The way we think about disability affects how welcoming the world is.

It affects how we design buildings, deliver services, and treat one another.

A useful way to explore this is with a simple example…

Imagine you are the caretaker of a public building and overnight two feet of snow has fallen.

Your job is to clear the snow so that as many people as possible can get inside.

Where you start clearing the snow depends entirely on how you think about disability.

Most people would say clear the stairs first, but if you clear the ramp first then everyone can get in.

These different approaches and ways of thinking are called Models of Disability.

Recognising and understanding these disability models helps us to change attitudes, challenge power, remove barriers, and build inclusive societies where disabled people can lead change together rather than to be told ‘trust us, we know best about what is good for you’.

Although the Medical model and Social Model of Disability are well known, if we look a bit deeper, we can see that there are a lot more models to consider and watch out for…

The Medical Model

The medical model sees disability as a medical problem the person has.

It focuses on illness, impairment, and what is “wrong” with a person and as something to be diagnosed, treated, or cured by medical professionals.

This quite often includes the use of medication.

The goal is often to fix, treat, or cure the person.

Using this model, barriers are seen as unavoidable because the focus is on the person rather than the environment.

The Expert or Professional Model

Closely linked to the medical model, the expert or professional model places authority in the hands of specialists.

It assumes that professionals and experts know what is best for the person.

Decisions about a person’s needs are made for them rather than with them.

While often well‑intentioned and can provide support, it can also reduce independence and ignore people’s own knowledge of their lives.

The belief is often that professionals always know what is best for the person.

The Moral Model

The moral model is one of the oldest and most harmful ways of thinking about disability.

It suggests a person’s condition is caused by personal failure, wrongdoing, or moral weakness.

This way of thinking often places blame on the person because of their ‘unfortunate’ condition rather than looking at what is caused by society.

Although this view is less common today, its influence can still be felt in the shape of stigma, discrimination and judgement towards people with particular conditions.

The Tragedy / Charity Model

The tragedy or charity model sees the person as someone who is sad and unfortunate.

People are viewed as objects of pity who need help or charity or care, rather than equal rights.

While it can encourage kindness, it can also make people seem helpless and dependent instead of capable and equal and portrays non‑disabled people as benefactors rather than allies.

The Social Model

The social model changes the focus completely.

It says people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairments.

Poor design, inaccessible buildings, unclear information, and negative attitudes are the real problems.

Things like steps without ramps, unclear information, and negative attitudes create disability.

In the snow example, this model would focus on clearing paths, ramps, and entrances so everyone can access the building.

The Spectrum Model

The spectrum model recognises that disability is not all‑or‑nothing.

People experience disability in different ways and at different times in their lives.

Someone may be disabled in one situation but not in another.

This model helps us understand that disability is complex and varied.

This model also helps us to accept that being, for example, autistic can bring with it a ‘spectrum’ of related issues or co-occurring conditions.

The Legitimacy Model

The legitimacy model looks at who is seen as “disabled enough” to get help, funding or support.

It highlights how rules, assessments, and labels can exclude people whose needs do not fit neatly into a fixed set of categories and eligibility rules.

This model raises questions about fairness and access to resources such as benefits, support, and advocacy.

The Economic Model

The economic model views disability in terms of work, productivity, and cost.

It considers how disability affects employment and the economy.

While it can support arguments for inclusive workplaces, it also risks reducing people to the value of their economic output rather than recognising their full social value.

The Market and Consumer Models

These models see disabled people as consumers with choices and spending power.

Accessibility is seen as something businesses should provide because people demand it.

This approach can encourage better design and innovation, but it should not replace rights‑based thinking.

We can now see more and more products being aimed at people with particular conditions, in this respect there are financial incentives for companies to create and market such products.

The Empowering Models

These model places disabled people at the centre of decisions.

Disability is seen as a rights, representation, and social justice issue, not a personal problem.

The focus is on equality, representation, and removing barriers through policy and activism.

Disabled people speak for themselves rather than being spoken for.

This model can challenge power imbalances, and campaigns for changes to the system rather than individual adaptation.

The Political Model

Political models sometimes place disabled people at the centre of decision‑making, framing disability as a rights issue and calling for changes to the system.

The political model can also be seen as the system using people with a disability for political gain.

From local government to national government, political campaigners may ‘jump on the bandwagon’ regarding disability issues to either complain about their cost to society or to campaign for better awareness and funding.

Meanwhile, many campaign on Human Rights issues with regard to things like making voting in elections more accessible.

The Affirmation Model

An affirmative approach views impairment as a natural part of human diversity rather than a tragedy, fostering a positive identity.