Date on Senior Honors Thesis
5-2021
Document Type
Senior Honors Thesis
Degree Name
B.S.
Department
Political Science
Author's Keywords
interruption; gender; oral argument; appellate courts; power dynamics
Abstract
Law has historically been a male-dominated profession. The number of women earning law degrees is now close to parity with men (Moyer and Haire 2015). So, does this mean that women no longer face disadvantages in the legal profession? Unfortunately, systemic disadvantage persists. For instance, previous work on the United States Supreme Court shows that female judges and attorneys are more likely to be interrupted than men—a finding consistent with research on interruption in other contexts, like legislative bodies. This frequency of interruption can have lasting consequences on the ways in which women speak and present questions, as well as more generally how women are able to communicate and express their perspectives. My research examines the gender dynamics of interruptions in a new institutional context: oral arguments in the United States Courts of Appeals. I look at whether female judges are interrupted more frequently by attorneys than their male counterparts, and whether male or female judges are more likely to interrupt attorneys. The results reveal that male judges are much more likely to interrupt attorneys, consistent with existing research, which suggests that male judges dominate more of the conversation during oral argument, potentially limiting the influence of female judges. Further, the results reveal that there is not a statistically significant difference between the interruption of female and male judges by attorneys, in contrast to existing research, and suggests that attorneys are not more likely to interrupt female judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.
Recommended Citation
Baldock, Molly Grace, "The influence of gender on interruptions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals." (2021). College of Arts & Sciences Senior Honors Theses. Paper 246.
Retrieved from https://ir.library.louisville.edu/honors/246
Lay Summary
Law has historically been a male-dominated profession. The number of women earning law degrees is now close to parity with men (Moyer and Haire 2015). So, does this mean that women no longer face disadvantages in the legal profession? Unfortunately, systemic disadvantage persists. For instance, previous work on the United States Supreme Court shows that female judges and attorneys are more likely to be interrupted than men—a finding consistent with research on interruption in other contexts, like legislative bodies. This frequency of interruption can have lasting consequences on the ways in which women speak and present questions, as well as more generally how women are able to communicate and express their perspectives. My research examines the gender dynamics of interruptions in a new institutional context: oral arguments in the United States Courts of Appeals. I look at whether female judges are interrupted more frequently by attorneys than their male counterparts, and whether male or female judges are more likely to interrupt attorneys. The results reveal that male judges are much more likely to interrupt attorneys, consistent with existing research, which suggests that male judges dominate more of the conversation during oral argument, potentially limiting the influence of female judges. Further, the results reveal that there is not a statistically significant difference between the interruption of female and male judges by attorneys, in contrast to existing research, and suggests that attorneys are not more likely to interrupt female judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.
