Chivalry, Masculinity, and the Importance of Maleness to Judicial Decision Making

Abstract

Social science research on gender in the legal system has largely focused on the woman as the \other. This research has looked for ways in which women judge or are judged dierently from the norm. The results of this line of research have been mixed. Male-centered theories of masculinity and chivalry provide promising tools help researchers understand the contribution that maleness has on outcomes in the legal system. Immigration appeals provide an ideal test of these theories, which predict that male judges will be harder on male immigrants and easier on female litigants than will female judges. In this paper, we implement a research design that takes seriously both female-centric and male-centric explanations of decision outcomes. Using an original database of immigration appeals in the U.S. Courts of Appeal, we nd evidence to support the research of maleness on its own terms. We nd that elements of chivalry and masculinity theory both operate to frame the decisions made by male judges. The introduction of women on the panel of judges is associated with signicant changes in the relative success of male and female petitioners, but not in a way that is consistent with theories of women judges as representatives.