Qualitative Aanalysis of the Argumentative Structure of Proponents and Opponents of Women's Representation Right in the Presidential Election in Iran

Qualitative Aanalysis of the Argumentative Structure of Proponents and Opponents of Women's Representation Right in the Presidential Election in Iran Abstract The issue of women's right to represent in the Iranian presidential election has been a part of political discourses and scientific researches in the field of women political participation in recent years. So far as it has become a debatable claim. This paper focuses on the statements of 26 people, including "legislators, election observers, jurists, women with management and political representation backgrounds, and female candidates in the presidential election in the period of 1980 – 2019 and, given their claims are as argumentative acts. By using Toulmin's Argument Model, the paper has attempted to show how the proponents and opponents of women's representation right in the presidential election in Iran have shaped their argumentative structure. Findings from the qualitative content analysis of 50 argumentative texts indicate that all of the arguers have used structures the main components in their argumentative, including: claim, data and warrant from the Toulminian Model. But only in the two texts has been used the six components of Toulminian Model. So, they are not perfect arguments. The researchers conclude that the presence of field-dependent warrants in the argumentative structure of the proponents implies that they are trying to challenge the claims of the opponents’ claims and, thereby they increase the legitimacy of their arguments. Keywords: Argument, Speech Act of Argumentation, Argumentative Structure, Toulmin Model of Argumentation, Women's Representation, Presidential Elections, Iran.