Social movement promotion of public policy during challenging times

I investigate how social movements strategically approach the creation of political opportunities. I do this by examining the promotion of public policy goals in a challenging political context. An interpretive analysis of interviews and documents drawing from the policy planning and organizational experiences of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) movement in the United States informs this study.;Four research propositions guide this dissertation and present opportunities to examine and modify important political science theory. First, building coalitions is as important as, rather than subservient to, constituent service. This challenges the dominant view in the interest group literature that building policy coalitions diminishes the ability of an organization to serve its core constituency. Second, changing the negative social construction of a movement's policy goals requires the re-crafting of these goals such that they have a positive appeal. This engages the social construction framework in the public policy literature and examines how social movements may reconstruct public policy losses more to their favor. Third, rather than restricting its activism to a particular narrow policy niche, a social movement engages policy issues well beyond core movement concerns, most notably when the resource base of the movement permits such breadth. This challenges niche theory, specifically the contention that organizations maintain narrow sets of policy priorities. Finally, a social movement may create a favorable political context from which policy successes can be institutionalized. This explores the conceptualization of safe spaces offered by the social movement literature.;The work illustrates several strategic approaches to the creation of political opportunities. First, I find that there is not necessarily a conflict between serving constituents and building coalitions. Second, I find that organizations may turn policy failures into policy successes, though the adjustments to policy goals required to do so may be extensive. Third, I find that expanding the scope of an organization's policy goals may win an array of new allies for the group without necessarily threatening the financial support of key movement constituencies. Finally, I find that groups facing policy setbacks in the national capital may construct a statewide safe space for the long-term advancement of movement goals.