Against this backdrop, we examine cases of gender-based violence presented to the ECtHR from 2012 to 2024, and we specifically focus on separate opinions, which contest majority understandings of discriminatory or abusive acts and reveal competing judicial narratives. Following Ädel and Garretson’s (2006) taxonomy, we begin by analysing intertextuality to trace how judges cite, attribute or mention external and internal sources: this focus will reveal how dissenting voices engage with, resist or reinterpret dominant legal discourses, therefore exposing the systemic nature of injustice, or, conversely, reproducing harmful narratives. On this basis, we then move to the examination of a number of harmful discursive practices, i.e., argumentative or rhetorical choices that ideologically frame cases and contribute to the reproduction of gender-based violence.This qualitative analysis situates our findings within the framework of Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (Lazar, 2005), which explores how discourse sustains or challenges hierarchies of gendered power.
This research was conducted within the project JUSTEqual –Eradicating Judicial Stereotypes and Gender Discriminatory Language. Equal Access to Justice for Women in Cases of Gender-Based Violence, funded by the Department of Law of the University of Turin under the “Dipartimento di Eccellenza” programme of the Italian Ministry of University and Research, coordinated by Prof. Joëlle Long. Further information on the project’s objectives, activities,and research team is available at: https://hubtolaw.it/projects/justequal-eradicating-judicial-stereotypes-and-gender-discriminatory-language-equal-access-to-justice-for-women-in-cases-of-gender-based-violence/.