Gender and State Supreme Courts: Explaining Male and Female Judges' Concurring and Dissenting Behavior

Abstract

In this paper I build on previous research by exploring gender differences in judging on state supreme courts while controlling for ideology and institutional features. This paper provides an important contribution to the study of gender and judging by examining a large number of votes for a relatively large sample of women judges across a number of issue areas in criminal law. Utilizing a multinomial LOGIT model, I find significant differences between men and women's willingness to express disagreement in the form of concurring and dissenting votes. Specifically, I find that female judges evidence a stronger tendency to express disagreement through concurring rather than dissenting votes as compared to their male counterparts. I also find evidence that ideology and institutional design condition the relationship between gender and judicial decision-making.