More than Just a Different Face? Judicial Diversity and Decision-making

  1. Home
  2. Docs
  3. LSE
  4. LSE Law School
  5. More than Just a Different Face? Judicial Diversity and Decision-making

More than Just a Different Face? Judicial Diversity and Decision-making


Hunter, R. (2015). More than Just a Different Face? Judicial Diversity and Decision-making. Current Legal Problems, 68(1), 119-141.


1. Context and Motivation

Rosemary Hunter’s article “More than Just a Different Face? Judicial Diversity and Decision-making” examines the impact of increasing judicial diversity on substantive decision-making within the judiciary. The discussion is set against the backdrop of various reforms in the judicial appointments system in England and Wales aimed at increasing the diversity of the judiciary, particularly focusing on the inclusion of women and individuals from non-traditional backgrounds. The motivation for the article is to assess whether and how a more diverse judiciary influences judicial outcomes, amid ongoing debates and empirical studies in the field.

2. Key Concepts and Definitions

  • Judicial Diversity: Refers to the inclusion of judges from various demographic backgrounds, such as gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, within the judiciary.
  • Substantive Decision-Making: Judicial decisions that reflect not just the application of law but are also influenced by the personal experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives of the judges.
  • Feminist Judging: An approach to judicial decision-making that incorporates feminist theories and understands gendered experiences, potentially leading to different interpretations and applications of the law.
  • Empirical Evidence: Data collected through studies and experiments to analyze patterns and impacts, such as the influence of a judge’s gender on their decision-making.

3. Main Findings

The article reviews extensive empirical evidence and theoretical arguments concerning the impact of judicial diversity on decision-making. It finds that:

  • There is mixed evidence on whether a diverse judiciary leads to different substantive decisions. Some studies show no significant gender differences, while others indicate that women judges may bring unique perspectives, especially in cases involving gender-related issues.
  • Judicial decision-making is influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including judicial ideology, legal constraints, and individual commitment to applying different perspectives.
  • Non-traditional judges (e.g., women, ethnic minorities) may face pressures to conform to established judicial norms, which can limit the expression of diverse viewpoints.
  • Feminist judges, in particular, may bring different sensibilities to their decisions, but their influence is often contingent on the specific legal and social context of the cases they handle.

4. Data Sources

The article draws on a wide range of empirical studies, including:

  • Quantitative analyses of judicial decisions from various courts, particularly focusing on gender differences in decision-making.
  • Qualitative interviews with judges, including feminist judges, to understand their experiences and perspectives.
  • Experiments and case studies, such as the “Neuberger Experiment,” which tested the ability to identify the gender of judges based on anonymized judgments.
  • Reports and recommendations from judicial diversity task forces and advisory panels.

5. Methodological Approach

Hunter employs a multidisciplinary approach, combining legal analysis with empirical research methods:

  • Literature Review: The article synthesizes findings from existing studies on judicial diversity and decision-making.
  • Empirical Analysis: It examines quantitative data from judicial decisions and qualitative data from interviews with judges.
  • Case Studies: The article discusses specific judicial decisions and projects, such as the Feminist Judgments Project, to illustrate how diversity might influence judicial outcomes.
  • Critical Evaluation: Hunter critically assesses the evidence, highlighting the conditions under which diversity may or may not impact judicial decision-making.

Detailed Evaluation of the Paper’s Strengths and Weaknesses


  1. Comprehensive Coverage:
    • Hunter’s article provides a thorough overview of the debates surrounding judicial diversity, including theoretical arguments and empirical evidence. This comprehensive coverage helps readers understand the multifaceted nature of the issue.
  2. Balanced Analysis:
    • The article balances both sides of the argument, presenting evidence that supports and refutes the impact of judicial diversity on decision-making. This balanced approach lends credibility to Hunter’s analysis and acknowledges the complexity of the issue.
  3. Empirical Foundation:
    • The use of empirical evidence, including quantitative studies and qualitative interviews, strengthens the article’s arguments. By grounding the discussion in data, Hunter provides a robust foundation for her conclusions.
  4. Contextual Sensitivity:
    • Hunter is sensitive to the context in which judicial decisions are made, acknowledging that the influence of diversity may vary depending on the legal and social circumstances. This nuanced perspective adds depth to the analysis.
  5. Focus on Feminist Judging:
    • The discussion on feminist judging, including insights from the Feminist Judgments Project, provides a detailed exploration of how gender perspectives can influence legal reasoning. This focus enriches the overall discussion of judicial diversity.


  1. Limited Scope of Empirical Studies:
    • While the article reviews a significant amount of empirical evidence, the studies are predominantly from Western legal systems. This limited scope may not fully capture the impact of judicial diversity in different cultural and legal contexts.
  2. Ambiguity in Conclusions:
    • The article acknowledges the mixed evidence regarding the impact of judicial diversity, but this can leave readers with ambiguous conclusions. While this reflects the complexity of the issue, it may be less satisfying for those seeking clear-cut answers.
  3. Potential Overemphasis on Gender:
    • The primary focus on gender, while important, may overshadow other aspects of diversity, such as race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. A more balanced discussion of different forms of diversity could enhance the comprehensiveness of the analysis.
  4. Assumption of Feminist Perspectives:
    • The article assumes that feminist perspectives inherently lead to better judicial outcomes. While this is a defensible position, it might benefit from a more critical examination of the potential limitations and challenges of feminist judging.

Discussion on Potential Biases and Overall Impact

Potential Biases

  1. Author’s Perspective:
    • Hunter’s position as a scholar in feminist legal studies may introduce a bias towards emphasizing the positive impacts of gender diversity in the judiciary. This perspective, while valuable, may shape the framing of the arguments and the interpretation of the evidence.
  2. Cultural and Temporal Context:
    • The article is situated within the specific context of the English and Welsh legal systems and the reforms undertaken there. This context might influence the generalizability of the findings to other legal systems with different histories and structures.
  3. Selection of Evidence:
    • The selection of empirical studies and examples may reflect a bias towards highlighting evidence that supports the article’s arguments. While Hunter presents a balanced view, the choice of specific studies could influence the overall narrative.

Overall Impact

  1. Influence on Judicial Diversity Debates:
    • Hunter’s article contributes significantly to ongoing debates about judicial diversity. By providing a comprehensive and balanced analysis, it informs policymakers, scholars, and practitioners about the complexities of achieving and assessing judicial diversity.
  2. Educational Value:
    • The article serves as a valuable resource for law students and academics. Its detailed discussion of feminist judging and empirical evidence provides a rich foundation for further study and discussion.
  3. Policy Implications:
    • The findings and arguments presented in the article have important implications for judicial appointment processes and diversity initiatives. By highlighting the conditions under which diversity can impact decision-making, the article offers insights for improving these processes.
  4. Cross-Disciplinary Relevance:
    • Beyond the legal field, the article’s discussion of diversity and decision-making resonates with broader debates in sociology, political science, and gender studies. This cross-disciplinary relevance enhances its impact and reach.


Rosemary Hunter’s “More than Just a Different Face? Judicial Diversity and Decision-making” is a significant contribution to the discourse on judicial diversity. The article provides a balanced and comprehensive analysis of the impact of diversity on judicial decision-making, supported by empirical evidence and theoretical discussions. While it has certain limitations and potential biases, its strengths in stimulating debate and informing policy make it a valuable resource. Hunter’s work underscores the importance of considering diverse perspectives in the judiciary to enhance the fairness and legitimacy of judicial decisions.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *