UC Irvine

This dissertation examines the legal treatment of women and men in United States Supreme Court gender classification cases. Employing multi-methods research techniques, it investigates all judicial opinions and votes from the 50 gender classification cases the Court decided from 1971 to 2001. The quantitative component examines how and why justices construct gender--that is, assign roles, characteristics, and behaviors to women and men--as they do in all 145 majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. It also examines the justices' votes in order to explain why they provide women and men the same rights and opportunities in some cases and not others. The qualitative part of the study employs small-N qualitative analyses to examine the influence of gender on judicial behavior. It draws on archival data and 67 semi-structured interviews in an effort to explain why gender affects female justices' decision making and whether female justices alter the behavior of their male colleagues.

I argue that the legal treatment of women and men in the Supreme Court is driven by Court membership. It is a result of justices' gender and political ideology, as well as their personal experiences and relationships. I find that gender differences in judging resulted from gender differences in personal experiences. Female justices' experiences with sex discrimination instilled in them a belief that gender stereotypes and discrimination were unjust, so they sought to remove barriers restricting women's and men's opportunities.

Male justices' personal experiences and relationships had a profound effect on their judging, so much so that serving with female justices had little impact on their gender attitudes. Instead, male justices' egalitarian attitudes were a product of their political ideologies and broader commitment to gender equality, or a result of familial influences and personal experiences.

In short, judicial decision making in gender classification cases is largely due to who is on the Supreme Court. Justices are first and foremost influenced by their own attitudes and values, experiences, and relationships. These are the lenses through which justices approach cases and interpret and apply the law.