The UK’s immigration and asylum bill has proposed restricting how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is interpreted and applied in the UK to make it easier to deport migrants.

For years, critics have argued that the ECHR undermines the UK’s border security by prohibiting deportations on the basis of Article 8, the right to family life, and Article 3, prohibition of torture.

Such arguments have led to the Conservative party and Reform UK to call for the UK to withdraw from the convention entirely. The Labour government has taken a different approach, reaffirming the overall legitimacy of the ECHR while limiting its application through domestic legislation. In recent years, the UK has also led European efforts to reform and reinterpret the ECHR.

A key factor driving the UK’s perennial interest in the ECHR and the associated European Court of Human Rights has been press coverage. In our recent research, we developed the first systematic analysis of how British press coverage has supported or undermined the legitimacy of the ECHR over 25  years.

Read more: European countries reach new agreement on human rights – here’s what it means for the UK’s immigration debate

Political institutions rely on legitimacy for their authority and power. Press coverage can suggest that the convention and the court are illegitimate. This is done by suggesting they are at odds with national sovereignty, making bad decisions or disrupting........

© The Conversation