A Critical Discourse Analysis of Selected Speeches by Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May

Abstract

This study compares how Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May use language to construct political authority, represent national problems, and align audiences with Conservative policy positions. A qualitative-dominant critical discourse analysis was conducted on a purposive corpus of ten public speeches, five by each politician. The analysis follows Fairclough’s three-stage model of description, interpretation, and explanation and examines vocabulary, transitivity, voice, sentence mood, modality, pronouns, metaphor, and macrostructure. The findings show that both speakers rely on topic-specific lexical fields, formal registers, evaluative classification, material processes, active voice, and inclusive pronouns to present political action as necessary and collectively supported. Active constructions dominate the corpus, ranging from 77% to 96% in May’s speeches and from 84% to 92% in Thatcher’s. However, the two speakers differ in emphasis. Thatcher more often frames policy through ideological contrast, national resolve, and the moral vocabulary of freedom and responsibility, whereas May more often organizes authority around administrative competence, security, negotiation, and collective obligation. These differences are best explained by the distinct crises and communicative situations in which the speeches were produced rather than by gender alone. The study demonstrates how linguistic form contributes to political legitimacy and provides a replicable framework for comparative analysis of leadership discourse.