Federal discourse pertaining to college access requires clarified definition. Use of the college access construct has become commonplace, yet no unified refinement of meaning exists. This study, which covered U.S. presidential communications from January 2009 to October 2021, addressed the abstraction of language as leaders presented ideas, policies, and opinions. Observable trends impacting social mobility for students from underserved populations were of central interest. The research methodology, Quantitative Ethnography (QE), used the tool of Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA). Eight codes were identified through grounded analysis: Affordability, Pathway Program, Underserved Populations, Class Systems, Upward Mobility, Career Readiness, Trajectory, and Career Technical Education (CTE) and assessed through postmodernism. The Code most commonly appearing in the data set was Upward Mobility. Two codes tied for second-most-common: Affordability and Pathway Programs. In terms of connections among the codes from a broad overview, the most dominant communication patterns among the three presidents included epistemic links from Pathway Programs to both Affordability and Underserved Populations. Overall congruence across administrations was notably lacking. Conclusions drawn included that presidential discourse pertaining to the U.S. college access dilemma may be accurately described as circular, as illustrated by an original figure demonstrating the researcher's "Axis of Access" concept. Due to the churn of new administrations with differing definitions of college access coming into power every 4 to 8 years, a substantial hurdle for stakeholders in the U.S. Department of Education and related divisions was identified; therefore, a recommendation made was to create a new College Access Bridge Division in the U.S. Department of Education, to enable consistency of discourse and policy implementation. The incorporation of kin networks into pathway programs starting in middle school was recommended at the pathway program level, as was expanding criteria for such programs. Both national and global implications were discussed. Of note: this dissertation marks the first utilization of QE and ENA in the field of higher education in the United States. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]