| This study investigates the rhetorical frameworks the Supreme Court has advanced to negotiate women's rights throughout the twentieth century. Three Court opinions are analyzed that represent key moments in the history of women's rights litigation: Muller v. Oregon 208 U.S. 412 (1908), Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and United States v. Virginia 518 U.S. 515 (1996). This study describes and evaluates the rhetorical frameworks advanced in each of these decisions and explores the possibilities and limitations that each framework holds for thinking and reasoning about women.; The analysis of these three decisions reveals that a Darwinian framework, a medical framework, and a framework of progress, respectively, shaped the rhetoric of the High Court in these cases. A history of the Court's rhetorical negotiation of women's rights litigation is described and pattern, tension, and change are charted in the rhetoric of the High Court. This exploration of Supreme Court rhetoric advances the understanding of judicial rhetoric and legitimates a space for the rhetorical critic in the broader project of legal criticism. Further, this analysis demonstrates the rhetoric of the Supreme Court as a powerful site of meaning making, deserving of increased and focused attention from rhetorical critics and advocates of social change. |
