Law in the crucible of change: Women's rights and state Supreme Court policymaking, 1865-1920

In the late nineteenth century the U.S. Supreme Court refused to find new rights for women in the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. Change in women's civil and political status would have to occur at the state, not the federal level.;Their policymaking role depended upon choice of jurisprudence. Utilizing Karl Llewellyn's two types of American jurisprudence, the Grand and Formal Styles, this study analyzes what jurisprudential style courts selected to accept or resist social change.;This study also examines cases in light of regional distribution. Caseload was often region-dependent; however, choice of jurisprudence was not.;The data demonstrates that conventional wisdom must be amended. The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court did not reflect a monolithic judicial viewpoint regarding women's rights. Several state high courts ratified and encouraged change in women's civil and political status. Others continued to limit women's public role. Legal histories of the period which emphasize the unshackling of the individual to pursue economic self-interest ignore the fact courts unshackled primarily men, not women. State high courts were shapers of law regarding women's rights, compelled to do so by a rapidly transforming society.;Despite the Court's emphasis on federalism, there has been little systematic examination of state and territorial high court policymaking regarding women's rights between 1865 and 1920. This dissertation fills the gap by examining judicial decisions in four areas: (1) professional issues, primarily admission to state bars, (2) police power issues involving women's access to saloons as owners or employees, (3) suffrage rights, and (4) officeholding rights. Decisions were classified as either supportive or not supportive of increased options for women. Of one hundred and fifty-five cases, over half (N = 80) expanded opportunities. The data demonstrates that state high courts were important policymakers, adjusting law to social change.