Citizens in Action: Two Case Studies
Why Case Studies Matter
The specification asks you to know two contrasting examples of how citizens working together have attempted to change or improve their communities. These examples should demonstrate different methods and different contexts, so that you can compare and evaluate how citizens use collective action to address public policy, challenge injustice or resolve a community issue. Citizenship action can be local, national or international, and can focus on issues from across the political spectrum.
This lesson examines two case studies: first, the Hillsborough families’ campaign for justice; second, the campaign by disability rights organisations that contributed to the Equality Act 2010. Both are factual accounts of civic action and its outcomes, presented as models of how citizens can make a difference through sustained, organised effort.
Case Study 1: The Hillsborough Families’ Campaign
The 15 April 1989 crush at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield during an FA Cup semi-final caused 96 deaths. A ninety-seventh victim died in 2021. The initial official narrative wrongly blamed supporters for the disaster. Families of those who died refused to accept this account and began a campaign for the truth and legal accountability.
The Hillsborough Family Support Group used a wide range of methods over more than three decades. They petitioned Parliament, gathered and preserved evidence, engaged solicitors and barristers, lobbied MPs and successive governments, and worked with journalists to keep the issue in the public eye. In 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel published a report revealing failures by the authorities and alterations to police statements.
The Hillsborough families used petitions, legal action, lobbying, media engagement and sustained public campaigning over more than 30 years. Key outcomes: the 2012 Independent Panel report revealed failures by the authorities; later in 2012 the original inquest verdicts were quashed; in 2016 a new inquest jury returned unlawful killing verdicts for 96 victims.
The Hillsborough case illustrates several important citizenship principles. First, that ordinary citizens without formal political power can challenge state institutions and achieve justice through sustained, evidence-based campaigning. Second, that legal processes (inquests, judicial review, criminal investigation) are an important route alongside political pressure. Third, that the campaign required decades of perseverance and that meaningful change in complex cases takes time.
Case Study 2: Disability Rights and the Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 is a landmark piece of legislation that consolidated and strengthened protections against discrimination in the UK. It brought together previous laws on sex, race and disability discrimination and extended protection to nine protected characteristics. Its passage was shaped by decades of campaigning by disability rights organisations, women’s groups and equality bodies.
Disability rights organisations such as Scope and the Disability Rights Commission campaigned throughout the 1990s and 2000s for stronger legal protections. Their methods included direct advocacy to MPs and ministers, evidence submissions to parliamentary committees, public awareness campaigns, and legal challenges under existing equality legislation to test and extend its boundaries. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was an early result; the Equality Act 2010 consolidated and strengthened those rights further.
The Equality Act 2010 covers nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. It applies to employment, education, housing and the provision of services.
This case study illustrates a different model of citizenship action. Rather than responding to a single injustice (as the Hillsborough families did), disability rights organisations pursued a long-term legislative strategy across multiple parliaments and governments. They combined insider tactics (formal consultations, committee evidence, working with sympathetic MPs) with outsider tactics (public campaigns and demonstrations), demonstrating that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.
The Hillsborough and disability rights campaigns differ in several important ways. The Hillsborough campaign focused on a single specific injustice and pursued legal justice through the courts and inquests alongside political lobbying. The disability rights campaign pursued systemic legislative change across a wider range of issues and over a longer strategic timeline.
Both campaigns, however, share important features: they involved citizens working collectively rather than individually; they combined multiple methods (legal, political, media, public); they required persistence over years or decades; and they achieved tangible, lasting changes (the 2016 inquest verdicts; the Equality Act 2010). Both demonstrate that citizens can achieve meaningful outcomes even against powerful institutions, provided they are organised, evidence-based and persistent.
Evaluating Citizenship Actions
When you are asked to evaluate a citizenship action in the exam, you need to assess both process and outcome. Did the action achieve its stated aim? If not fully, did it make progress? Were the methods used appropriate and effective? What were the limitations or unintended consequences? A strong evaluation will consider impact from multiple perspectives — the citizens who took action, those the action was meant to help, and the wider democratic system.
Students often evaluate citizenship actions in binary terms — either “it worked” or “it failed”. Strong answers think in more nuanced terms. A campaign can partially succeed: it may change public awareness without changing law; it may change law without changing behaviour; it may achieve its immediate aim but reveal deeper structural problems. Strong evaluative answers assess what was achieved, what was not, and why — considering factors such as the resources available to the campaign, the political climate at the time, and whether the methods chosen matched the aims.