What are the Values and Assumptions Embedded in the Discourse around Voluntary and Mandatory Parental Leave in South Korea? A Policy Case Study

This policy case study investigates the values and assumptions behind the discourse surrounding parental leave policy, including mandatory parental leave, in South Korea. The idea of mandating fathers’ parental leave resurfaced during the 2024 General Election; therefore, illuminating the narratives and frames for such policy is both timely and necessary. This study is guided by policy discourse analysis and gender theory. The data sources from which to infer values and assumptions were official documents and public comments. The data were analyzed using a constant comparison method. Three main findings emerged. First, the narratives around parental leave were gendered. Motherhood was conceptualized as a period when women needed protection, whereas dialogue around protection of engaged fathers was absent in the data. Second, there appeared to be competing narratives about fathers’ motivation for childrearing. Some narratives assumed that fathers wanted to use parental leave and bond with their children, whereas other narratives presumed that fathers would try their best to avoid childrearing duties. Third, philosophical tensions were apparent between achieving gender equality through government policy and allowing individual choice. By illuminating the implicit values and assumptions inherent in discussions of parental leave policy, the study can be used to clarify the value trade-offs in these policy decisions.