Gogolushko, L., (2026) “Disability and Emotional Support Dog Representation in Netflix's The Healing Powers of Dude”, Disability Studies Quarterly 45(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.6352

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Introduction

Depictions of anthropomorphic animals in children’s media present viewers with information that is seen as real for children, providing a sense of how they understand the natural world (Geerdts, 2016) through what they learn in television shows, movies, and literature. Young children relate to nonhuman animals by drawing on relationships with them in personal and social contexts, and thus, these relationships are important for children’s development (Tipper, 2011). The mimicry of human-like behaviors and actions by nonhuman animals in films for children (Tarłowski, A. & Rybska, 2021) make these shows more relatable to children compared to those that show realistic depictions. However, children’s content involving nonhuman animals and disability is almost nonexistent. The depiction of a service or support nonhuman animal is rarely, if ever, seen in fictional children’s media. Thus, this study, which explores Netflix’s children’s show The Healing Powers of Dude (2020), offers an opportunity to add to the literature on nonhuman support animals and disability within children’s media.

Disability stereotypes can propel the idea that disability is expressed only in one way based on the characters in the movies because “film is often considered a reflection of society” that “serves a critical educational function” (p. 468, Safran, 1998). It is important to examine how the content children are shown is teaching them about disability, as said content may serve as fact for audiences who may never encounter any other representation of disability or service dogs. This is a principle of cultivation theory, which when paired with the repeated messages in children’s television episodes, explores how the repetition of messaging reifies information for audiences (Browne Graves, 1999; Gerbner, 1998). Cultivation theory (Gerbner, 1998) is centered on how “exposure to television content creates a worldview, or a consistent picture of social behavior, norms, and structure, based on the stable view of society that television content provides” through reoccurring messages (Browne Graves, 1999, p. 712). If children’s only access to disability representation is through the media, then they may always believe in the restrictive stereotypes and attitudes about disability that they are shown, which are further perpetuated by nondisabled people because dominant groups control how media agendas are crafted for the public audiences (Hall, 1997). Similarly, children who do not engage with or have access to real-life nonhuman animals can only rely on media to form their understandings about them.

Service, emotional support, psychiatric, or therapeutic nonhuman animals can be an important and integral part of a disabled person’s life. For this study’s purposes, “assistive nonhuman animals” is the term used to encompass emotional support, service, diabetic alert, therapy, and other nonhuman animals. Emotional support animals (ESAs) were once protected under the Air Carrier Access Act until people who did not legitimately require this accommodation caused media to make jokes about the “pig on plane” or llamas (Wlodarczyk, 2019). This ridicule eventually stripped all ESAs from being able to fly on planes, even with a legitimate document signed by a health professional. The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division offers evolving standards for service nonhuman animals, which lists regulations of “service animal” definitions such as “dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities” (2020) and includes the laws regarding service nonhuman animals’ legal rights to be in public places (e.g., the handlers are responsible for the behaviors of the service animal). A report on Canadian news coverage with respect to disability rights (2012–2017) illustrated discrimination and demonstrated a failure to capture complex policy relations between service nonhuman animals and their owners (Kerzner et al., 2020).

Unlike service nonhuman animals, ESAs are not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), although local and state governments may provide those protections in certain parts of the United States (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2020). As a point of comparison, an emotional support dog can offer comfort to someone feeling anxious, while a service dog provides physical aid, like helping a visually impaired individual to cross a street (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2020b). Furthermore, an ESA can provide “assistance related to a psychological disability, but is not required to have any specific training,” and be any species of animal or pet that is “owned” (Schoenfeld-Tacher et al., 2017, p. 2). An ESA does not require any certification, registration, or training with limited access to public places (Schoenfeld-Tacher et al., 2017), but do need a legal ESA letter signed by a mental health professional that states the reason for the ESA and an expiration date (Langham, 2019). This contrasts with how service dogs and psychiatric dogs are protected under the ADA as an accommodation (Langham, 2019).

Many disabled people, especially those with nonapparent disabilities, feel like others question their disability or their need for a service dog, oftentimes being discriminated against (Dorfman, 2019). In the 2017 Fry v. Napoleon case, a service dog who assisted a child with cerebral palsy was not acknowledged as a service dog or allowed to assist the child during recess, lunch, or in the classroom (Michigan Law, 2017). According to a survey of more than 250 nondisabled adults, meant to examine the public’s perceptions of service and emotional support dogs, there was a low acceptance rate regarding why someone would need an ESA and general confusion among nondisabled people regarding disability and animal rights (Schoenfeld-Tacher, et al., 2017).

This study examines the disability and ESA representations found in Netflix’s 2020 live-action children’s series The Healing Powers of Dude. The inductive content analysis focuses on Dude, a small mutt with impulsive behaviors whose thoughts are narrated by a sarcastic male voice, and his handler Noah, an eleven-year-old boy with social anxiety starting middle school. The fictional character is played by a nondisabled actor, Jace Chapman. The trailer introduces a twenty-five minute live action show with a comedic atmosphere, wherein Dude is meant to serve as a support system for Noah, while also being compliant to his young handler (Netflix, 2020). The show was created loosely based on co-creator, Sam Littenberg-Weisberg’s younger brother, Noah, who has social anxiety disorder (Organ, 2020). As The Nora Project (2020) shared, the show’s producer, Sam Littenberg-Weisberg, created the show for his brother to illustrate the daily experiences of those with social anxiety, which the show accomplished, as the students who viewed it in their classroom discussed.

Throughout this analysis, I will use the terms “disabled” and “nondisabled,” as identity-first representations of disability. Some people within the disability community prefer to have society see them as a person first and therefore reject their disability as a way to fit into society, while others choose to embrace their disabled identity pride (Ladau, 2022; Shew, 2023). Furthermore, identity-first or person-first language can differ based on a person’s disability type and acceptance (Grech et al., 2023). It is important to note that disability as an impairment ties to the medical model of needing a cure for the disabled body, while disability as an identity embraces the experiences of having a disability while being a person within an ableist society (Shakespeare, 2013).

Literature Review

Research supporting assistive nonhuman animals normally addresses the animal’s effects on the people they support (e.g., alleviating loneliness, providing companionship, or helping to overcome grief). These topics are found in studies that range from the health and medical fields (Hoy-Gerlach et al., 2019; Younggren et al., 2020) to educational environments, including campus housing and classrooms (Phillips, 2016; Protopopova et al., 2020; Salminen & Gregory, 2018), but rarely in ones involving children’s media representations.

Nonhuman Animal Representation

Researchers have observed how the oppression of disabled people intersects with the oppression of nonhuman animals (Martino & Lindsay, 2020; Merskin, 2021; Merskin, 2016; Rothman, 2017). Disabled people and nonhuman animals are frequently stripped of their rights in terms of how they are potentially manipulated through certain frames and narratives to fill the pockets of capitalists. This simultaneously allows dominant groups to cycle through reoccurring stereotypes that have real-life consequences for non-dominant groups (Hall, 1997), such as disabled people being denied permission to bring their service dog to a public place (Todd, 2024). An example of such framing would be of a poorly trained service dog getting in the way of conducting business. Some scholars have raised additional questions about the rights, or lack thereof, of the nonhuman animals used in in children’s entertainment and literature (Rivto, 1985; Williams et al., 2012).

Merskin (2016) discusses how the stereotypes of animals in films (such as narratives of “hardworking” bees or “dangerous” sharks) spill into the real-world treatment of certain species. This extends to depictions of wild animals being anthropomorphized in mass media to appear more “human,” influencing people into distorting the nonhuman animal’s natural behaviors and desiring them as “pets” (Grasso et al., 2023). In such, the portrayal of nonhuman animals range from positive when depicted as pets, neutral regarding farm animals, and negatively for wild animals (Paul, 1996). This is further complicated by television advertisements’ portrayal of nonhuman animals with overlaying gender and racial stereotypes, such as dogs as protectors for children and families (Lerner & Kalof, 1999). Consequently, nonhuman animals are often mistreated in the media when used in advertisements for the purposes of capital profits (Howard-Williams, 2011), as they have no say in how they are used and for what purposes, in much the same way that disabled people are used for entertainment without any say in their representation (Ellis, 2019).

Some media depict nonhuman animals through exploration of what they do for others and overall society (Eddy et al., 1988; Kolmes, 2021). Service animals are recognized solely for their “service” (Eddy et al., 1988), presenting ethical questions of how certain nonhuman animals are treated and represented. Oliver (2016) discussed the parallels between disability and service dogs, specifically “their abilities or functionality wherein the goal is to become highly functional, wherein functionality is defined in terms of production, or in the case of humans, to become productive members of society” (p. 242). The author stressed the importance of ethics within interspecies companionships wherein dependence and independence shift when a service dog is used for its functionality to simply serve someone. Other studies regarding service dogs claim them as saviors or “angels on a leash” (Harris & Sholtis, 2016; Todd, 2023), reinforcing the need to save or fix a disabled person (Mykhalovskiy et al., 2020; MacPherson-Mayor & Van Daalen-Smith, 2020; Houston, 2022). ESAs are seen as nothing more than an extension of a disabled person (Kolmes, 2021).

Finding Nemo (2003) and Finding Dory (2016) are the most widely studied films regarding disability and nonhuman animal representation. Berube (2005) addresses how in Finding Nemo, Dory’s memory is written in a lighthearted manner, as a stereotype that presents disability as humor for nondisabled audiences (Barnes, 1992). In this study, Berube (2005) highlights the positive representation of disability for audiences without discussing Nemo’s disability representation, story arc, his father’s behaviors, or other disabled characters. The omission of the full scope of disability representation in the film picks one aspect of disability without considering other disabilities. This can be problematic because audiences may take the film as positive representations of disability for children. A textual analysis of Finding Dory (Ni Nyoman et al., 2020) examines how characteristics related to the character’s short-term memory loss are classified as both “negative” (e.g., forgetfulness) or “positive” (e.g., enhancing creativity). Both films have been used as an effective strategy to develop other media projects and educational material about disability for children (Klinowski, 2017). Nonhuman animals, whether disabled or disabled-coded, can be viewed using the same lens that examines disability stereotypes, which include tropes such as either triumphing over life’s challenges to become inspiring or struggling to the point of being better off dead (Taylor, 2017).

Furthermore, Preston, Fink, and Storm (2010) discuss how, in Finding Nemo, Nemo’s father treats his son—who has a fin smaller than the other—as if he cannot do anything and constantly tells him how to live because of his disability. Moreover, the entire film’s plot is driven by the father’s journey looking for his lost, helpless son, reiterating the “helpless” disability trope historically seen in media (Barnes, 1992). These storylines are problematic because the voice is given to the parent, a very common scenario for real disabled children, who are not typically granted the ability to make their own decisions, let alone given an opportunity to speak for themselves (Singh & Ghai, 2009). In addition to being silenced, disabled children may be treated as burdens or used as the source for blame for their parents’ unhappiness or sacrifices (Apgar, 2023). When media normalizes these messages, disabled children may feel ashamed or scared to ask for help, or feel obligated to prove that they don’t need it. If disabled children are made to feel powerless, their assistive nonhuman animals most likely face worse treatment still, being seen as unimportant and therefore ignored.

Disability Representation and The Healing Powers of Dude

Disabled people are not only told how they should be represented on television but are also never included in the representation-writing process (Ellis, 2019). When disability is represented in media, it is often portrayed in stereotypical ways such as a burden, a way of being helpless, or a result of violence (Barnes, 1992; Haller, 2023; Holcomb & Latham-Mintus, 2022; Jeffress et al., 2023). Films tend to examine a disabled character through their disability first, rather their personality or skills. Animated children’s movies with disability representation include Inside Out (2015), Winnie the Pooh (2011), and Bolt (2008), which focus on nonapparent disabilities to evoke pity in viewers (Holcomb & Latham-Mintus, 2022). This parallels the representation of disabled nonhuman animals with their own stereotypes, such as over-the-top inspiration on social media or the mercy killings of “unfit” nonhuman animals (Taylor, 2017). Haller (2023) addressed how disabled people have to take back their representation and showcase their authentic disabled experiences to combat the historical disability stereotypes commonly cycled through media. One example by Todd (2024) explored TikTok videos of three disabled female handlers’ experiences with their service dogs in society, wherein the service dogs were not mere tools of rehabilitation but nuanced administrators of care and members of their disability communities.

In The Healing Powers of Dude, both Noah, the main character, and Amara, a supporting character, have disabilities, the latter of which is a positive portrayal. In an interview with Sophie Kim, who plays Amara and uses a power wheelchair just like the character in the show, the actress talks about the importance of casting disabled actors to play disabled roles (ABILITY Magazine, 2020). Kim, who has muscular dystrophy and is Asian, serves as a diversity win because disabled people have fought for authentic representation and diverse casting when playing disabled characters. This is important, as disabled children can learn about themselves and experience higher self-esteem when viewing positive disability representation (Dill-Shackleford et al., 2017).

When it comes to the show itself, the service dog community on Reddit seemed to find the representation of the ESA problematic (r/service_dogs, 2020), while others who are assumed to not have a disability enjoyed the humor and light-heartedness (Organ, 2020). When it comes to the misrepresentation of the ESA in the show, Nichols (2020) felt strongly about the lack of training depicted, the quick bond—formed in just one day—with the dog, and the untrue idea “that getting a service/support animal is easy.” A disabled reviewer noted how her three neurodiverse children “were laughing out loud, completely eating it up and loving it” while she—a disabled mom who enjoyed Amara’s wheelchair representation—was annoyed by the white family’s privilege to have the time and money to aid their disabled son by homeschooling him and having the father give up his employment status while still living in a nice house (Nichols, 2020). Apgar (2023) has also pointed out how many memoirs of parents with disabled children emanate from white adults using “overcoming” narratives and the burden stereotype to showcase their child’s achievement of social acceptance and belonging.

In schools, teachers who looked to make their classrooms more inclusive cheered on showing this series to students, citing their classes’ positive response, including praising the opportunity for children to get a glimpse of social anxiety and the internal struggles of non-disabled-presenting persons (The Nora Project: Building Inclusive Classrooms, 2020). Given the contrast of reactions by those who viewed the show toward the disability representation of the ESA in both positive and negative ways, examining how Dude, the support dog is represented can ultimately reveal how disability itself is portrayed within the series.

Theoretical Framework

Television and film have effects on audiences that can result in them developing one-dimensional frames of minorities (Hall, 1997). Cultivation theory (Gerbner, 1998) is centered on how “exposure to television content creates a worldview, or a consistent picture of social behavior, norms, and structure, based on the stable view of society that television content provides” through reoccurring messages (Browne Graves, 1999, p. 712). This repetition of themes and storylines creates the reality of experiences that viewers do not have any connection to. Children understand the world through the messages they see in media, such as television shows (constructivism), which teach children how to interact with others and understand how people of certain races are likely to act (schemata), as seen in the Anderson study (1983). Media plays a large role in children’s processing of the vast, diverse, and unknown environment around them, teaching them how to interact with others and understand people. When positive disability representation is not portrayed as a regular part of society in media, it shows young viewers that disabled people and their assistive nonhuman animals are different and should be excluded, mistreated, or used as entertainment.

The study is also guided by the ten disability stereotypes found in children’s literature, advertisements, shows and films listed by Biklen and Bogdan (1977): disability as pitiful or pathetic; object of violence; evil; prop to a storyline; super abilities; laughing matter; one’s worst-and-only enemy; a burden; asexual; can’t participate in everyday life; and isolation. Rubin and Watson (1987), in conducting similar research through a study of juvenile fiction literature, added the label of disability as something in isolation. The reason for relying on common disability stereotypes in children’s literature is because television stories for children are likely to closely resemble story structures in books. The repetition of dialogue, scenes, character interactions, and disability representation aligns with the cultivation of reoccurring messages for viewers (Gerbner et al., 2002).

With the rarity of ESAs in children’s programming highlighting the burden of representation (Tagg, 1993), where the weight of how ESAs are represented being applied to a wider understanding about disabled characters because there may not be other shows with that representation, suggests that this burden may fall on this one show. That is, due to this paucity of ESA representation in children’s entertainment, at this time The Healing Power of Dude possibly stands as the sole means by which children’s media may educate and put forth a representation of assistive nonhuman animals (Tagg, 1993). This concept is a challenge for all disability representation with a support or service dog, which adds to the potential of accepting reoccurring messages that may be stereotypical in nature when it comes to disability.

The current study is significant in shining a light on the messages about disability and ESAs that are being presented to children, who soak up information about the world around them. Positive disability representation can teach the world to be inclusive and accepting of those who are different instead of ignoring and laughing at them. Stereotypical representation can have harmful effects on disabled people, further segregating them into isolation because they are not considered “normal” enough to fit into society (Barnes, 1992). Examining what messages and narratives are populating within The Healing Powers of Dude can shape a child’s attitudes in terms of how they treat and understand others. As such, the two research questions are as follows:

RQ1: How are disabilities portrayed in the show?

RQ2: How is the ESA portrayed in the show?

Methodology

Sample

Finding a show with an ESA had some challenges. The majority of the internet searches populating “service dogs” or “emotional support dog” were not related to children’s media. A few fiction shows featured a service or support dog such as In the Dark (2019-2022), It’s Bruno (2019), and Growing Up Fisher (2014), but all three featured adult actors with the nonhuman animal. Other service dog programming were documentary narratives centered around service dogs, including Quill (2004), Pick of the Litter (2019), Unleashing Hope (2025), and Dogs of Service (2025).

Searching on Google and in Facebook groups for children’s shows featuring a disabled character with a service or ESA (e.g., “children's show with emotional support animal” and “disability representation and support animal kid’s shows”) did not return many results. The only children’s shows included an episode from Sesame Street (1969–) featuring a service animal and Martha Speaks (2008-2016) featuring a therapy dog. The Healing Powers of Dude (2020) was the only show produced in a fictional children’s television live-action format featuring an ESA main character and its handler. Research has shown how children learn and adapt messages from realistic content that impacts the ways in which children learn about the real world versus fantasy type content (Walker et al., 2015). Although The Healing Powers of Dude is aimed at a slightly older child audience, since the main character is entering middle school, signifying that the show’s audience would be among fourth to sixth grade children, this show nonetheless fits the criteria for this study.

The story is centered around eleven-year-old Noah, who manages social anxiety with an emotional support dog named Dude, a small golden-brown mutt, while starting middle school. There are eight episodes in season one, each twenty-five minutes long and available on Netflix, a popular streaming platform that can be accessed by many viewers. Choosing to tell this story as a television show instead of a movie allows it to build relationships with viewers over an extended period of time, and to include recurring story and character arcs, messages, and narratives.

Overall, the show has a variety of interwoven storylines between Noah, Dude, Noah’s parents and sister, and Noah’s friends Simon and Amara, all of whom have their own story arcs within each episode. Noah is a white boy with short brown hair and regularly holds Dude in his arms. Amara is an Asian girl with muscular dystrophy who uses a power wheelchair, while Simon is a Hispanic boy with short curly brown hair. Noah’s parents are both white and able-bodied, and Noah’s nondisabled 9-year-old sister, Embry, is sassy and bossy with long blonde hair. Scenes are mostly set on school grounds, at Noah’s home, or around his neighborhood.

Analysis

I conducted an inductive content analysis of each episode. Content analysis documents the text and then draws conclusions on its themes and messages (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In a detailed overview, qualitative content follows seven steps (Croucher & Crohn-Mills, 2022): reviewing literature, collecting data, preparing data for analysis, coding data, creating a coding framework, identifying categories and themes, and interpreting the analysis. After the show was selected, one coder watched each of the eight episodes in season one from the beginning to the end. After rewatching each episode, a transcript was created of each scene, character, and dialogue. Once each episode was written out, the scenes (i.e., what was happening and who was doing what), story arcs of each character (e.g., Noah, Noah’s parents), dialogue (i.e., who was saying what), disability representation (e.g., how social anxiety was presented and treated; interactions with the wheelchair-user character), and story lessons (e.g., the parents learned to not let Noah’s social anxiety prevent them from going after their dreams) were color-coded and organized in a spreadsheet with the title of each episode and a timestamp of each scene. Each episode was once again watched to ensure consistency, relying on inductive orientation (analyzing the emerging themes once the data has been coded) to evaluate themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and double checked for missed codes as well as compare and adapt to the list of codes already present to create a comprehensive list of codes (Vears & Gillam, 2022).

Regarding how disability was represented, the main focus was centered on Noah and his social anxiety, Amara and her power wheelchair, and Dude as an ESA. For example, Dude was coded for his actions with and without Noah, reactions to Noah’s social anxiety moments (e.g., fear of public speaking), natural dog behaviors (e.g., scratching behind the ear; catching a ball), abnormal acts that are not realistic of dogs (e.g., compelling other dogs to act as an “audience” for Noah), and internal dialogue. The content analysis uncovered main themes with reoccurring subtheme content, which then drew conclusions and interpretations based on the identified themes (Krippendorff, 2018). Reoccurring narratives such as Dude being obsessed with food or constantly leaving Noah, or when the parents poked fun at Noah’s social anxiety, were noted within specific examples of which themes aligned with those examples.

Markers of common disability stereotypes and counterstereotypes were noted such as the either helpless representation or active helper representation (e.g., when Amara helps Noah get more confidence about talking to the class). Interactions with others and the self were noted, especially how a disability was treated by Dude and by others, and how a disability impacted nondisabled people’s lives as well as the disabled person’s life. Any time Noah’s or Amara’s disability, as well as their accommodations (i.e., the ESA or wheelchair), resulted in negative reactions or a sense of inconvenience (e.g., when the principal complains to Noah about Dude), this was coded as a burden. Along the lines of the helpless stereotype, the relationship between Noah and Dude was analyzed. This could be seen anytime Noah needed Dude to save him or be there for him. Although Noah was portrayed by a nondisabled actor and Amara was portrayed by a disabled actress, the authenticity of disability representation was not the focus of this study.

It is important to note that Noah comes from a white household, with one parent having a flexible working schedule and the other taking time off from his passion project work to aid Noah with homeschooling and other activities. They also have a daughter who is interested in fashion and has a smartphone. Financially, the family is well-off, living in a nice house with a backyard and green grass. There is not much diversity other than Noah, a male, having social anxiety, which could make his adoption of an ESA easier than if the student was a Black disabled girl who came from a low-income family. The choice of a middle-class white male as the series’ main character is common for standard representation (Barnes, 1992; Terán & Conroy, 2024); however, the casting of Sophie Kim, a disabled Asian girl, to play a supporting character shows hope for the show’s diversity.

Findings

The title of the show, The Healing Powers of Dude, aligns with a disability-related medical model of disability as something to be “cured.” Although the producers/creators may have intended for a positive effect, the title is problematic. Dude does not have any special “healing” powers, nor does he physically heal Noah in any way. In the majority of the episodes, Dude does not behave in any meaningful ways to aid his handler (Noah), but rather acts as he chooses and constantly puts food above being there for Noah, even running away from Noah when he thinks Noah is fine in order to hunt for food. Additionally, the focus of “healing” in the title suggests that someone with social anxiety needs to be fixed or cured in order to exist in society. This is a common, harmful stereotype seen in media portrayals of disabled people (Hayes & Black, 2003) that is fueled by the medical model.

The overall storyline has Noah attend school and make friends as he navigates certain scenarios, such as being good at video games or attending class. In the second half of the season (episodes 4–8), love triangles are introduced: Noah likes a girl named Valerie, Amara likes Noah, and Simon likes Amara. The arc of each individual episode usually starts by introducing a “problem” or “challenge” for the characters. Then, through failure but eventual triumph, the problem is solved with a heartfelt moment between the friends or family members, with Dude being the hero. Table 1 illustrates the themes and subthemes that are discussed at the end.

Theme 1: The Burden that Leads to Isolation

The show suggests that having social anxiety disorder and a support dog is a burden for the family and the school principal. This theme answers RQ1 and RQ2 relating to how disability and the ESA is represented in the show: both Noah’s parents, his sister, his principal, and Dude behave as if disability is a burden, especially when having (or being) a support dog.

Noah’s Parents

In the second episode, Noah’s mother discusses how Noah’s father should get back into sculpting, as he sacrificed his dreams of becoming successful in order to homeschool Noah for the last few years. The mother shows the father a picture of scrap metal he can use for his sculpting and says, “You’re so incredibly talented, and I don’t want your sacrifices for Noah to get in the way of your dreams.” The first episode implies that both parents have sacrificed their jobs to make sure Noah gets an education: they are so panicked about Noah beginning to attend school that they stalk him from the car, plan to “stake out” the school just in case Noah cannot handle it, and track his phone to watch his movements. Once Noah does finally attend his middle school, the mother suggests that she could now go back to work, but the father responds, “Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.” The mother mentions that she took time off work to focus on Noah, and the first season never shows her going to or engaging with any type of work.

Another example is seen in episode 3, when Amara and Simon come over to Noah’s house to play video games. The parents tell Embry, Noah’s sister, they both have to stay for Noah and cannot take her to a boutique, making her go by herself without telling anyone. The parents go on to lay out extravagant snacks, and the father talks excessively to the friends so they like Noah, but their worry that Noah will not make friends gets to the point that it increases Noah’s anxiety. The fact that both parents must sacrifice his sister’s social life by overly prioritizing Noah is problematic: this scenario could be seen as implying his disability is an inconvenience to family members and that one child being disabled means they are given more attention than another.

The parent’s behavior toward Noah’s potential anxiety attacks and social discomfort is at times problematic due to their acting almost more anxious than their child as a way to deal with the burdens of his disability. For example, in episode 3, the parents are so worried about Noah’s friends coming over to play video games that they both count backward from ten to de-stress with Noah, acting as though they are more anxious than him. This is drawn out to the point where the parents give themselves “pretend” panic attacks (e.g., breathing heavily into a brown paper bag) for comedic relief when worrying about Noah, representing disability as something to constantly worry about and making it seem like a “burden” for a family to have a disabled child. In another example, in episode 1, when Noah’s parents see him start moving through the school via the phone tracker, they cheer like he has finished a marathon, crossing the line into inspiration porn. This scene could be intended to balance out the suggested inconvenience of having a disabled child because viewers can laugh at how excessively success is depicted while also feeling touched or inspired by their small wins.

Noah’s Sister

In episode 4, after the prior episode’s incident involving Embry’s neglect in favor of Noah, their mother volunteers in Embry’s classroom and their father leaves to go shopping for scrap metal, leaving Noah to take the bus with Dude and Simon. In the classroom, the mother is overbearing toward Embry by moving her desk to the front of the classroom, cleaning a musical instrument before Embry tries to use it, and micromanaging her building project until it crashes. They go outside the classroom, and Embry tells her mother she does not need her to be there in the same way she is there for Noah and to “find a happy medium.” It can be assumed that this was written to illustrate the challenges parents may face in trying to be there for both a disabled and nondisabled child equally. However, it is almost like the nondisabled sibling suffers because the parents struggle to find ways to be parents to their nondisabled child because Noah consumes all of their time. This falls into the category of disability as a burden or inconvenience for the sister, who is forced to become more independent because of her parents’ inability to successfully adapt to both children. Despite the burden of the disabled son keeping Emery isolated, she never portrays the worrisome, overly anxious behavior that her parents do when talking or thinking about Noah.

Noah’s School Principal

Principal Meyers is portrayed as Dude’s enemy from the first episode, after he asks Noah and Dude (on their own and without any parental supervision) to come to his office. The principal points out that the dog would be an inconvenience and that Noah would be responsible for making sure that Dude followed 53 rules of conduct (e.g., no barking, running, growling, or peeing on school property). This is further illustrated when the principal cries “Nooo!” when he explains that Noah’s parents called to tell him there would be a support dog with Noah. All of this occurs during the first week of school, when Noah has just begun living with Dude.

Noah was never prepared for this treatment, nor told how to build a relationship with a dog or others around him. Although an ESA can be a pet, does not require any training, and is the handler’s responsibility, this scenario adds to Noah’s anxiety instead of aiding him. This normalizes the creation of more barriers for disabled people by nondisabled people; the notion that the disabled boy must be responsible for understanding and managing his ESA just to attend school shows that the burden is doubled onto the disabled person when he is treated as an inconvenience by a nondisabled authority figure who gives him dozens of rules to have his ESA follow. It might have helped to show how a service dog differs versus an ESA to prevent audiences from believing that any nonhuman animal can just be like Dude or serve in this role.

From episode 1, when Dude causes Principal Meyers, who is portrayed as a “cat person,” to trip, he is shown to take personal issue with the dog. This is further escalated in episode 2 when the principal tells Noah and his two friends (once again without any parental supervision) that because Dude keeps taking the principal’s cookies from the cafeteria, the dog is not allowed in the cafeteria on account of him being a “health code violation.” Although the principal can deny Dude’s access due to health code violations (as Dude is not a service dog), he does this with malicious intent and does not offer Noah any assistance or alternatives despite Dude being portrayed as a needed accommodation for Noah to manage day-to-day aspects of life.

Noah’s solution the next day is to hide himself, his disability, and his ESA. People with disabilities may feel compelled to hide and be hidden away to make life easier for nondisabled people (as seen in the previous film examples mentioned). As a burden to the nondisabled principal, the disabled child must hide his ESA or cease to attend school. The only way to do this is to segregate himself from the rest of the school cafeteria. Dude furthers this ideology in episode 3 when he runs off and coincidentally finds the janitor arguing with the principal, resulting in the discovery of a spare room. The friends decide that this old janitor’s place will now be their lunch spot so that Dude can be with Noah. This is problematic because the disability becomes the disabled person’s problem and has to be hidden, and Noah accepts this when he says, “Since I can’t bring Dude into the cafeteria with me, this can be our new lunch spot.”

In the final episode, Principal Meyers has the idea to get rid of Dude by giving him fleas from his cat by petting Dude with an infected hand. Dude is seen itching throughout the episode and eventually, the principal confronts Noah with a handful of itching students and tells him to check the dog for fleas (once again, without alerting his parents). Noah obliges. The principal tells him that this is “why I already alerted the school board, and they told me that Dude is to stay off school property, indefinitely.” The threat and maliciousness of getting rid of an ESA may be legal, but this treatment gives Noah added panic and anxiety. Principal Meyers does not want to help a disabled child feel supported and included in any way. The parents, all the while, are completely clueless about the abusive and almost violent behavior from the principal.

Noah’s Friends

Noah’s friends, Simon and Amara, seem to be the only characters that do not treat Noah or Dude as a burden. In fact, Amara, whose wheelchair is never portrayed as a burden (when she goes to Noah’s house, Noah’s father is very excited to show off the ramp he’s built for her) and is shown as a strong and active character who helps Noah when he gets scared to present in front of the class or go to a Halloween party, has a very positive arc in her disability representation. In episode 5, Amara auditions for a school musical but does not receive the part because she cannot dance like the other girls. Noah films Amara singing and posts it on his social media; it goes viral after being shared by Valerie, the girl that Noah likes, and everyone praises her singing abilities to the point that the theater teacher offers her the leading role on half of the nights the play is on.

The friends walk the halls, each lunch, and do kid-like things like most kids would do together. For example, Simon and Amara act as a distraction for Noah’s neighbor so that he can dig around in the neighbor’s backyard to find his father’s scrap metal piece, and Simon helps Noah feel comfortable riding on a bus full of kids and bullies. Although adults seem to take issue with Noah as a disabled kid with an accommodation, his friends provide him with a positive and empowering friendship arc; even the eventual love triangle on top of a love triangle does not have anything to do with anyone’s disability.

Theme 2: Humorous All the Way to Heroism

As this is a children’s show that is meant to be comedic, it is expected that the story and characters are funny. However, there should be concern taken when the comedic aspects derive from poking fun at disability or situations that may not be accurate and can therefore be viewed as offensive.

Dude’s Natural Behaviors

Considering that people mostly watch television for entertainment purposes, the way a disability or an ESA is represented would naturally be used in some way for comedic relief. This theme explores RQ2 of how Dude is portrayed as an ESA. Through performative tricks, carefree actions, and an obsession over food, Dude is portrayed as a fun pet that “wings it” when it comes to being an ESA for Noah’s social anxiety.

Starting with episode 1, in the car riding to school, Noah’s parents tell him that Dude comes from a highly renowned service dog school, although Dude’s flashbacks show how he failed service dog school by pooping on the sidewalk and running around wildly. He was then labeled as “hopeless” and “demoted” to being an emotional support dog. Throughout the entire season, Dude is represented as a dog for Noah, but the “emotional support” is demonstrated through comedic and unrealistic “supportive” actions. Noah holds and hugs Dude when he is having a social anxiety attack, but Dude does not do anything specific or even sense something bad is happening until it has already happened, with a few exceptions. Dude is not an “alert” dog, and Noah might in fact need a panic attack alert dog instead of a dog that is just there for his comfort.

In the home, there is no dedicated resting area, food and water station, or bathroom area (although in episode 6 Dude mentions that the “humans” have pads for him when he talks to the neighbor dog). Dude is portrayed in natural dog and pet scenarios such as licking faces, cleaning himself, eating whatever food he can obtain, and digging in the backyard. Dude is not required to have a harness or label mentioning that he is an ESA, but he does have a collar and sometimes a leash. At times, Dude is just a prop that Noah holds in his arms, lays on the bed, or places in a chair.

A main theme for Dude is his obsession with food, almost as if no one ever feeds him. In episode 2, the father tosses a pancake for Dude to eat in the backyard; episode 4 has Embry giving him bacon and Noah handing him a piece of cereal; and in episode 6, the mother throws Dude some meat and he catches it with his mouth. At other times, he runs off: Dude thinks that he can leave just because everything is “well” in the moment for Noah, even though he mentions wanting to be there for Noah. In episode 6, Noah announces that he was invited to a Halloween party and Dude decides to run into the backyard to play fetch with himself. It is as though Dude can wander like a human, without any guidance or permission.

When Dude leaves Noah with his friends to play video games in episode 3, he goes to enjoy eating sausages with other dogs by the dumpster. One of Dude’s dog friends says that this is what life looks like with “no responsibilities,” after which Dude complains about the need to “help a human.” Dude considers not having the responsibility of being there for a “human,” until he hears Embry is lost downtown. An interesting comparison is how Embry is able to fully participate in society while Noah is portrayed as someone who cannot, due to his disability, and needs constant saving—even though in this episode, Embry also needs saving.

In the worst instance, the principal asks Noah to borrow Dude in episode 5 in order to showcase the school in a positive light during an interview, even though he has been actively against Noah having an ESA in school. In this episode, Dude is more concerned with pooping on the grass in front of Principal Meyers, rolling over, tangling him up with the leash, and acting “revengeful” toward the principal than supporting Noah, who has a few panic moments when he becomes scared about posting pictures on his social media and Dude is nowhere around to calm him. This suggests that ESAs simply leave their handlers and do as they please. This episode could be a good example of depicting how some people in power see any type of support or accommodation for disabled children as a problem for everyone. This demands the need for ESAs to be taken more seriously in society, which can start with how they are included and represented in media.

Dude for Show

Some of Dude’s actions entertain the audience rather than demonstrate support and comfort for Noah, who is seen to handle and calm his own anxiety caused by others, like his parents, his principal, and even sometimes by the support dog himself. Dude is portrayed as a fun pet that adopts being an ESA when the mood strikes, while at other times he is seen doing performative tricks, being carefree, and obsessing over food. A few episodes show the dog with nail polish on his nails or dressed up in a suit, a cowgirl hat, or a Chewbacca costume for Halloween.

In episode 7, Noah and his friends go to Valerie’s Halloween party; however, after going inside, Noah needs to take time to be in a room by himself. After Valerie asks him to participate in front of a crowd for the costume contest and Noah becomes anxious about all the people, Dude performs tricks, like standing on his hind legs and spinning in a circle, to give Noah time to escape. Although Dude’s narrator uses annoyed responses to being in costume, Dude enjoys the attention from performing tricks. A guest from the party comments how “cute” Dude is acting “even if you [Valerie] had to invite that kid with the anxiety thing.” Dude runs back to Noah to get applause for his “dog tricks,” but Noah tells him he wishes he didn’t know Dude and to leave him alone. After this, everyone laughs as Noah and the camera spins as if Noah is seeing laughing faces rotating around him, at which he throws up and then everyone laughs more. The scene ends with Noah running away.

Dog as Hero for the Helpless Disabled Boy

Finally, while Dude may exhibit uncaring behaviors like running away or being obsessed with food, at other times he behaves as Noah’s hero. This heroism is sometimes shown in unrealistic ways: In episode 1, Dude is shown with a slow-motion camera effect as he saves Noah from having a panic attack as he’s about to step into his classroom for the first time. Noah is seen sinking into the ground as if it is a sinkhole; Dude throws Noah a flag from nearby to rescue him from the psychological sinkhole and pulls Noah into his classroom like the heroic support dog he was meant to be. As entertaining and satisfying as this seems, it is simply not realistic to give a dog a character arc as though this is what being an ESA is all about, namely, rescuing their human without any training after knowing the person for a day.

Another heroic scene involves Dude wanting to make Noah feel better because he is anxious about a presentation in class in episode 2. Dude's narrator mentions how “treats” always make him feel better, although the audience has yet to see anyone, especially Noah, give Dude any kind of special “treat” that is not regular food. Dude runs off while Noah tells his friends how nervous he is about delivering his presentation. A cookie Dude goes for is eaten by Principal Meyers on purpose, but Dude is able to steal a second cookie from him through overexaggerated acts that are meant to portray a comedic rivalry, and bring it back to Noah. Later in the episode, Dude becomes a leader by gathering other neighborhood dogs in a park and ordering them to be Noah’s audience so he is not scared to do a class presentation. The dogs end up leaving during Noah’s practice presentation, making Noah run back home to ask his father to email the teacher that he cannot present. In the end, Noah presents in class but hides underneath Dude—who acts as Noah’s face on top of Noah's head—tucked into his shirt. The whole class is quiet as Noah takes his time telling them that he has social anxiety as evident by his emotional support dog standing on top of his head while he hides in his shirt. The class then laughs a bit and continues to listen. Noah gets more comfortable speaking about how his Dad “sacrificed so much” for Noah like giving up his sculpting passion projects as the scene shows Dad working on a project in the garage.

Another instance comes in episode 6, when Dude fights over a long metal scrap that a neighboring poodle stole after Noah gave up hope of finding it for his father’s statue. The scene has upbeat music, slow-motion running, and a tug-of-war set-up. Just like the parents who overexaggerate concern about Noah panicking, Dude acts heroically as though Noah’s life depends on it; even if that were true, the priority should be Noah having appropriate support for his social anxiety. However, this episode includes the first and only moment when Dude prevents a panic or anxiety attack: as Noah and Dude dig in the neighbor’s backyard, Dude finds a corn dog and eats it; when Noah panics, Dude senses it and reacts by barking, snapping Noah out of his panic attack of seeing pirates with swords coming at him.

The interwoven themes create exaggerated reactions (e.g., parents stalking their child because they are not confident that he will manage; the principal maliciously getting Dude away from Noah) that are intended for entertaining nondisabled audiences. A few moments demonstrate positive examples of inclusion (e.g., Noah’s friends help him find his confidence) that could have been more present in the show. All in all, it can be assumed that if a child with social anxiety watched this show, they may not ask for an ESA because they may be scared of the repercussions and responsibilities of not only themselves but also of the dog. If the story focused on the friends, their adventures, and kid-friendly rivalries rather than an ableism, a malicious principal, and clueless parents who struggle to raise a disabled child, the show would have had a lot of great potential.

Discussion

The first theme of disability was portrayed as a “burden,” which leads to disability isolation and violence on the disabled child. Even though many scenes were meant to create tension in the storyline, real disabled people are constantly being denied access to locations because of their service dogs (Todd, 2024), forcing them to fight for their own rights. The second theme was disability used as “humor,” involving heroic acts for the helpless disabled person (a subtheme) who cannot participate fully in society (Biklen & Bogdan, 1977). The subtheme of “saving the disabled” falls in line with stereotypes including disability as helplessness and therefore a burden, disabled people not being able to participate fully in society, and disability as a source of violence due to being helpless and at the mercy on nondisabled hands (Barnes, 1992). Most of the times that Dude is treated as an inconvenience and a problem for Noah’s family and the school principal fall into the medical model of disability, where the disabled person is the problem because of their disability. Some may interpret these themes as showing an ESA as a positive benefit in providing assistance for the disabled person, although the trope of the “good dog” and savior should be taken into consideration (Todd, 2024).

However, that should not be the sole focus of a disabled person’s life, because any sort of support is there to assist in the day-to-day activities of living in society. Therefore, showing anyone who needs aid as “different” and an outcast, and treating their support as not normalized but rather a problem, further others that person, especially when control and violence that mimics the abusive and oppressive environments of freak shows, circuses, and zoos is portrayed as humorous (Jerkins et al., 2020). Moreover, disabled people are constantly being questioned about their accommodations, and service dogs are regularly not welcomed (Todd, 2024). For example, ESAs became banned by the Air Carrier Access Act in 2020 (Service Dog Certifications, n.d.) because for years, people were taking their pets, such as a 300-pound pig or a llama, on flights, claiming them as an ESA or even a service nonhuman animal (Wlodarczyk, 2019). These examples enforced the concept of “disability con,” in which disabled people may not be believed when they say that they need an ESA or service dog and accused of faking their disability (Dorfman, 2019). In this light, treating accommodations lightly makes it harder for disabled people to get certain rights because they have to “prove” their disability or the need for an accommodation whether in school or workplace.

Although Principal Meyers does not physically harm Noah, he does so emotionally and psychologically through threats. It is disappointing that all of the responsibility and management of the ESA on school grounds falls on the shoulders of 11-year-old Noah, without any parental involvement. Disabled people are required to actively fight for their rights and accommodations (Schoenfeld-Tacher et al., 2017), despite the amount of evidence that an ESA provides a “helpful coping mechanism for anxiety” (Kolmes, 2021, p. 633). In addition, when there are complaints about Noah’s social anxiety or ESA, the disabled boy is told to resolve the matter and not burden nondisabled people, which forces Dude and Noah to hide from everyone else except his friends. This could be a natural reaction from a society that is not familiar with navigating the inclusion of disability; nevertheless, addressing discrimination should have consequences or at the very least depict solutions being created between the adults in the show.

Segregation and isolation are popular themes found in disability literature (Rubin & Watson, 1987). Additionally, the fact that Noah is just handed an ESA without any information or preparation might give anxiety to any child. Service dogs, for example, are on “duty” and have parameters, which should have been explained to a disabled child by their parents and the agency (Todd, 2024). This portrayal, where a child is thrown into a public space with a dog and people hope for the best, does not seem like a realistic depiction. While it serves as a source of entertainment for the audience, an unexpected situation like this would only fuel anxiety because there is no guidance or explanation of what to expect.

When nondisabled parents are told of their child having “special needs,” they may struggle with the obstacles they believe they and the child may experience, making the child feel the need to prove their worth by accomplishing “normal” milestones like gaining employment (Apgar, 2023). Parents and siblings may be seen as sacrificing their happiness and relationships with each other to cater to the needs of a disabled child. While some may see this as an empathetic and caring act, this frames the story to be satisfying for nondisabled rather than disabled audiences. Showing these concepts to children can present “disability” as a bad thing for a family and potentially make a disabled child feel shame for asking for more attention or help, or not believe that they can fully be part of society, whereas a nondisabled child with a disabled sibling might feel the need to be more independent and do things on their own. Naturally, living with and supporting someone with a disability may be different for different types of relationships, whether that is from the perspective of a parent, friend, stranger, or sibling.

However, Noah’s friends never complain about Noah’s disability or his ESA getting in the way of their happiness. In fact, they embrace both Noah and Dude, and create solutions to problems like Dude’s cafeteria ban. A positive and empowering aspect of the show involves the friends helping and being inclusive to Noah and Dude, and more importantly, making memories and supporting each other as friends. This may relate to the fact that with Amara being in a wheelchair, there is a stronger connection to the presence of a disability community and allyship where disabled people unite to combat ableism (Brown, 2021; Ladau, 2022; Shew, 2023).

Furthermore, Amara, though she faces some discrimination because of her disability, is never once presented as a burden, was represented in an active role, and had her own personality which was never centered around her muscular dystrophy, unlike the main focus of Noah’s character being his social anxiety. The only obstacle that Amara’s wheelchair was shown as presenting as a burden to Noah’s parents was their house’s front steps. However, this was celebrated as an exciting project for Noah’s father to build a ramp. Once again, Amara was able to be included and not isolated, unlike, once again, Noah. This brings forth an interesting comparison between the way each disability was represented: The representation of an authentically disabled Asian girl was progressive and empowering, while Noah falls more into the “traditional” representation tropes, with his social anxiety and relationship with Dude serving as his personality for the majority of the show (Holcomb & Latham-Mintus, 2022). The issue of social anxiety and Dude was Noah’s personality for the majority of the show, while Amara’s disability was rarely the center of her personality.

From constantly running away when the mood strikes him to doing almost nothing to help Noah snap out of his anxiety, we’re left to question precisely what Dude’s healing powers are: Other than offering comfort, and only when he is not elsewhere—which seems to be the case for half of the season—Dude is either making nondisabled people laugh or on the hunt for food. When he entangles the principal to enact revenge on him for being mean, steals cookies for Noah, or performs tricks for other people, he is an entertainment tool and the seriousness of an ESA is stripped away. If this is the only understanding someone has about assistive nonhuman animals, then they may believe that an ESA may be considered as a “fun pet” rather than a necessity for someone to help someone through the day. More importantly, Dude getting dressed up in costumes and performing tricks for treats reinforces the oppressive practices created by circuses that cater toward an “institution of display” for both disabled “freaks” and performing nonhuman animals (Jerkins et al., 2020).

This could imply that invisible disabilities are not as important as physical disabilities, and therefore should not be taken as seriously. This can further be illustrated by the fact that ESAs in media have been viewed as jokes because everyone can claim an ESA, thus creating legitimate and illegitimate claims about needing an ESA (Wlodarczyk, 2019) to the point that airlines will treat ESA as regular pets. All assistive nonhuman animals should be seen as accommodations, despite ADA regulations, which are depicted as being of little importance in the show. However, it is important not to let support nonhuman animals fall into the “good dog trope,” where they are forced to simply serve humans without being allowed to explore their “own innate ‘wild’ instincts” (Todd, 2024). Dogs that are good become worthy of our care, especially when they are portrayed as being of service to human families, where the dog must show loyalty to the culture of society versus nature’s instincts (Armbruster, 2002).

The intertwined themes present harmful representations for the most part, although the friendships in the show create positivity and inclusivity. The most interesting discovery is how differently both disabled characters are treated when they are put into situations to become “normal” in order to fit into society, with Amara shown in an independent way that shatters the stereotypes of being a burden or as a joke just because she is in a wheelchair. Overall, the disability themes in The Healing Powers of Dude are problematic, although it is possible the portrayal of disability is meant to showcase the challenges disabled children may face in society when they need an ESA. Producers, entertainment professionals, and audiences should take note of potential stereotypes and their dangers to a child’s understanding about disability when working with support, service, and therapy dogs. This is especially the case because of how rarely particular disabilities are represented, which may create a burden of representation.

Representations of disability have more room to grow and need to consider the disabled audience, because showing nice and empowering roles on television allows children to learn that disabled people are not “freaks,” but rather relatable human beings, even if they live lives that are different from those of nondisabled people. Disabled people as well as animals, have been seen as freaks when they were used in circuses for nondisabled people curiosities (Haller & Larsen, 2002; Whittington-Walsh, 2002), including zoos to appease one’s amusement (Jenkins et al., 2020). Their assistive nonhuman animals also have rights and expressions that should be considered of equal representation. If producers, storytellers, and media professionals are inclined to produce inclusive and diverse content that pushes away from stereotypes and discrimination, this should extend not only to disabled people but also their assistive nonhuman animals. It is important to use characters like Dude to teach children how to see and treat these creatures, as well as how to understand them in realistic contexts and in an ethical manner.

Limitations and Future Studies

A limitation of the study is that research about disability representation for children is, has been, and remains very limited; thus, only one show was found, which narrows the research extent and scope to a limited amount of content. In other words, if there is only one show to study, drawing general conclusions about representations lies more in the lack of content as a message rather than the representation in one show. The results therefore become very skewed rather than being challenged by other content or supported by similar shows or movies. Cultivation theory works on repeated messages and images, in which long-term studies would need to be undertaken because, as children grow up, they may forget about a given show because they do not come in contact with any other similar content.

Additionally, content analysis examines the content and not the direct effect on viewers; thus, a secondary study should be undertaken to determine how certain semiotic underpinnings and messages translate into a child’s understanding about disability and assistive nonhuman animals. This can lead to studies about how parents and adults interpret the messages encoded in these shows and whether they believe that better content needs to be created, because pointing out problems or solutions in a show does not translate into people taking action. The scope of this research is very narrow, and it is therefore difficult to make solid arguments about general representations of how the media represents differences; however, this is the exact challenge with being confronted by a burden of representation.

There is significant room for future research, such as finding assistive nonhuman animals in general media, such as in advertisements, television shows, books, and movies, in both realistic and fictional forms. It would be interesting to examine animation and puppet shows, as they possibly anthropomorphize nonhuman animals more than live-action shows. Overall, the media needs to create more content in order to facilitate the study of representations of assistive nonhuman animals. Since there is a lack of representation, studies extend to how disabled nonhuman animals are narrated and how they fall into stereotypes, such as in the popular children’s films, Finding Nemo (2003) and Finding Dory (2016).

Other qualitative studies can analyze how children understand and interact with a show’s content, including the representation of disabled people and assistive nonhuman animals. Cultivation theory could further be explored when it comes to disability and service dogs or mobility devices. Particularly, this could address how children exposed to the narratives in The Healing Powers of Dude in a pre and post type experiment with a controlled group. As a full first season with eight episodes, future research can qualitatively examine how the messages found in the show teach children about different disabilities and a service dog, similar to the Sesame Street research (Diamond & Kensinger, 2002). Diamond and Kensinger noted how preschool children understood the idea of adaptive equipment that aided someone’s disability, but lacked the understanding of why someone with Down Syndrome could not do a task. Studying the effects of such messages can prove how children—both disabled and nondisabled—connect and build relationships with ideologies that can ultimately drive how they develop their understanding of disabilities, which, as a result, affects how they treat others. Future research would need to examine other shows and movies to make general arguments about the repeated patterns of the problematic representations of ESAs. This can include examining the way this show impacts and shapes children’s understandings and interpretations of disabilities and assistive nonhuman animals in a qualitative manner. The most significant research limitation is the amount of content that can be studied and how it is centered for a particular audience.

In conclusion, the aim of this study was to examine layers of disability representation and question how and what messages are being presented to children. I examined the ethics and narratives of potentially the only show on this issue, aiming to examine what may be the only representation of a disabled live-action multi-cast and an assistive nonhuman animal that people can access. This means that the show may be used as an anchor and blueprint of how other shows and movies are produced, or are not produced, because a show like this already exists—essentially ticking the “disability” box for entertainment companies. Producing content is important, and it is even more important to question whether the representation in said content is actually doing more harm than good for children, who are easily swayed to believing information they come across for the first time or on a repeated basis. When people speak for others and create their stories from stereotypes, the cycle of misrepresentation continues.

References

ABILITY Magazine. (2020, June 30). Netflix’s “The Healing Powers of Dude” Sophie Kim and Abilitye. ABILITY Magazine. https://abilitymagazine.com/netflixs-the-healing-powers-of-dude-sophie-kim-and-abilitye/

Anderson, J.A. (1983). Television literacy and the critical viewer. In J. Bryant & D. R. Anderson (Eds.), Children’s understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension (pp. 297–330). New York: Academic Press.

Apgar, A. (2023). The disabled child: Memoirs of a normal future (1st ed.). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.12221256

Armbruster, K. (2002). “Good dog”: The stories we tell about our canine companions and what they mean for humans and other animals. Papers on Language & Literature, 38(4), 351.

Barnes, C. (1992). Disabling Imagery and the Media: An Exploration of the Principles for Media Representations of Disabled People. Halifax: Ryburn. https://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/library/Barnes-disabling-imagery.pdf

Baskin, Barbara. H., and Harris, K.H. 1977. Notes from a different drummer: a guide to juvenile fiction portraying the handicapped. New York: R.R. Bowler Company.

Berube, M. (2005). Disability and Narrative. PMLA, 120(2), 568–576. https://doi.org/10.1632/S0030812900167914

Biklen, D. & Bogdan, R. (1977). Media portrayals of disabled people: A study in stereotypes. Interracial Books for Children, Bulletin 8.6 & 7.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brown, L. (2021, March 26) Practicing Disability Justice, Honoring Wholeness Onstage, Am. Theatre. https://www.americantheatre.org/2021/03/26/practicing-disability-justice-honoring-wholeness-onstage

Browne Graves, S. (1999). Television and prejudice reduction: When does television as a vicarious experience make a difference? Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 707–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00143

Croucher, S. M., & Cronn-Mills, D. (2022). Understanding communication research methods: A theoretical and practical approach (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003109129

Dill-Shackleford, K. E., Ramasubramanian, S., Behm-Morawitz, E., Scharrer, E., Burgess, M.C., & Lemish, D. (2017). Social group stories in the media and child development. Pediatrics, 140 (Supplement 2), S157-S161. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758W

Diamond, K. E. & Kensinger, K. R. (2002). Vignettes from Sesame Street: Preschooler's Ideas about Children with Down Syndrome and Physical Disability. Early Education and Development, 13(4), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1304_5

Dorfman, D. (2019). Fear of the disability con: Perceptions of fraud and special rights discourse. Law & Society Review, 53(4), 1051–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12437

Eddy, J., Hart, L., & Boltz, R. P. (1988). The Effects of Service Dogs on Social Acknowledgments of People in Wheelchairs, The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 122(1), 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1988.10542941

Ellis, K. (2019). Disability and digital television cultures: representation, access, and reception. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755663

Geerdts, M. (2016). (Un)Real Animals: Anthropomorphism and Early Learning About Animals. Child Development Perspectives, 10(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12153

Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication and Society, 1 (3-4), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Singnorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (2nd ed.). (pp. 43-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence J. Erlbaum Associates.

Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4, 279-305. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04

Grasso, C., Lenzi, C., Speiran, S., & Pirrone, F. (2023). Anthropomorphized Nonhuman Animals in Mass Media and Their Influence on Human Attitudes Toward Wildlife. Society & Animals, 31(2), 196–220. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-BJA10021

Grech, L. B., Koller, D., & Olley, A. (2023). Furthering the person-first versus identity-first language debate. Australian Psychologist, 58(4), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067.2023.2192863

Hall, S., (1997). Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices (Vol. 2). Sage, in association with The Open University.

Haller, B. A. (2023). Disabled People Transforming Media Culture for a More Inclusive World. (1st ed.). Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003219118

Haller, B., & Larsen, R. (2002) The Case of FREAKS, Journal of Popular Film and Television, 29:4, 164-173, https://doi.org/10.1080/01956050209601022

Harris, K. I., & Sholtis, S. D. (2016). Companion Angels on a Leash: Welcoming Service Dogs Into Classroom Communities for Children With Autism. Childhood Education, 92(4), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2016.1208003

Holcomb, J., & Latham-Mintus, K. (2022). Disney and Disability: Media Representations of Disability in Disney and Pixar Animated Films. Disability Studies Quarterly, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v42i1.7054

Hayes, M., & Black, R. (2003). Troubling signs: Disability, Hollywood movies and the construction of a discourse of pity. Disability Studies Quarterly, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v23i2.419

Houston, E. (2022). Polysemic Interpretations: Examining How Women with Visual Impairments Incorporate, Resist, and Subvert Advertising Content. Journal of Advertising, 51(2), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1895008

Howard-Williams, R. (2011). Consumers, crazies, and killer whales: The environment on New Zealand television. The International Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510386740

Hoy-Gerlach, J., Vincent, A., & Lory Hector, B. (2019). Emotional Support Animals in the United States: Emergent Guidelines for Mental Health Clinicians. Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health, 6(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40737-019-00146-8

Jeffress, M. S., Cypher, J. M., Ferris, J., & Scott, J.-A. (Eds.). (2023). The Palgrave handbook of disability and communication. Palgrave Macmillan, an imprint of Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14447-9

Jenkins, S., Struthers Montford, K., & Taylor, C. (Eds.). (2020). Disability and Animality: Crip Perspectives in Critical Animal Studies (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003014270

Kerzner, L., Temple Jones, C., Haller, B., & Blaser, A. (2020). Rights and representation: Media narratives about disabled people and their service animals in Canadian Print News. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 9(2), 38–76. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v9i2.625

Klinowski, S. (2017). Finding Nemo, Finding Dory, finding ourselves: How and why we teach our children to think about disability [Master's thesis, University at Albany, State University of New York]. University at Albany, State University of New York Scholars Archive. https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=honorscollege_eng

Kolmes, S. (2021) Are emotional support animals prosthetics or pets? Body-like rights to emotional support animals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(9), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106205

Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781

Ladau, E. (2021). Demystifying disability: what to know, what to say, and how to be an ally. Ten Speed Press.

Langham, R. (2019, February). Emotional support dog requirements. Service Dog Certifications. https://www.servicedogcertifications.org/emotional-support-dog-requirements/

Lerner, J.E. and Kalof, L. (1999). The Animal Text: Message and meaning in television advertisements. Sociological Quarterly, 40: 565-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1999.tb00568.x

MacPherson-Mayor, D., & Van Daalen-Smith, C. (2020). At Both Ends of the Leash: Preventing Service-Dog Oppression Through the Practice of Dyadic-Belonging. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 9(2), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v9i2.626

Martino, A. S., & Lindsay, S.M. (2020). Introduction: The intersections of critical disability studies and critical animal studies. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 9(2). https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v9i2.623

Merskin, D. (2016). Media theories and the crossroads of critical animal and media studies. In N. Almiron, M. Cole, and C. P. Freeman (Eds.). Critical animal and media studies: Communication for nonhuman animal advocacy (pp. 1-25). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731674-9

Merskin, D. (2021). Species traitor? Foundations and tensions in human/animal scholarship and advocacy. In N. Khazaal & N. Almiron (Eds.), Like an animal: Critical animal studies approaches to borders, displacement, and othering (pp. 125-158). New York: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004440654_006

Michigan Law. (2017). A girl, her wonder dog, and a Supreme Court ruling. Law Quadrangle. https://quadrangle.michigan.law.umich.edu/issues/spring-2017/girl-her-wonder-dog-and-supreme-court-ruling

Mykhalovskiy, E., Kanarek, R., Hastings, C., Doig, J., & Rock, M. (2020). Normative Tensions in the Popular Representation of Children with Disabilities and Animal-Assisted Therapy. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 9(2), 10–38. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v9i2.624

Netflix. (2020). Watch The Healing Powers of Dude. Netflix Official Site. https://www.netflix.com/title/80239306?source=35&fromWatch=true

Nichols (2020, January 28). “The healing powers of dude” made me feel like a grumpy bitch. Meriah Nichols. https://www.meriahnichols.com/the-healing-powers-of-dude/

Ni Nyoman, A., Ni Komang Arie, S., & I.G.A. Lokita Purnamika, U. (2020). Dory’s Paradoxical Characterizations in Disney’s Animated Feature Film Finding Dory (2016). NOBEL: Journal of Literature and Language Teaching, 11(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.15642/NOBEL.2020.11.1.27-37

Oliver, K. (2016). Service Dogs: Between Animal Studies and Disability Studies. Philosophia (Albany, N.Y.), 6(2), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1353/phi.2016.0021

Organ, C. (2020, February 11). Netflix’s “The healing powers of dude” shows what it’s like to live with social anxiety disorder. Scary Mommy. https://www.scarymommy.com/netflixs-healing-power-of-dude-shows-life-social-anxiety

Paul, E. S. (1996). The Representation of Animals on Children’s Television. Anthrozoös, 9(4), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279396787001400

Phillips, M. (2016). Service and Emotional Support Animals on Campus : The Relevance and Controversy. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education., 33(1), 96–99.

Preston, D., Fink, L., & Storm, L. (2010). Finding difference: Nemo and friends opening the door to disability theory. English Journal, 100(2), 56-60. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej201012726

Protopopova, A., Matter, A. L., Harris, B. N., Wiskow, K. M., & Donaldson, J. M. (2020). Comparison of contingent and noncontingent access to therapy dogs during academic tasks in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(2), 811–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.619

r/service_dogs. (2020). New Netflix series "THE HEALING POWER OF DUDE." Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/service_dogs/comments/eoqh08/new_netflix_seires_the_healing_power_of_dude/

Ritvo, H. (1985). Learning from animals: Natural history for children in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Children's Literature, 13, 72-93. https://doi.org/10.1353/chl.0.0198

Rothman, J. (2017, June 05). Are disability rights and animal rights connected? The New Yorker.

Rubin, E. & Watson, E. (1987). Disability Bias in Children's Literature. The Lion and the Unicorn., 11(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/uni.0.0024

Safran, S. P. (1998). The First Century of Disability Portrayal in Film: An Analysis of the Literature. The Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699803100404

Salminen, E., & Gregory, D. E. (2018). Animal Housing: Emotional Support Animals on Campuses. The Journal of College and University Student Housing, 44(3), 47.

Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., Hellyer, P., Cheung, L., & Kogan, L. (2017). Public perceptions of service dogs, emotional support dogs, and therapy dogs. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(6), 642. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060642

Service Dog Certifications. (2024, October 30). The Air Carrier Access Act and Service Dogs. https://www.servicedogcertifications.org/air-carrier-access-act/

Shakespeare, T. 2013. “The Social Model of Disability.” In The Disability Studies Reader, 4th edn, edited by Lennard J. Davis, pp. 214–221. New York and London: Routledge.

Shew, A. (2023). Against Technoableism (1st ed.). W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated.

Singh, V. & Ghai, A. (2009). Notions of self: lived realities of children with disabilities. Disability & Society, 24(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802652363

Tagg, J. 1993. The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Tarłowski, A. & Rybska, E. (2021). Young Children’s Inductive Inferences Within Animals Are Affected by Whether Animals Are Presented Anthropomorphically in Films. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 634809–634809. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634809

Taylor, S. (2017). Beasts of burden: Animal and disability liberation. The New Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.26193044

Terán, L., & Conroy, M. (2024). “See Jane 2024: How Has On-Screen Representation in Children’s Television Changed from 2018 to 2023?” The Geena Davis Institute.

The Nora Project: Building Inclusive Classrooms. (2020, May 11). Viewing guide: The healing powers of dude. The Nora Project. https://thenoraproject.ngo/nora-notes-blog/2020/5/11/viewing-guide-the-healing-powers-of-dude

Tipper, B. (2011). 'A dog who I know quite well': Everyday relationships between children and animals. Children’s Geographies, 9(2), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2011.562378

Todd, A. (2023). Affective ablenationalisms and interspecies entanglements. Disability Studies Quarterly, 42(3–4). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v42i3-4.8297

Todd, A. (2024). Cripping Girlhood on Service Dog Tok. Societies (Basel, Switzerland), 14(2), 30-. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14020030

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (2020, February 28). Frequently asked questions about service animals and the ADA. https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-faqs/

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (2020b, February 28). ADA Requirements: Service Animals. https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/

Vears, D. F., & Gillam, L. (2022). Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers. Focus on Health Professional Education, 23(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v23i1.544

Walker, C. M., Gopnik, A., & Ganea, P. A. (2015). Learning to Learn From Stories: Children’s Developing Sensitivity to the Causal Structure of Fictional Worlds. Child Development, 86(1), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12287

Williams, J. A., Podeschi, c., Palmer, N., and Meyler, D. (2012). The human- environment dialog in award-winning children's picture books. Sociological Inquiry, 82(1), 145-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2011.00399.x

Whittington-Walsh, F. (2002). From freaks to savants: Disability and hegemony from the Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) to Sling Blade (1997). Disability & Society, 17(6), 695–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968759022000010461

Wlodarczyk, J. (2019). When pigs fly: Emotional support animals, service dogs and the politics of legitimacy across species boundaries. Medical Humanities, 45(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2018-011625

Younggren, J.N., Boness, C. L., Bryant, L. M., & Koocher, G. P. (2020). Emotional support snimal assessments: Toward a standard and comprehensive model for mental health professionals. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 51(2), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000260

Appendix

Table 1. Representations of Disability and Dude in The Healing Powers of Dude

	Theme 1: The Burden that Leads to Isolation	Theme 2: Humorous All the Way to Heroism
Noah’s Parents	Instead of going to work or giving a ride to their daughter, both parents place blame of always having to be there for Noah due to his social anxiety, sometimes pretending to have panic attacks themselves from their worries over Noah.
Noah’s Sister	The mom expresses to her daughter that she doesn’t have time for her because she spends most of her time catering to Noah’s social anxiety needs.
Noah’s School Principal	The principal, known as a cat person, constantly complains about Dude and makes it his mission to get rid of the ESA, forcing Noah into segregation, and usually facing the principal’s wrath regarding a dog on school grounds.
Noah’s Friends	Noah’s friends support and never leave his side, helping him take any burdens off his shoulders. Amara’s disability is never seen as a burden, outside of an incident where the gets rejected as an actress due to her wheelchair, which gets resolved.
Dude’s Natural Behaviors		The ESA is portrayed in humorous ways in poking fun at being incapable of being a support or service dog, including focusing on normal dog behaviors like obsession with food and pooping.
Dude for Show		The ESA is seen dressed up in costumes for comedic relief as well as performing tricks to get laughs and attention.
Dog as Hero for the Helpless Disabled Boy		The ESA is portrayed in unrealistic scenarios to act as a hero for Noah like gathering all dogs to have them be Noah’s audience or stealing a cookie while fighting off the principal to give to Noah.