September 18, 2026

Does changing the law change how society talks?

In “NUS study: Legal reforms shift public discourse on social issues, but institutional and societal conditions determine lasting change” (NUS News, 11 August 2026), Associate Professor Kokil Jaidka (NUS Communications and New Media) discusses new research on how legal reforms around same-sex relationships shape public discourse in Asia. The news article features the study “Decriminalizing Same-Sex Relationships and its Impact on Social Media Discussions in Asia” (Nature Human Behaviour, 2026) by Assoc Prof Jaidka, Professor Preetika Verma (Carnegie Mellon University), and Yiting Chen (University of Wisconsin-Madison).

The study looks at a decade of major legal change across Asia: India decriminalised same-sex relationships in 2018, Taiwan legalised same-sex marriage in 2019, Singapore repealed Section 377A with effect from 2023, and Thailand moved toward marriage equality. These reforms raise an important question: do changes in law lead to changes in public attitudes, or does social acceptance require more than legal recognition?

To answer this, the researchers analysed more than 200,000 social media posts, including 65,969 Instagram captions and 136,255 Facebook news posts, alongside Gallup World Poll survey responses from 46,200 people. This allowed them to compare shifts in online discourse with broader perceptions of safety and acceptance for same-sex couples.

They found that legal reform does matter, but its effects are uneven. In Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand, hostile or morally judgmental language on Instagram generally declined after reform. Users who were already discussing LGBTQ+ issues began using less language that framed same-sex relationships as immoral, threatening, or socially disruptive.

However, the picture was not uniform. In India, hostile language on Instagram increased even as moral stereotyping declined. On Facebook, where news organisations reach wider and often older audiences, changes were more modest across all four countries. Engagement with LGBTQ+ topics also did not consistently increase after reform, suggesting that legal change may shift the tone of discussion without necessarily sustaining public attention.

The study also shows that institutional conditions matter. In places with stronger press freedom, freedom of expression, and broader civil protections, reductions in hostile discourse were more pronounced. This suggests that law can create an important moment of change, but the surrounding media and political environment helps determine whether that change becomes lasting progress.

Survey data added another layer. Perceptions of neighbourhood safety for same-sex couples initially declined after reform, before improving in some countries and age groups. Younger respondents in Singapore and India eventually reported more positive perceptions, but the initial decline shows that legal milestones do not immediately translate into everyday security or acceptance.

A particularly important contribution of the study is its attention to the limits of AI tools used to detect toxic language online. The researchers found that identity terms such as “queer” and “gay” could be strongly associated with high toxicity scores, even when they were not used as slurs. This highlights a major risk – automated moderation systems may mistakenly treat ordinary identity-based discussion as harmful because such terms often appear in abusive contexts.

For policymakers, platforms, media organisations, and community groups, the study offers both encouragement and caution. Legal reform can reshape public discourse, but it should not be treated as the end of social change. Lasting inclusion also depends on protections against harassment, responsible media environments, better platform governance, and continued public engagement.

Read “NUS study: Legal reforms shift public discourse on social issues, but institutional and societal conditions determine lasting change” here.

Read “Decriminalizing Same-Sex Relationships and its Impact on Social Media Discussions in Asia” here.