PRECEDENT, PERFORMANCE, AND PROGRESS: Theorizing and evaluating notions of sexism within oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract

Professional women tend to be more highly scrutinized than their male counterparts, and this has remained the reality in the legal world for much time. Previous research found that female lawyers have historically been discriminated against in their legal careers. For example, women arguing before the Supreme Court were shown to be disproportionately interrupted by the Justices. This study contributes to prior literature by devising a method of conceptualizing gender that is amenable to future changes in court gender dynamics. Through text analysis of the 2010-2015 Supreme Court October Terms, I find insufficient evidence that female lawyers are perform differently than male lawyers and that they are interrupted at significantly different rates than the male lawyers. This, however, is not due to lack statistical power, as I do find evidence for predicting interruptions independent of gender. These results are promising for gender equality within the legal field. Additionally, the results provide a basis for future analysis of oral arguments, which may advance oral arguments to maximize their impact in the Supreme Court.