While abortion is a vital reproductive right, its absence is not the only threat to bodily autonomy. This thesis utilizes a reproductive justice lens to showcase how religion and politics have contributed to centering a ‘choice’ binary that limits a more nuanced understanding of reproductive freedom. This has led to the dominance of the abortion narrative, which overshadows discussions on other forms of reproductive healthcare. Religion and politics have also cultivated a pro-birth – rather than pro-life – approach to women’s reproductive health. This is particularly true in Oklahoma, where no previous research has been conducted on women’s broader reproductive healthcare experiences – consequently, this research turns to women and amplifies their voices to better understand the current state of reproductive healthcare. Participant survey responses were analyzed in the areas of contraception, abortion, prenatal care, and postnatal care. A t-test shows that there is not a statistically significant difference in care quality between birth and non-birth categories. However, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test results do reveal that prenatal care in Oklahoma is rated much more highly than other forms of reproductive healthcare, and with much less variation than ratings in other categories. Additional findings reveal that more pain management is needed during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, that finances are a major barrier to all forms of reproductive healthcare, and that sterilization is much more difficult to obtain than any other form of contraception. The study concludes that the experiences of respondents are reflective of a pro-birth approach to reproduction and motherhood. Findings from this research broaden existing scholarship on reproductive health and justice by contributing new knowledge that is relevant to women inside and outside of Oklahoma. The study recommends that additional research should be conducted to improve women’s reproductive healthcare in Oklahoma and beyond, particularly in a post-Roe world.

The transgender community is often targeted by hate crimes at greater levels thananyone else under the LGBTQAI+ umbrella but the true scope of the epidemic is far from understood due to dramatically low rates of reported hate crimes. The current study seeks to understand the relationship between transgender people and authorities through an indepth analysis of historical and current trends in reporting GIB hate crimes. In conjunction, I apply the notion of regional identity to hypothesize which US region(s) will have the highest rates of GIB inclusive policies based on their historical identities and socio-political underpinnings. I posit the Pacific, Mountain, New England, and Mid Atlantic (West and Northeastern) regions will have the highest rates of protection for transgender people from 2013-2019. Additionally, I assert there will be a moderate (0.2- 0.4 correlation coefficient) to high (0.4+ correlation coefficient) correlation between GIB inclusive policies and reported rates of violence. A simple linear regression found a high correlation (.934) between regional political identities and their rate of enacted GIB policies. Furthermore, based on the annual report data provided by the FBI, the regions with the highest tallies of GIB inclusive policies were the same regions with the highest rates of reported GIB hate crimes with an average of 0.537 over a seven-year time span. This study provides evidence that regional socio-political underpinnings directly affect policy enacted regarding GIB protections and that those policies are aligned with higher rates of reported violence.

The current immigration flow to the United States from Mexico has been polarized by politicians and anti-immigration groups, with a rhetoric that immigrants are a danger to the sovereignty of the country and an economic burden. These accusations ignore the role played by trade agreements in causing such migration patterns by displacing Mexican migrants and how U.S. immigration policies subsequently condemn these economically displaced migrants into illegality. This thesis examines the role national governments and laws of both the United States and Mexico play in formalizing the undocumented flow and the contestation of these economic migrants. I challenge the contemporary view of trade agreements as pull factors by showing how they also function as problematic push factors of migration through displacing Mexicans from their land and any meaningful form of economic security. Once displaced, these communities seek opportunities by migrating to the U.S., where they cross into illegality. Together, examining displacement and subsequent illegality, this thesis reveals the problematic, yet hidden role played by trade agreements in Mexican migration to the U.S. and gaps in current U.S. immigration laws that has preserved the injustices created when neoliberal economic policies and immigration politics provide no protection to impacted indigenous communities.