Rethinking Methodological Frameworks in Qualitative Comparative Migration Policy Research

Capturing the nuanced dynamics of sub-national migration policy requires methodological frameworks that integrate multiple sources of evidence while remaining attentive to context-specific processes. Such approaches are well-suited to tracing interactions among policy actors and institutions within evolving, locally embedded systems of comparative policymaking. This study examines why municipalities operating under similar macro-level conditions pursue divergent policy trajectories in migration governance and demonstrates the analytical rigor and explanatory power of qualitative thematic analysis in accounting for this variation. Drawing on policy documents, archival records, and media sources from Toronto, San Francisco, and Wellington, it employs a hybrid inductive–deductive coding approach to analyze interactions among political actors, institutions, and grassroots advocacy. The findings show that differences in political culture, bureaucratic strategies, and advocacy networks generate distinct configurations of opportunities and barriers, producing varied approaches to non-citizen participation across the three cases. By systematically integrating diverse forms of evidence, thematic analysis reveals how local agency and institutional structures interact to shape these outcomes, offering empirically grounded insights for the design of context-sensitive migration policies.