analysing “small data” and engaging in close reading of the selected articles and a qualitative approach to their analysis. For while quantitative approaches, such as computer-assisted frame analysis, have their own epistemological merits, a qualitative approach to frame analysis, as Reese (in Linström and Marais 2012, p. 26) argues,

helps resist the reductionistic urge to sort media texts and discourse into containers and count their size or frequency. Indeed, some define frames as an inherently qualitative construct. In this case, one must capture the meanings embedded in the internal relations within texts, which collapsing into reductive measures would obscure.

Indeed, since the interest of this study is to find out how refugee crises are framed within the selected news articles, our attention is on how such issues are represented and what elements are emphasised, as per Entman’s (1993) suggestions.

Step 4: identifying a unit of analysis

In frame analysis, identifying the unit of analysis involves determining the specific textual and visual elements of the media content that will be examined to understand the framing process (de Vreese 2005, p. 54). According to Wimmer and Dominick (in Linström and Marais 2012, p. 29), ‘the unit of analysis might be a single word or symbol, a theme, or an entire article or story’. In our case, the overarching unit of analysis comprises of the whole articles that we sampled. We began by thoroughly reading each article multiple times, noting initial impressions and recurring themes, and highlighting the significant sections in the articles. This enabled us to gain an understanding of the overall framing each full article provides of the issue at hand. Following Tankard (2001, p. 101), we also considered the headlines and lead paragraphs to establish how these units introduced the issues and what aspects they emphasised at the outset. Moreover, we highlighted the quotes from the key stakeholders featured in the articles (refugees, politicians, experts, members of host communities) to see how their perspectives were framed. We also looked at the images used in the articles and how they contributed to the overall narrative and framing of the stories being covered. All these elements are examples of what Gamson and Modigliani (1989) refer to as ‘framing devises’, as noted earlier.

One key aspect of framing devices is the language and tone used to convey the key messages. According to Wildemann et al. (2023, p. 3), ‘[t]erminology and language use play an important role in framing the discussion on migration.’ The context of language use, such as the format in which it appears or the authority of the author or source are all important in determining the effect of media narratives in shaping perceptions and attitudes towards a given topic or issue. Milliken (1999) suggests that discourses are ‘structures of signification which construct social realities’ and likewise ‘make intelligible some ways of being in, and acting toward, the world, and of operationalizing a particular “regime of truth” while excluding other possible modes of identity and action’ (Milliken 1999, p. 229). The language used by media sources to discuss migration and refugee issues can thus constrain or expand the perception of these issues in the public sphere. Knoblock (2020, p. 15) even contends that ‘language is not only an instrument for describing events but also a part of events itself, shaping their meaning and helping to shape the social and political roles of communicators’.

As such and when reading the selected news articles, we paid very close attention to the vocabulary used in the articles to describe the events or issues being covered. We developed the coding mechanism by highlighting keywords and phrases that signify certain frames such as “responsibility”, “moral duty”, “security”, “threat”, “aggression”, “solidarity”, “support”, “humanitarian”, “financial burden”, “women”, “girls”, and so on. This enabled us to construct a list of words, phrases and metaphors (e.g. “trapped in hell”, “refugees have flooded west”, “haemorrhaging 1 million citizens”) which act as linguistic indicators, revealing the adopted frames in the sampled articles.

In addition to language, visuals, plotlines, and central characters are also important elements within media frames and, as such, warrant attention when examining the discursive aspects of a given frame. As mentioned above, the images accompanying the articles can also steer stories towards certain frames (e.g., sympathetic portrayal vs. threat portrayal). In examining the images, we took note of the subject (e.g., refugee family), the context (e.g., refugee camp), symbols (e.g., aid tents, relief supplies), composition (e.g., close-up on the family’s faces showing emotion), and the accompanying caption. Identifying the central characters featured in the articles and the roles assigned to them as well as the plotlines within which they appear helped us determine how the portrayal of characters as heroes, villains, or victims in a story can carry a moral interpretation and contribute to the framing of an issue (e.g., refugees as victims in need of help versus refugees as a threat to the security of borders).

Step 5: selecting a frame typology

According to Linström and Marais (2012, p. 29–30), there are two approaches for selecting frames: a deductive approach whereby frames are selected from a pre-existing list of frames commonly used by the media as identified in previous framing analyses (e.g. security frame, economic frame, responsibility frame, etc.), and a bottom-up inductive approach whereby frames are identified by closely examining the data without preconceived categories. In our study, we were of course informed and guided by the literature review we conducted in advance of collecting the data. By examining existing academic research on the topic of refugees’ representations in the media, we gained an initial understanding of the common media frames identified in academic literature as well as a sense of “what to look for” when examining the data (ibid., p. 28). However, we did not follow a deductive approach per se. The frames in our study were not determined in advance but emerged from analysing the examined sample itself, even if at the end, many of the frames we identified echoed the frames found in other studies. This resonates with the approach adopted by Ramasubramanian and Miles (2018, p. 4495) who, instead of ‘imposing generic or external frames on the data’, allowed the frames ‘to emerge from the data’. This approach leaves room for discovery instead of limiting the process by the predefined frames of the deductive approach and overlooking other frames that might exist within the sample.

Following this approach and the steps outlined above, we established the main ‘issues’ (de Vreese 2005, p. 54; Scardigno et al. 2024, p. 253) that are made ‘salient’ (Entman 1993) in each article, from which we identified ten dominant frames animating the sampled articles: humanitarian frame, identification frame, human-interest frame, aggressor-based threat frame, resource frame, security frame, moral frame, controversy frame, comparison frame, and gender frame.

Step 6: operational definitions

This stage involves providing the definitions of the identified frames to ensure clarity, specificity and consistency around the meaning and function of each frame (Linström and Marais 2012, p. 30). Accordingly, the following are our adopted operational definitions of each frame that emerged from our sampled articles:

1. 1.

   The humanitarian frame, as previously discussed, tends to emphasise the impact of events on individuals and groups, often focusing on aspects such as human suffering and efforts to alleviate hardship.

2. 2.

   The identification frame focuses on highlighting similarities between the audience and the individuals or groups featured in a story. This frame aims to foster a sense of empathy and solidarity among the audience by emphasising commonalities in experiences, values, or identities.

3. 3.

   The human-interest frame focuses on the human side of events through character-driven narratives that highlight personal experiences, struggles and triumphs. This frame aims to engage the audience on a deeper level by bringing a personal dimension to the news and evoking interest, curiosity, and empathy.

4. 4.

   The aggressor-based threat frame, as mentioned earlier, focuses on the actions and intentions of the perceived aggressor. In the context of international relations or conflicts, the aggressor-based threat frame involves portraying a specific country, organisation, or individual as the aggressor, with their actions framed as endangering peace, stability, or the interests of other parties.

5. 5.

   The resource frame puts the emphasis on issues of provision, allocation, and management of resources, highlighting concerns with scarcity, access, and the economic impact on communities and local infrastructure.

6. 6.

   The security frame portrays refugee issues as a matter of national security concerns, border control and the potential risks posed by refugee movements.

7. 7.

   The moral frame portrays issues in terms of moral principles and values, and often seeks to evoke a sense of compassion, responsibility, and moral obligations among audiences.

8. 8.

   The controversy frame seeks to highlight the complexities and contentions surrounding a given issue, presenting diverse viewpoints. Rather than focusing solely on humanitarian concerns or moral imperatives, this frame often seeks to present conflicting opinions and divergent perspectives.

9. 9.

   The comparison frame is used in news coverage to draw parallels between different situations, highlighting similarities or differences in causes, impacts, responses, and outcomes.

10. 10.

    The gender frame tends to highlight the unique challenges faced by women and girls, and the importance of addressing gender-specific needs. In the coverage of refugee crises, the gender frame is used, for instance, to discuss issues of vulnerability and gender-based violence in displacement settings, and efforts to address gender inequalities in humanitarian programming. Other uses of the gender frame are also found in the news coverage of incidents of sexual harassment involving male refugees.

Step 7: analysing and comparing news frames

Once the frames have been identified following the above steps, we counted their frequency across the sample by establishing the number of articles in which we could detect the frames (Appendix 2). We calculated, for instance, the proportion of articles using the humanitarian frame and identified the frames that were more prevalent in each outlet and across the overall sample. We conducted further readings of each article analysing their framing devices (headlines, phrases, keywords, images, captions, quotes, etc.) and noting the nuances and context of their use. We looked for differences in language, visuals and the specific aspects of the frames that were emphasised so as to compare and analyse how the frames were used within the articles and reveal possible patterns or variations in the framing of the different refugee crises.

Within the sampled articles, the dominant frame was notably the humanitarian frame. It featured in 19 out of the 30 (63%) articles analysed, and particularly in the coverage of the Ukrainian and Afghan refugee crises. The other prominent frame is the moral frame which featured in 43% of the articles, appearing across the coverage of the three refugee crises (Appendix 2).

Coverage of the Ukrainian refugee crisis

BBC articles

Almost all of the sampled BBC articles reporting on the Ukrainian refugee crisis adopted the humanitarian frame, often making use of emotive language and images to evoke empathy and compassion from the readers. One such article, for instance, is BBC.4 which uses language to describe the difficult journeys that refugees have taken to flee Ukraine, such as ‘treacherous journey’, ‘huge, snaking traffic jams’, and ‘devastated cities.’ Throughout this article, emotional appeals are made to elicit compassion and understanding. The article also includes the direct accounts of Ukrainian refugees which helps convey a first-person perspective, giving readers insight into the refugees’ personal struggles, aspirations and fears, and underscoring the emotional toll of displacement: “I still can’t believe that I am a refugee because I have a very good education. I had a very prestigious job in Kyiv. I won international awards. It is so hard to believe that now you are a refugee. You don’t have clothes, you don’t have anything”, says Tania, an art director from Kyiv. The inclusion of the voices of those affected by the conflict compel readers to consider the human dimensions of the crisis and reflect on what is seen as a moral imperative to extend assistance and solidarity to those in need. Added to that the inclusion of photos of several Ukrainians seeking refuge, some of which are older photos from before the war while others are taken during their escape, which serves to highlight the quick turn of events and the emergency of the situation. Overall, in this article, the human-interest frame and the moral frame overlap with the humanitarian frame.

Another article, BBC.3, draws direct parallels between the Holocaust and the ongoing war in Ukraine when reporting on the responses of German citizens to the arrival of Ukrainian refugees in Berlin, with one German interviewee stating that ‘it’s not Hitler this time, but for me it somehow feels like what Putin does is what Hitler did before.’ Such parallels reinforce this constructed historical connection and suggest a moral obligation to assist refugees. For many readers, the Second World War evokes the most acute image of a struggle between good and evil. It also engenders a sense of shared struggle and builds solidarity. Many Europeans perished or were made homeless by the conflict decades prior, and the Ukrainian refugees are seen, in this sense, much like their ancestors. Importantly, the article employs linguistic devices that encourage readers to draw comparisons and identify with the refugees. The use of phrases such as “it could have been us,” creates a sense of identification and shared humanity. These linguistic choices evoke the idea that anyone could find themselves in a similar situation, fostering a sense of collective responsibility. Moreover, by incorporating personal narratives, the article evokes emotional responses. Stories of Ukrainian refugees, such as a woman named Anastasiia whose husband was barred from exiting Ukraine due to the introduction of male conscription and her child’s innocent enquiries about his father’s whereabouts, evoke empathy and compassion. The host families’ motivations are emphasised, portraying them as individuals who have a deep understanding of the refugees’ plight due to their own historical and familial connections to past crises. This is further emphasised by the introduction of Tarek Alaows, a Syrian refugee, who now assists Ukrainian refugees at the border. His actions highlight a discourse of resilience and solidarity among refugees, transcending national boundaries and emphasising shared experiences of conflict and displacement. As such and in addition to the humanitarian frame, the identification frame, human-interest frame, moral frame, and comparison frame are all prominent in article BBC.3, as evident through the linguistic choices, historical references, and personal narratives featured in the article.

Published on the same day as BBC.4 (4/3/2022), BBC.5 adopts primarily a human-interest frame, using personal stories and images to portray the experiences of Ukrainian refugees in Poland. For instance, Anastasiia and Miroslava, two young sisters who have fled Ukraine with their mother, are presented as individuals with emotions, dreams, and aspirations. This framing aims to evoke empathy and challenge the abstract and, at times, dehumanising narratives that can sometimes emerge in discussions about refugees. Descriptions of the sisters’ arduous journey from Dnipro to Kraków underscore the urgency of their situation. The framing of their journey as a pursuit of “peace” in Germany (their final destination) emphasises the quest for safety and stability. The article also paints Poland in a positive light by highlighting the support and safety provided to Ukrainian refugees in the country: “The Ukrainian people are safe in Poland and Polish people have been coming to the station to support the refugees and try and raise spirits”, the article states. Moreover, images of Polish volunteers, scouts, and individuals at the train station offering food and entertainment, project an image of a compassionate nation that has mobilised en masse to support Ukrainian refugees.

Highlighting the appeals made by charitable organisations, including Save the Children and Amnesty International, articles BBC.1 and BBC.2 present a call for humanitarian action to welcome Ukrainian refugees in the UK. Adopting both a humanitarian frame and a comparison frame, BBC.1 draws a parallel between the Ukrainian refugee crisis and the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, framing the situation as potentially “the most significant European conflict since the collapse of Yugoslavia.” This comparison emphasises the gravity of the situation and underscores the need for a robust response. The sense of humanitarian urgency is further emphasised by the way in which both articles descriptively portray the dire circumstances faced by Ukrainians attempting to flee, including heavy traffic jams, overwhelmed transportation services, and shortages of essential supplies. The featured images of refugees walking with possessions in suitcases highlight the urgency and desperation of their situation. BBC.2 emphasises the severity of the situation all the more by quantifying the scale of the crisis through statistics on the number of refugees and the potential for millions more to be displaced. This numeric representation contributes further to an understanding of the severity of the situation and emphasises the urgency of response.

Both articles juxtapose the charitable organisations’ appeal with the stance of the UK Home Office, highlighting the tensions between immediate humanitarian responses and the government’s national priorities. In doing so, BBC.1 critiques the UK’s Nationality and Borders Bill, asserting that it could hinder asylum claims and penalise refugees seeking sanctuary. This framing positions the bill as a potential obstacle to providing aid and challenges the government’s commitment to assisting refugees. Statements from political figures like Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner and Liberal Democrats spokesperson Layla Moran are included (BBC.1), presenting a range of perspectives on the issue and advocating for support and assistance. BBC.2 features statements from the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson regarding the UK’s response. Johnson’s statements position the UK as a humanitarian actor, expressing concern for the conflict’s impact and asserting the nation’s commitment to assist. His denouncement of “fake news” subtly challenges any suggestion that the UK is not taking refugees. Overall, both articles adopt a humanitarian frame and a moral frame which stresses the urgency and moral obligation to assist Ukrainian refugees. At the same time and through a comparison frame, the articles emphasise the UK’s historical role in providing refuge and solidarity during conflicts, presenting the call to welcome Ukrainian refugees as a continuation of this tradition.

The Sun articles

As with the BBC articles, The Sun’s coverage of the Ukrainian refugee crisis is primarily situated within a humanitarian frame, appealing to the readers’ empathy with emotive use of language and imagery. For instance, article SUN.1, entitled “TRAPPED IN HELL”, clearly uses language to evoke an emotional response in the reader about the plight of Ukrainian refugees. The opening sentence, “TERRIFIED Ukrainian refugees fleeing Vladimir Putin’s onslaught have found shelter in a shopping centre on the Polish border”, immediately creates an image of vulnerability and urgency. The article vividly describes the makeshift refugee camp within the shopping centre, emphasising the conditions of the camp through phrases like “white tiled floors” and “littered with the human cost of war”. The portrayal of exhausted families, lack of showers, and reliance on emergency rations amplifies the refugees’ suffering. The featured images of crying children and of the crowded shopping-centre-turned-refugee-camp provide visual illustrations of the situation.

In addition to the humanitarian frame, the article is also underpinned by a gender frame in the way it focuses on the experiences of mothers and their children, using emotive language such as “desperate Ukrainian mums cling to kids”, “screaming babies,” and “tiny girl” to evoke sympathy. It also includes direct quotes from refugees, such as Nadia and Zoryana, giving voice to their experiences and fears. The article is largely portraying Ukrainian refugees as victims of Putin’s “bloody onslaught”, attributing responsibility for the crisis to the Russian leader. As this statement indicates: “It comes as fears grow Vladimir Putin is stepping up his indiscriminate bombing of Ukraine, after his efforts to quickly overwhelm the country’s defences were frustrated. Today, dozens are believed to have been killed in a carpet-bombing raid in Kharkiv, including a barrage of Grad rockets and Smerch missiles. The horrifying massacre, which took place at around midday local time, came as dozens of desperate residents queued for food outside supermarkets in Ukraine’s second city”. Such framing highlights the aggressor-based threat frame, directing blame and invoking emotions of fear and anger. The article briefly mentions the conscription policy introduced by Ukraine, contributing to the portrayal of a nation at war. The article highlights the sacrifice of some Ukrainian men who choose to fight while their families seek safety: “Across the border in the Polish city of Przemysl, hundreds of Ukrainian men in combat gear were seen heading back towards the war zone. Many of them had ensured their loved ones were brought to safety in Poland before going to the frontline”.

Like SUN.1, SUN.2 also positions Putin as a menacing aggressor through the use of phrases, such as “Mad Vlad’s army” and “Putin’s bloodthirsty battalions”, which creates an antagonist image that aligns with Western perspectives. The article thereby foregrounds an aggressor-based threat frame while employing emotive language to appeal to readers’ empathy, using statements such as “fleeing disaster, war, persecution,” “war-torn hell”, and “heartbreaking scenes”. SUN.2 also discusses the UK government’s decision to allow around 100,000 Ukrainian refugees to come to the UK. The specific number of 100,000 refugees creates a sense of scale and highlights the magnitude of the crisis. The article mentions statements by former Home Secretary Priti Patel and former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, framing the UK’s response as a coordinated effort. Johnson’s statement that “he wants to be as generous as we possibly can to those fleeing the conflict” and his desire for partnership with neighbouring countries reinforces the UK’s humanitarian stance. The article further positions the UK as a safe haven and highlights the benefits offered to Ukrainian refugees, such as access to work and public services, while Priti Patel’s announcement of simplified visa requirements for Ukrainian refugees focuses on immediate family members of Britons and security checks. This security frame portrays the UK as providing assistance to those directly connected to its citizens while emphasising the prioritisation of security.

In a similar vein, SUN. 4 also discusses the UK government’s plans to open a new route for Ukrainian refugees. The potential intake of “hundreds of thousands” of Ukrainian refugees, as stated in the headline, indicates a substantial response to the crisis. The urgency of the situation is emphasised by the phrase “in next few days”, while the use of terms like “mercy mission” and “throw open Britain’s doors” highlights the UK’s willingness to offer refuge to those in need. Boris Johnson’s announcement is presented as a defence against previous criticism of the UK’s visa scheme. His statements about refugees contributing to the UK and the country’s history of resettling vulnerable people are presented as a reflection of the UK’s values. This humanitarian framing aligns with a positive national identity and portrays the UK as a welcoming nation. The article includes personal stories of Ukrainian refugees, such as teenager Gabriela Raminishvili, who “escaped terrifying bombardment in Kyiv only to be stranded in France for six days” and her plea to Boris Johnson to “cut red tape so she can find safety in Britain”. These stories add a human element to the narrative, invoking empathy and highlighting an urgent need for action. This is further stressed by the use of images featuring large crowds of Ukrainian refugees waiting at train and bus stations.

Adopting both a humanitarian frame and a comparison frame, SUN.3 details the responses of the various countries accepting Ukrainian refugees including Poland, Moldova, Canada, the UK, and the United States. It emphasises the policies, visa options, and support measures implemented by these countries, positioning them as compassionate and proactive in the face of the crisis. The article includes statements from political figures and leaders, such as Ontario Premier Doug Ford and White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, expressing solidarity with “people fleeing the tyranny that Russia has put on Ukraine”. The promise of aid and expedited visa processes is portrayed as a gesture of support and empathy. The article briefly mentions potential consequences of the influx of refugees for Moldova, highlighting the impact of mass emigration on the country’s labour shortage: “The small country has experienced its own exodus, haemorrhaging 1 million citizens since 1991. That mass emigration has led to a labour shortage, making the influx of Ukrainians a boon – provided Russia does not invade Moldova next”. The geopolitical context is subtly touched upon, acknowledging the potential risks posed by Russia’s actions beyond Ukraine. As such, the aggressor-based threat frame is also present in SUN.3.

SUN.5 discusses a policy shift regarding the fast-tracking of Ukrainian refugees into Britain, announced by the then Home Secretary Priti Patel. The article portrays the policy change in a positive light, emphasising the benefits for refugees. It thereby adopts a largely humanitarian frame. The fast-tracking process is described as efficient and biometrically enabled, highlighting the ease of access and reduced waiting time for those seeking refuge. Using a quote from an unnamed official, the article compares the refugee crisis to unprecedented historical events, such as World War II, emphasising the magnitude and seriousness of the situation. This framing positions the crisis as exceptional and warranting immediate attention. The use of phrases such as “fleeing Russian invasion” and “suffering from frostbite or trauma” creates an image of the dire conditions faced by refugees, invoking sympathy and urgency. The article also includes criticism from Labour’s Yvette Cooper, who condemns the UK government’s approach as “shameful”, but does not clarify the reasons behind Cooper’s judgment. Unlike SUN.4, SUN.5 does not provide direct quotes or voices from Ukrainian refugees themselves, focusing primarily on official statements and policy details.

Coverage of the Afghan refugee crisis

BBC articles

As with the coverage of the Ukrainian refugee crisis, both the BBC’s and The Sun’s articles vastly prioritise a humanitarian frame in their coverage of the Afghan refugee crisis, eliciting feelings of sympathy and concern for the Afghan refugees. Other frames, such as the security frame and resource frame, are also present in the coverage of the Afghan refugee crisis.

Starting with BBC.6, which is entitled “UK looking at bespoke Afghan refugee scheme”, this article provides information on the UK government’s plans to create a new resettlement scheme for Afghan refugees in response to the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan. The term “bespoke” conveys a sense of individualised attention and care while the use of phrases such as “a big-hearted nation” and “always provided safe haven” portray a compassionate approach to welcoming Afghan refugees and emphasise the UK’s history of offering refuge. The overall tone of the article is informative and factual, primarily reporting statements and actions of government officials such as Domonic Raab, the then UK’s foreign secretary. Adopting a humanitarian frame, the article underscores the UK’s commitment to humanitarian values and helping those “most in need”. The article includes images of Afghan nationals receiving visas and UK troops helping evacuees, reinforcing the visual narrative of assistance and support. In addition, the article also quotes the Home Office’s statement that “it will be guided by the capacity of local authorities when deciding how many Afghan refugees to allow to settle in the UK after the Taliban seized power”, indicating a resource frame.

BBC.8 discusses the changing situation at the Pakistani-Afghan border due to the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan. The article describes how the Taliban have taken control of the busy Torkham crossing, permitting only traders and individuals with valid travel documents to cross the border. The number of Afghan refugees seeking to enter Pakistan has significantly reduced, as a result. The article contextualises the situation further by highlighting that, since June 2016, the Pakistani government has made a valid passport and visa mandatory for all Afghans seeking to enter Pakistan. The article points out the challenges faced by Afghan refugees in obtaining these documents, especially in light of the Taliban’s takeover which led the Pakistani government to increase security measures at the border, including stricter vetting processes to prevent militants from disguising themselves as civilians. Adopting primarily a security frame, BBC.8 also touches on the humanitarian aspect highlighting that the Pakistani government has reached its limit in accepting more Afghan refugees, despite calls from the UN Refugee Agency. The article features an image of Taliban fighters and Pakistani soldiers guarding the Torkham crossing and two other images of Afghans crossing into Pakistan at Torkham. These images visualises further the juxtaposition of the security frame and the humanitarian frame within the article.

Both BBC.7 and BBC.9 discuss the considerations and perspectives surrounding the UK’s decision to welcome Afghan refugees following the Taliban’s takeover of the country, and the commitment of councils across England to participate in the resettlement of Afghan refugees. While these articles are largely articulating the issue within a humanitarian frame, concerns are also expressed vis-à-vis housing availability and capacity in certain areas of the country, indicating a resource frame as well. The headline of BBC.9, “Afghanistan: Councils must balance needs of refugees and locals”, frames the issue as a balancing act between the needs of refugees and the concerns of locals, highlighting potential tensions: “There is a very large waiting list for council housing in Ipswich, so we have to balance with what we want to do with what we can do”, quoting Conservatives’ Tom Hunt (BBC.9). In BBC.7, a quote by the Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham is included, summarising similar tensions: “Greater Manchester doesn’t look away – we will always play our part. In fact, we are already playing our part in stepping up to dealing with that crisis. But Greater Manchester has always played more than its part when we look at areas across the country when it comes to matters of asylum. We don’t believe the current approach is sustainable.” Although not explicit, there is a subtle underlying implication in both articles that refugees are a burden, and the focus of the articles is an expression of stakeholders’ reaction to that burden. This side of the story is not covered with regards to the Ukrainian refugees within the sampled articles.

BBC.10 discusses the experiences and hopes of Afghan refugees who have been resettled in Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, after working as interpreters for the British Army in Afghanistan. It features direct quotes from Afghan refugees, sharing their experiences and perspectives. Statements from the minister of Newport Pagnell Baptist Church, Steve Wood, provides insight into the community’s support for the refugee families: “We sought to meet the needs of people who had quite literally been picked up in one part of the world… and dropped in a leafy suburb in Buckinghamshire.” The article emphasises themes of hope, gratitude, and safety through words like “brighter future”, “safe”, and “opportunities” to highlight positive aspects of the refugees’ new life: “My children will integrate in this society – this is the absolute nature. But I think this is our country now, because we are part of this country and I believe I will also have a good future – a brighter future”, says Nazir, one of dozens of Afghans who have been resettled in Newport Pagnell. Unlike BBC.8 and BBC.9, BBC.10 does not delve into the potential challenges or practical difficulties relating to refugees’ resettlement process. It adopts a largely humanitarian frame, situating the debate within the broader context of the UK’s decision to provide refuge to Afghan interpreters who worked with the British military.

The Sun articles

In discussing the UK government’s emergency plan to provide sanctuary to Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban, SUN.6 adopts primarily a humanitarian frame, emphasising the UK’s role as a “safe haven”. At the same time, the article also adopts an aggressor-based frame, portraying the Taliban as ruthless and violent through the use of expressions such as “terror of Taliban”, “bloodthirsty Taliban”, “murderous Taliban” and “Taliban’s worst atrocities”. At the outset, the article employs emotive language and a gender frame to evoke strong emotions and emphasise a dire situation: the first paragraph of the article states that “Boris Johnson is scrambling to come up with the plan to save fleeing women and children amid shocking reports of girls as young as 12 being forcibly married to Taliban soldiers”. A series of images then follow, featuring Afghan refugees, armed UK forces helping with the relocation of Afghans, and an image of Taliban militants. The images convey further the gravity of the situation and UK’s efforts to provide safety to feeling Afghans. Moreover, the use of words like “emergency” and “scrambling” together with phrases such as “Britain’s panicked and humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan” also underscore the urgency of the situation. The article cites Boris Johnson’s involvement in drawing up the emergency plans and his cancellation of summer holiday plans to address the crisis. Various other political figures, including former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and former Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, offer their perspectives on the situation. While the article highlights the UK’s historical role as a refuge for vulnerable populations by invoking the example of the Syrian resettlement programme, it does not delve into the historical and political context of the UK’s involvement in Afghanistan. It does, however, employ a moral frame that emphasises a sense of responsibility and positions the UK government as taking swift action to provide sanctuary to Afghan refugees.

SUN.7 is another article discussing the UK government’s plan to provide sanctuary to Afghan refugees, particularly women, girls, and religious minorities, who are fleeing the Taliban. Like SUN.6, this article positions the UK government as taking a principled and compassionate stance by offering targeted refuge to vulnerable Afghan populations, while portraying the Taliban as a negative force causing violence and oppression. Using images of refugee evacuation and terms like “rocked the world”, “clutches of the fanatics”, and “medieval violence and oppression” contribute to an emotional and urgent tone. The article thereby adopts a mix of frames including humanitarian frame, gender frame, and aggressor-based frame. It also employs the moral frame when emphasising the UK’s moral responsibility to rescue those who worked to make “Afghanistan better over the last 20 years”. To this end, Boris Johnson is framed as vowing to honour the “debt” the UK owes to the Afghan people, urging the international community to set “firm conditions” to prevent the Taliban from plunging the country into violence. Priti Patel is quoted saying “The Afghan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme will save lives”, adding “Our country has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those in need. We will not abandon people who have been forced to flee their homes and are now living in terror of what might come next.”

SUN.8 emphasises the desperate attempts of Afghans to escape the Taliban’s control: “Huge crowds of people have been seen at Kabul airport as they try to secure a seat on a plane leaving the capital for freedom.” Articulated within a humanitarian frame, the article is a call to action, providing information about various ways individuals can support Afghan refugees through charitable efforts. The article lists several well-known charities that are actively supporting Afghan refugees, highlighting the focus on women and children in the UK’s resettlement scheme. The inclusion of these charity organisations provides credibility and options for potential donors. The urgency of the situation is further emphasised by statements such as “Stories have also emerged of ‘death squads’ roaming the country searching for anyone who had helped US and UK forces and forcing women and children into marriage or becoming ‘sex slaves’”, highlighting also a gender frame. Like the case of SUN.7, SUN.8 also employs a moral frame, underscoring the duty to help vulnerable refugees fleeing Taliban and portraying the UK’s initiatives as life-saving efforts. The article uses similar quotes from Boris Johnson, reinforcing UK’s moral responsibility: “We owe a debt of gratitude to all those who have worked with us to make Afghanistan a better place over the last 20 years. Many of them, particularly women, are now in urgent need of our help. I am proud that the UK has been able to put in place this route to help them and their families live safely in the UK.”

Adopting a comparison frame, SUN.9 provides information about the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan. It explores the different approaches those countries have towards Afghan refugee situation, ranging from acceptance (Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) to more restrictive measures (Pakistan, Iran, and Turkmenistan). The use of phrases like “welcoming refugees” and “suppressing harshly” reflects the varying attitudes, while phrases like “desperate to flee”, “seeking safety”, and “find safety” are used to evoke a sense of urgency and vulnerability among Afghan refugees. Citing the United Nations as a source of information, SUN.9 emphasises the importance of keeping borders open for safe passage: “At this stage, our primary concern is that Afghans who are seeking safety can reach it, including borders and into neighbouring countries if needed. The UNHCR is calling on all countries neighbouring Afghanistan to keep their borders open in light of the intensifying crisis in Afghanistan.” The article thereby adopts a humanitarian frame while indirectly foregrounding a moral frame which positions neighbouring countries as having the ethical responsibility and moral duty to assist Afghan refugees.

Adopting a controversy frame, SUN.10 is centered around a controversial social media post made by an Afghan refugee, Hamed Ahmadi, about the food rations at Fort Bliss, a US army base in Texas used to house Afghan refugees in 2021. The framing is structured to evoke strong reactions, with comparisons made between Ahmadi’s meal and the food served at the infamous Fyre Festival in 2017 in the Bahamas, known for its luxurious promises and inadequate delivery. The headline, “FOOD FIGHT”, immediately sets a confrontational tone, aiming to grab attention and generate reactions. The article includes direct quotes from Ahmadi’s twitter post: “Not complaining but this is what I got last night for dinner and the next meal is 12 h later […] Refugee life might be safe but never easy & favorable”. It also features a picture of the food ration Ahmadi shared on twitter, showing a few pieces of chicken, small chunks of fruit and a slice of bread. Additionally, the article includes reactions from Twitter users which further amplifies the controversy. By presenting both sympathetic and critical reactions, the article attempts to create a spectrum of opinions among readers– some sympathising with Ahmadi’s expression of discontent, while others criticising him, which suggests public division on the matter. As the following quotes from the article indicate:

One person responded: “More than happy to fly you home and trade you for the service dogs. Just ask. One way ticket, on me.”

Another added: “So we rescued you from Afghanistan and are giving you food that the taxpayers are paying for and you have the nerve to complain?”

A third wrote: “Maybe you could sell the iPhone you’re tweeting from and get yourself several 5 (star) meals. Or, trade places with many homeless American veterans.”

Others offered support, however, with one replying: “You are absolutely allowed to complain, this is nothing. Refugee still have rights and it’s ridiculous that you are getting fed so little.”

Another said: “My heart goes out to all the afghanis who had to leave their country and family. It’s never easy leaving your motherland behind. And I am sorry to see this is the food you are getting. I hope it was better.”

The “victim versus ingratitude narrative” in the article reflects deeper societal attitudes toward refugees, oscillating between viewing them as victims deserving of empathy and as individuals who should be unquestioningly grateful for assistance. While Ahmadi’s personal story is presented, the broader systemic issues faced by refugees, such as food shortages and challenging living conditions, are not extensively explored in the article. This selective framing can steer the discourse toward an individualised perspective rather than addressing structural concerns.

Coverage of the Syrian refugee crisis

BBC articles

Much like the other samples covering Ukrainian and Afghan refugee crises, the BBC articles on Syrian refugees made clear efforts to humanise their struggles. For instance, BBC.11, entitled ‘Migrant crisis: A Syrian’s struggle to become German’, focuses on issues of social integration, including language acquisition, employment, and forming friendships with Germans. It discusses bureaucratic hurdles, such as waiting for work permits and dealing with government offices that Syrian refugees encounter in Germany. Adopting a human-interest frame, the article focuses on the story of a Syrian refugee, Sami Farah, sharing his personal journey, experiences, and aspirations. Through the use of the first-person perspective, Sami’s resilience and determination are emphasised as he learns German, finds a job, and builds relationships in his new home:

They don’t teach you in school how to start a new life from zero. You don’t learn how to leave everything behind, your family, job, friends, community – your home – and go to a new place, where you are no-one, you know no-one.

It’s not taking a leap of faith– it’s jumping into the sea, literally. That is how people reach Europe – on small, crowded boats.

But the wondrous human spirit is surprisingly capable of more than you could imagine.

I’ve reached a milestone in my life. I speak German, I have a supportive family, I live in a shared flat with two other Germans. I have two new close friends and, finally, a job in a hotel kitchen, after waiting five months for a work permit.

Emotional elements are integrated into the narrative, such as missing important family events and expressing homesickness. These evoke empathy from readers and underscore the personal toll of displacement, while highlighting both the challenges and successes of the integration process. Sami’s worries about discrimination, anti-refugee sentiments, and the safety of his relatives in Syria highlight the broader socio-political context and potential challenges refugees face. In addition, Sami draws parallels between his aspirations and desires and those of the readers: “I want the same things that you want. A life.” The inclusion of images of Sami and his surroundings adds a visual dimension to the narrative, further humanising the story. These strategies create a sense of common humanity and an identification frame that evoke empathy and understanding from the readers.

BBC.12 reports on an undercover investigation by the BBC’s Panorama program, revealing that Syrian refugee children in Turkey were involved in making clothes for British retailers, including Marks and Spencer and online retailer Asos. The investigation also uncovered adult refugees working illegally on Zara and Mango jeans, and being “involved in spraying hazardous chemicals to bleach the jeans, but most of the workers did not even have a basic face mask.” Adopting a controversy frame, the article uses terms such as “horrific”, “exploitation”, and “unacceptable” to frame the situation, indicating a negative perspective on the discovered labour conditions. The choice of terms like “pitiful wages”, “terrible working conditions”, and “exploited” emphasises the harsh reality faced by Syrian workers. Through a moral frame as well, the article questions the labour practices of the retailers in question and the fashion industry as a whole. It raises ethical concerns regarding the fact that refugees often earned less than the Turkish minimum wage and were paid in cash, indicating a lack of transparency and legality: “The refugees often earned little more than a pound an hour – well below the Turkish minimum wage. They were employed through a middleman who paid them in cash on the street […] Most of the refugees do not have work permits and many of them are working illegally in the garment industry.” The framing portrays the situation as unacceptable and highlights the need for ethical business practices in the fashion industry. The responses from companies are included to show their acknowledgment of the issue and their commitment to addressing it. The article also adopts a human-interest frame, including testimonies from the refugees: “One of the refugees told Panorama they were poorly treated at the factory. He said: ‘If anything happens to a Syrian, they will throw him away like a piece of cloth.’ The youngest worker was 15 years old and he was working more than 12 hours a day ironing clothes before they were shipped to the UK.” This adds a personal dimension to the issue and gives a voice to those directly affected, evoking empathy from the readers.

Employing also a human-interest frame, BBC.13 presents the perspective of a Syrian refugee family, particularly Mohammad Ameen, who shares his family’s hopes, frustrations, and challenges in seeking refuge in the UK. The article begins with Mohammad Ameen’s background as a computer repair shop owner in Homs, Syria, highlighting his peaceful life and later displacement due to the war. It details Ameen’s journey to Lebanon, where he and his family become part of the refugee crisis. The article portrays the family’s hope for a better future when they are selected for the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme to go to the UK. The anticipation of a new life and opportunities is highlighted. The narrative takes a turn as the family’s flights to the UK are cancelled twice due to administrative errors, including a mistaken identity issue. The emotional impact of these cancellations on the family is emphasised through their testimonies:

Mohammad’s wife Ahad explained how the family took the news.

“When it was cancelled for a second time, Omar our youngest took it particularly hard,” she said.

“He wants a new bike. All he does is dream about riding a new bike. It’s hard for us. But for them, it’s awful, because they feel like their lives are waiting to start.“

She continued: “It’s been even more difficult because when we got on to the scheme the first time, we stopped receiving aid because we were meant to travel. It was never restarted. That money keeps us alive.”

So now Mohammad and his family have been living for over a year without the UN stipend they were getting, waiting for word on whether they’ll get to start their new lives.

The article includes a response from the British embassy in Beirut and the Home Office, explaining that not all referrals from the UNHCR lead to resettlement due to various reasons, including security concerns, withdrawal of refugees, and exit permission issues. The article includes criticism of the UK’s refugee resettlement policy, comparing it to other developed nations that have pledged to take in more refugees. This highlights a moral frame which at once portrays the human side of the refugee crisis and underscores the impact of bureaucratic processes on vulnerable individuals.

BBC.14, entitled ‘Syrian Refugees Enjoy More Support than Others, AMs Told’, adopts a comparison frame and a controversy frame to discuss the support received by Syrian refugees versus other migrants. Phrases like “two-tier system”, “other migrants were still struggling”, and “special arrangements for Syrians sent a message that other refugees were not as worthy”, highlight a perceived disparity and inequality in the treatments of refugees. Direct quotes from Tracey Sherlock and Hayley Richards of the Welsh Refugee Council and Oxfam Cymru, respectively, are used to present first-hand perspectives: “Ms Sherlock, policy manager for the Welsh Refugee Council, was one of several people who told the assembly’s equalities committee on Wednesday how ‘resourcing heavily favours Syrian resettlement’”. The statements by Hayley Richards indicate that the differential treatment sends a message, reinforcing a perception that Syrian refugees are perceived as more valuable than others. The article also includes a statement by Neil McKittrick from the British Red Cross, echoing a similar perspective:

It’s certainly not unique to Wales, this two-tier system– it’s evident throughout the UK. On the one hand, when the first Syrians started arriving they were met by dignitaries. People who come through the normal asylum route, their first contact with officials tends to be based around a sense of distrust– ‘why is it you’re here? What is it you’re doing?’ So, from the very first contact that people have, that kind of sets the tone.”

Furthermore, the inclusion of statistics, such as the number of Syrians resettled in Wales, adds a quantitative dimension to the argument, providing context to the claims made. A moral frame is also adopted by the article in which responsibility for the perceived disparity is attributed to the government and the media. The article includes a response from the Home Office, which asserts that all granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK are entitled to similar rights, providing the official perspective on the matter. Overall, through language choices, quotations, and statistics, the article constructs a narrative that suggests a two-tier system and examines the potential consequences of such differential treatment on perceptions and integration.

BBC.15, entitled ‘Syrian refugees to be housed across Wales by end of 2016’, reveals a positive framing that focuses on the successful resettlement of Syrian refugees in Wales. The headline itself immediately sets a tone of commitment and progress, suggesting a systematic and planned effort to achieve the resettlement goals. The accompanying image, featuring smiling Syrian refugee family, and its caption, “Syrian refugees in Aberystwyth thanked the town’s residents after their welcome earlier this year”, reinforce a message of gratitude and community support. The article also acknowledges previous criticisms regarding the speed of rehousing Syrian refugees. The Welsh Local Government Association defends its actions, stating that the criticism was unfair and emphasising that careful planning was essential to ensure a successful resettlement process, which reflects a sense of accountability: “While there has been some criticism of local authorities for not responding quickly enough, for those authorities with limited experience, making sure appropriate plans were in place to ensure a well-managed resettlement process was key.” The article thereby aims to provide a balanced view of the progress made in accommodating Syrian refugees in Wales. It largely adopts a humanitarian frame that underscores the need of welcoming refugee families from Syria and orchestrating collaborative efforts between local authorities to house the concerned families.

The Sun articles

Articles written by The Sun on Syrian refugees were overall less generous in their portrayal than the other sampled articles. They focused more on the resource frame and the security frame, emphasising the “negative” aspects of the resettlement plans pertaining to the Syrian refugee crisis. This, however, was not without exception: the subject of one article (SUN.11) was Angelina Jolie’s urge to the UN to rescue Syrian migrant children, which included harrowing accounts of the refugees’ lived experiences. The article includes images of Jolie visiting refugee camps and direct quotes such as “Seventy-five thousand Syrians are stranded in no man’s land”, “None of the basic protections under international law are being applied” and “The gulf between our responsibilities and our actions has never been so wide”, all of which highlight the severity of the issue. Jolie’s criticism of the international response is also highlighted, especially in terms of inadequate funding for humanitarian assistance and the need for a political solution: “Jolie said the UNHCR and other agencies had received only half of the funds needed from donors to provide humanitarian assistance to refugees during Syria’s brutal five-year-old conflict.” Her statements reflect a sense of frustration with the lack of progress. The article largely uses a humanitarian frame and moral frame to stress the need for adequately supporting refugees, while emphasising the role of the United Nations in the process. The article also touches on the need to protect women from sexual violence, adopting a gender frame as well. Referring to Jolie again, the article states: “She stunned delegates from 80 countries with a speech saying the organisation’s reputation had been undermined by cases of sexual abuse by peacekeeping forces. She said: ‘The fact is that increasing the number of UN peacekeepers alone will not be enough to resolve the conflicts that we are experiencing. It has to be accompanied by a new way of conducting peacekeeping, one that has the rights and protection and involvement of women at its heart.’”.

The subject of another article (SUN.14) is the exploitation of Syrian child workers in Turkey, which also includes a great deal of emotive language. Like BBC.12, SUN.14 reports on the violation of labour laws and substandard wages paid to vulnerable children: “Many of the kids are paid just over a pound an hour – much less than the Turkish minimum wage […] Undercover reporters found Turkish kids as young as ten working in an Istanbul factory claiming to make pyjamas for Next. A refugee working at one of M&S’s main factories told of their poor treatment.” Adopting a moral frame and a controversy frame, the article criticises retailers, including Marks and Spencer, Next, Zara, Mango, and Asos, for not adequately monitoring their supply chains. Phrases like “slammed by critics” and “responsibility to monitor” imply that the retailers are failing in their duty to ensure ethical and safe working conditions. The article contrasts the retailers’ claims of inspecting factories and not tolerating exploitation with the reported findings. Through a human-interest frame as well and like BBC.12, the article includes quotes from refugees working in the factories, portraying their difficult situations and poor treatment. Phrases like “throw him away like a piece of cloth” and “forced to bleach jeans with hazardous chemicals” evoke an emotional response and humanise the individuals involved. Nevertheless, a common theme of both SUN.11 and SUN.14 is that they were prompted by newsworthy events. Article SUN.14 on sweatshop workers was in response to a BBC Panorama documentary, and article SUN.11 was centred on Angelina Jolie’s visit to a refugee camp in Jordan. There does not seem to be a clear imperative to humanise the struggle of the refugees as the pure focus of these articles, which was done frequently in previously mentioned articles.

Another article, SUN.12, focuses on UK government’s plan to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020. Adopting primarily a resource-frame, the article challenges the feasibility of the plan due to a reported chronic lack of school places. The tone of the headline and subheadings suggests scepticism about the government’s ability to achieve its target: “CLASS WAR UK plan to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees ‘won’t happen because of chronic lack of school places’”. It also indicates a security frame by casting the issue as “class war”. The lead paragraph uses urgent language such as “serious risk” and “chronic lack,” highlighting the severity of the issue. The frame here is one of impending crisis, suggesting that the resettlement program is on the brink of failure due to resource inadequacies. To provide context, the article cites the National Audit Office’s report, which it describes as “blistering”, emphasising its critical nature. The report’s findings suggest that a significant number of UK schools are already facing overcapacity and that councils are withdrawing from the resettlement programme due to the lack of available school places: “one in five schools in the UK are full or over-capacity because of funding pressures, sky-high immigration and the explosion in Britain’s population.” This reinforces a frame of institutional strain and resource scarcity, where the existing infrastructure is portrayed as insufficient to support additional refugee children. The report adds that “The programme will need an estimated 4,930 houses or flats and an estimated 10,664 childcare and school places over its lifetime.”, which emphasises further the scale of the logistical task, portraying it as a monumental challenge requiring substantial resources and planning. In discussing the official figures, the article notes that schools are under “huge and unsustainable pressure” from the increase in children from migrant families. This reinforces the frame of resource scarcity and unsustainable demand on public services. The statistic that almost “700,000 school-aged children have a parent who is a citizen of another European country”, and that “this number has doubled since 2007”, adds to the narrative of escalating pressures on the education system.

SUN.13 presents a negative portrayal of the decision to send 70 Syrian refugee children to Great Torrington, Devon, describing it as “bizarre”. The tone suggests that the decision is unexpected and unreasonable, setting the stage for residents’ discontent. As the lead paragraph indicates: “RESIDENTS of a quiet, picturesque village in Devon are in uproar after it was announced they are to receive 70 refugee children from the Jungle camp in Calais in the coming days.” Quotes from community leaders and residents reflect their discontent, with terms like “concerned”, “failed to consult”, and “huge number” highlighting their objections and security concerns. Adopting also a resource-frame, the article paints a picture of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate the “influx” of refugees from “the Jungle camp in Calais”. It repeatedly highlights the size and population of Great Torrington (less than 6,000 residents), creating an impression that the arrival of 70 refugees is disproportionately large for the area. This contributes to the portrayal of the decision as burdensome given the limited public transport, doctors and dentists in Great Torrington. This side of the story is not covered with regards to Ukrainian refugees and the language is notably less humanising. In SUN.13, individual stories of refugees are not told and their arrival is described as an influx which implies that their movement is something the village is being subjected to. One of the images featured in the article shows the refugees, most of whom are grown men, scowling at the camera in dark clothing. The caption sardonically contests the Home Office statement that they are vulnerable children. There is no description of the conditions the refugees have escaped from, which is present in many of the other articles.

The final article, SUN.15 entitled “WOMEN MOSTLY TO BLAME”, is situated within a security frame and a gender frame. It focuses on the Syrian refugee blogger, Aras Bachot, who blamed women for the New Year’s Eve 2015 sex attacks in Cologne involving over 1,000 migrants and more than 500 reported victims. The article’s description of the night as “horrific” and the use of strong language such as “rampage” further amplify the gravity of the situation, underscoring the inappropriateness of attributing blame to the victims. The article includes Aras Bachot’s comment on social media, “women should stay inside at night”, a statement that reinforces gender bias and restricts women’s freedom. This quote is framed within a broader narrative of social media outrage, with several users explicitly condemning his views. For instance, the term “slammed on Twitter” indicates a negative public response to Bachot’s statements. The article itself portrays Aras Bachot’s comments as “questionable” and includes quotes from the public that demonstrate further the social media backlash. For instance, one blogger is quoted: “In this country, women have the right to be alone at night! Migrants have a duty to behave!”. The article also provides information about Bachot, describing him as an 18-year-old Syrian refugee who blogs for the Huffington Post in Germany. Quoting from his “About Me” section emphasises his self-proclaimed dedication to seeking “truths” and fighting for “equality”. The spokesperson for Huffington Post distances the platform from Bachot’s tweet, stating that it does not relate to any content he has posted on their platform. Towards the end of the article, Bachot’s apology and retraction of his statement are included, highlighting a change in his position: “I apologise for my tweet. I wanted to write something else. The victim is not to blame, but the attacker.” Despite this retraction, the initial damage caused by Bachot’s comments and the subsequent backlash are emphasised, suggesting a lingering impact on public perception.

Of the thirty articles sampled, a security frame was rarely prevalent in the coverage of the Ukrainian refugee crisis. The humanitarian frame and the moral frame were the dominant frames in the BBC coverage of the Ukraine crisis. Likewise, The Sun articles also adopted a largely humanitarian frame when covering Ukraine refugee situation. The Sun coverage, however, focused less explicitly on the moral dimension of supporting Ukrainian refugees and more on casting Putin as a threat to not only Ukraine but Europe as whole, thereby adopting an aggressor-based threat frame (De Coninck 2022, p. 5). The focus on the humanitarian framing in the coverage of the Ukrainian refugee crisis echoes the findings of other studies (Sales 2023; El-Nawawy and Elmasry 2024; Martikainen and Sakki 2023). At the same time, the identification frame also played some role in foregrounding the humanitarian frame and with it the need to support and protect fleeing Ukrainians. As pointed out by Sales (2023, p. 3–4),

media coverage gradually helped push and frame a positive narrative on the need to protect Ukrainian refugees because they were similar to Europeans, behaved like Europeans, and had cultural and democratic values close to those of Europeans. This humanitarian media framing and positive narratives circulated at the beginning of the crisis and claimed the necessary reception of refugees fleeing the horror of the Putin-initiated war and encouraged the idea of help and protecting our fellow Ukrainian neighbours.

As far as the humanitarian frame is concerned, there was slight difference between the coverage of the Ukrainian and Afghan refugee crises in this regard, as both the BBC articles and The Sun articles overwhelmingly adopted a humanitarian framing towards the Afghan crisis. This partly has to do with the sense of responsibility that the UK was perceived to have following the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan and the subsequent takeover of the country by the Taliban regime. In both the BBC and The Sun articles, supporting Afghan refugees, especially those who worked as interpreters for the British army, is presented as a moral imperative along the humanitarian frame. This echoes the argument made in Sultan and Abid’s (2023) article mentioned earlier regarding the coverage of the Afghan refugees in the US media.

There was, however, some difference in the articles’ propensity to ‘tell the other side of the story’ when comparing the coverage of the Ukraine refugee crisis to the Afghan one. Several BBC articles on the Afghan crisis—while featuring humanising language and including quotes from refugees—detail the “burdens” that civil society will have to shoulder in taking them. Interestingly, this resource frame is essentially invisible in the coverage on the Ukrainian refugee crisis. Likewise, the resource frame also featured in some of The Sun’s articles on the Syrian refugee crisis, which emphasised the economic costs involved in resettling Syrian refugees in the UK. This resonates with other studies (Greussing and Boomgaarden 2017; Chouliaraki and Zaborowski 2017; Sales 2023) arguing that the European press has a tendency to portray Syrian refugees as an economic burden for Europe as well as a security threat. Such portrayal can indeed affect public attitudes towards refugees, reinforcing stereotypes and prejudice, and creating a less welcoming environment for refugees, as with the cases seen in SUN.12 and SUN.13. Other academic studies have also shown that when the media highlights the economic costs associated with hosting refugees, it can lead to heightened public anxiety and opposition to refugee resettlement. For instance, a study by Esses et al. (2013), found that media portrayals of refugees as economic burdens can lead to dehumanisation and increased support for restrictive immigration policies. This effect is amplified when economic conditions are already perceived as challenging, as people may feel that their own access to resources is threatened.

Moreover, of the articles we sampled, the security frame was more explicitly evident with regards to refugees from Syria in articles published by The Sun. As mentioned before, articles by The Sun were notably less generous in their coverage of the Syrian refugee crisis. However, it would be incorrect to say that the security frame was the dominant framing from this sample. While this may reflect a bias towards Syrians in the UK political right—which The Sun broadly caters for—it is also possibly an indication of what has been observed by Georgiou and Zaborowski (2017, p. 24), namely that the media shift to a narrative of security as the crisis progresses. The Syrian refugee crisis was embroiled in a wider refugee crisis that had affected Europe for years, while the Afghan and Ukrainian crises were wrought by clear-cut events which could be pointed to. There is, nonetheless, evidence from other studies that the Syrian refugee crisis has often been portrayed in the media primarily along the security frame thereby affecting public attitude and political responses towards this crisis. As observed by Sales (2023, p. 3),

if media coverage consistently portrays refugees as a threat to national security (security frame), as occurred with the Syrian refugee crisis, public opinion and policy-makers may be more likely to prioritise border security measures over humanitarian assistance (Chouliaraki and Zaborowski 2017; Krzyanowski et al., 2018). Conversely, if media coverage highlights the human stories and suffering of refugees, as has been the case of the Ukrainian refugee crisis, policy-makers may be more inclined to focus on providing humanitarian aid and offering asylum to those in need. (Georgiou and Zaborowski 2017; Eberl et al. 2018)

The security frame can also be amplified by a gender frame as was the case in one of The Sun’s articles (SUN.15) which reported on a Syrian refugee in Germany whose blog post blamed women for the New Year’s Eve 2015 sex attacks in Cologne. In this article, a gendered narrative of cultural differences and a (sexually) threatening mass migration became implicitly the underlying discourse. As noted above, the article included quotes from other bloggers such as, “In this country, women have the right to be alone at night! Migrants have a duty to behave!”. This illustrates how the events in Cologne came to represent a ‘new clash of civilisations’, as also observed by Gray and Franck (2019, p. 285), whereby the threatening subject is depicted as male, young and Middle Eastern (ibid.).

Furthermore, in our sampled articles, the gender frame also took the form of victimisation and fragilisation of refugee women and girls. For instance, SUN.1 focused on the experiences of Ukrainian refugee mothers and their children, using emotive language that the depicts female refugees as vulnerable. As Martikainen and Sakki (2023, p. 116) argue, the ‘maternalisation’ of refugees communicates further their vulnerability. SUN.7, whose title is “GIVEN REFUGE UK to save 20,000 vulnerable Afghan refugees from the Taliban with focus on women and girls”, emphasises the vulnerability of Afghan refugee women and girls and the need to protect them from the “medieval violence and oppression” of the Taliban regime, whereas SUN.11 uses Angelia Jolie’s statements to highlight the vulnerability of Syrian female refugees to sexual abuse. This victim narrative and gender frame are indeed a familiar trope in the coverage of refugee crises which, while drawing attention to the desperate plights of refugees, can also simultaneously produce a ‘sociocultural hierarchy’ between the victim (women refugees) and potential saviour (Western countries) (Ramasubramanian and Miles 2018, p. 4501; Sohail 2023, p. 222). Interestingly, Gray and Franck (2019, p. 286) observe that in the face of events such as those of Cologne,

narratives about refugee women largely disappear and their vulnerabilities, previously at the foreground of the narratives, retreat from view. That is, the idea that racialized women need to be ‘saved’ from their oppressive cultures and from the hardships of their refugee journeys recedes into the background in the face of the more immediate concern for the ‘saving’ of ‘our’ women. Refugee women, who were previously held apart as a particular group in need of support, are now reabsorbed into the threatening (masculinized) mass of ‘refugees’ writ large.

This gestures to the fact that media frames are neither static nor homogenous, but constantly shifting and evolving as events develop and unfold. Seemingly contradictory frames (e.g. humanitarian versus security frames) can also be concurrently deployed within a given media coverage of a crisis and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Most of the articles we examined in this study had more than one frame, each reinforcing the other or introducing nuances to the situation being covered.

What is also apparent in our study is that individual refugee crises are seldom mediated in isolation as stand-alone events. Instead, they are often intertextually positioned in relation to other similar crises which can mobilise the emotional appeal and give context to current situations. As such, the comparison frame was also another frequently used frame in the sampled articles, and particularly in the BBC coverage of the Ukrainian refugee crises. For instance, and as explicated before, BBC.1 drew comparisons between the Ukrainian refugee crisis and the Balkan conflict in the 1990s while BBC.3 drew direct parallels between the Holocaust and the current war in Ukraine. SUN.3 also deployed a comparison frame likening the Ukraine refugee situation to other historical events such as World War II. But whereas in these cases, the comparison frame serves the positive purpose of heightening the urgency and need of helping Ukrainian refugees, in the context of the Syrian refugee crisis coverage, the comparison frame conveyed a different message. BBC.14 which reported on the claims that Syrian refugees enjoyed more support than other refugee groups, constructed a narrative that suggested a differential treatment favouring Syrian refugees. This, in turn, has the potential to negatively affect the public perceptions and attitudes towards Syrian refugees.

Refugee crises remain some of the most debated and divisive issues of our time. As noted at the beginning of this article, the media discourse surrounding the recent migration from Ukraine and evident sympathy for Ukrainian refugees have sparked concerns about the possible differential treatments that different refugee groups might be subjected to within the media coverage, public discourse, and political responses. In this article, we set out to understand how refugees from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria were framed in the UK’s most popular news outlets, the BBC and The Sun, identifying the similarities and differences in the coverage of these refugee crisis. Drawing on the frame analysis approach, we closely examined a sample of 30 articles and identified the dominant frames underlying them.

While the humanitarian and moral frames were dominant in these articles, other frames were also prominent, including the resource frame and the comparison frame. But while the resource frame was evident in the coverage of the Afghan and Syrian refugee crises, this frame was non-existent in the sampled articles covering the Ukrainian refugee crises which, by and large, favoured a humanitarian frame instead. Also, the comparison frame, as mentioned above, served different purposes: it provided a positive reinforcement of the need to support Ukrainian refugees and, on the other hand, it contributed to a narrative that Syrian refugees might be enjoying more support from the UK asylum system, risking the perpetuation of negative perceptions towards Syrian refugees.

In the main, this research supports the findings of other studies regarding the differential treatment of refugee groups in the media. However, while the majority of studies on the subject suggest that the security frame is the most prevalent frame when covering refugee issues, in our study, the security frame was rarely prevalent over the humanitarian frame. The outlier seems to be The Sun’s coverage of the Syrian refugee crisis, which featured more articles that securitised the crisis. However, given the small sample of our study, we cannot claim that the findings are representative or generalisable. But despite this limitation, we believe that the small size of the dataset and the manual approach adopted allowed us to discern the nuances and variations in the linguistic tones and imageries of the selected articles that a quantitative or computer-assisted approach might have missed. Overall, further qualitative research on the context of media coverage and why certain frames dominate would provide additional insights and comparisons. For instance, interviewing news journalists and members of the public would add further layers of understanding and more empirical nuances.