Billion Photos/ShutterstockThe 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 people’s way of life. On the other hand, coverage that represents the convention and the court as providing a safety net, upholding international human rights or protecting freedoms and liberties, can be seen as bolstering the convention’s legitimacy. We analysed a period beginning in 1997, the year before the adoption of the Human Rights Act 1998, which enshrined the ECHR in UK law. We traced coverage until 2022, when the then-Conservative government was publicly considering withdrawal. We examined six national newspapers: The Guardian, The Times, Daily Telegraph, The Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror, representing different political orientations. Interest in the ECHR was consistent in all newspapers across the time period, with peaks and troughs correlating with high-profile developments. For example, a peak in 2012 coincided with the efforts to deport the Jordanian terror suspect Abu Qatada, with the ECHR ruling against.Newspaper coveragePapers prioritised different topics and angles. Certain arguments relating to the convention’s legitimacy appeared regularly in some, and were absent in others. Our analysis suggests that the Daily Mail was the paper that most undermined the legitimacy of the ECHR. Its coverage regularly suggested the convention is responsible for a perceived loss of national decision-making power. Articles questioned the convention’s credibility and its protection of rights for “unworthy” groups. An article from April 18 2012 is an example of this, asking: “How can we remain a member of ECHR, if it continues to mock our own courts, parliament and people?”Some articles in the Daily Mail did support the court’s legitimacy in recognising and strengthening human rights norms: “Drafted in the wake of World War II, [the ECHR] was an attempt to lay down a set of principles to ensure that the tyranny of fascism would never deface Europe again” (May 29 2022).We found that the Telegraph placed greater scrutiny than the other newspapers on the legitimacy of the ECHR to intervene over rights for certain groups (prisoners, foreign criminals, terror suspects and irregular migrants). This coverage could raise doubts over processes and decisions of the court. The limiting of national sovereignty over decision-making was also an issue of concern for The Sun and The Guardian:“The judges in Strasbourg have put the rights of murderers above those of law-abiding citizens who should be protected from such criminals” (The Sun, 3 June 2022) The Guardian’s coverage of the EHCR in December last year. Steve Travelguide/Shutterstock Support and defence of the ECHR’s legitimacy was most visible in The Guardian. The Times published similar arguments, particularly around recognition and strengthening of human rights, and the negative consequences of stepping away from the convention. “In order to reclaim their rights, British trade unions will thus have to join the bloated carriages of the Eurostar carrying other disappointed litigants to Strasbourg (changing at Lille), frustrated by British judges who seem to see human rights as an indulgence rather than an entitlement’ (The Guardian, 8 March 2010)"Placing ourselves outside the convention will seriously damage its operation” (The Times, May 28 2015).Overall, the coverage we found supporting the legitimacy of the ECHR was less abundant, and did not draw on the broader ideas and sources of support for the existence of human rights and the institutions that protect them.Undermining the ECHRIn addition to looking at portrayals of legitimacy, our research also highlights how misleading much of the reporting on the ECHR has been over this period. In line with other evidence, we found that the coverage frequently strengthens or exaggerates arguments, and can be more fiction than fact in reporting of certain stories. It can also be inaccurate, for example by confusing different European institutions. Coverage broadly tends to place a prominent focus on particularly shocking individual criminal cases. This intensity and the nature of the coverage have persisted regardless of the steady decline in actual ECHR cases concerning the UK since 2000.Arguably, the government’s current approach reflects some of this coverage: conceding ground on specific criticisms of the ECHR in order to salvage its overall legitimacy. But looking at the long history of press coverage, we suggest that this strategy will continue to erode legitimacy, rather than bolster it.The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.