Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-pkshj Total loading time: 0.337 Render date: 2021-12-05T21:39:17.990Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Conclusion: Gender Equality and the Idea of a Constitution: Entrenchment, Jurisdiction, and Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Susan H. Williams
Indiana University, Bloomington
Get access


As Katharine Bartlett has written, being a legal feminist entails “asking the ‘woman question’” in law. This essay asks the “woman question” about constitutions and constitutional law, largely with the purpose of generating areas for future research. I focus neither on particular subject areas nor on doctrinal issues, but rather on three areas of constitutional theory: the idea of constitutions as entrenched law under difficult-to-amend provisions, the allocation of jurisdiction in and among different levels and branches of government, and the idea of interpretive theory in constitutional law.

First, I want to acknowledge the wide range of subjects in and around constitutions that are amenable to analysis through the lens of gender. Women in many parts of the world now participate in constitution making – the title of a recent collection of essays, Women Making Constitutions, would have been almost inconceivable a century ago. As Vivien Hart notes, greater emphasis on participation in constitution making has in many countries offered opportunities for women to place their mark on and in constitutions. Many questions are embraced in this topic: How have women organized to participate? What have women sought to include in their constitutions? What have women disagreed about? What are the relationships among women's participation in constitution making, the constitutional texts that emerge, and the changed conditions for women in the years thereafter? How much do women participate as office holders, judges, and in other government positions under these constitutions?

Constituting Equality
Gender Equality and Comparative Constitutional Law
, pp. 312 - 350
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Bartlett, Katharine T., Feminist Legal Methods, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 829, 831 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Kathleen M., Constitutionalizing Women's Equality, 90 Calif. L. Rev. 735, 747 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, Robin, Rights, Capabilities, and the Good Society, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 1901, 1925–26 (2001)Google Scholar
Becker, Mary, Toward a Progressive Politics and a Progressive Constitution, 60 Fordham L. Rev. 2007, 2028–2029, 2048–2049 (2001)Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass, Constitutionalism and Secession, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 633, 636–643 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, Judith, Categorical Federalism: Jurisdiction, Gender, and the Globe, 113 Yale L.J. 619 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, Judith, Law's Migration: American Exceptionalism, Silent Dialogues, and Federalism's Multiple Ports of Entry, 115 Yale L. J. 1564 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Larry & Schauer, Frederick, On Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 1359 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Larry & Schauer, Frederick, Defending Judicial Supremacy: A Reply, 17 Const. Commentary455 (2000)Google Scholar
Jackson, Vicki C., Constitutional Comparisons: Convergence, Resistance, Engagement, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 109, 116 (2005)Google Scholar
Alford, Roger P., In Search of a Theory for Constitutional Comparativism, 52 UCLA L Rev. 639 (2005)Google Scholar
Higgins, Tracy, Democracy and Feminism, 110 Harv L. Rev. 1657, 1658 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallon, Jr Richard H.., How to Choose a Constitutional Theory, 87 Calif. L. Rev. 535 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Mary, The Politics of Women's Wrongs and the Bill of “Rights”: A Bicenteninial Perspective, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 453 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, Robin, The Supreme Court, 1989 Term, Foreword: Taking Freedom Seriously, 104 Harv. L. Rev. 43 (1989)Google Scholar
West, Robin, Progressive and Conservative Constitutionalism, 88 Mich. L. Rev. 641 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, Robin, Katrina, The Constitution and the Legal Question Doctrine, 81 Chi. Kent L. Rev. 1127 (2006)Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catherine, Does the Constitution Deserve Our Fidelity: “Freedom from Unreal Loyalties”: On Fidelity in Constitutional Interpretation, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 1773 (1997)Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C., The Supreme Court, 2006 Term, Foreword; Constitutions and Capabilities: “Perception” Against Lofty Formalism, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 4 (2007)Google Scholar
Calabresi, Guido, The Supreme Court, 1990 Term, Foreword: Antidiscrimination and Constitutional Accountability (What the Bork-Brennan Debate Ignores), 105 Harv. L. Rev. 80, 132 n.169 (1991)Google Scholar
Littleton, Christine, In Search of a Feminist Jurisprudence, 10 Harv. Women's L.J. 1, 4 (1987)Google Scholar
Williams, Susan H., Feminist Jurisprudence and Free Speech Theory, 68 Tulane L. Rev. 1563, 1569 (1994)Google Scholar
Thornton, Margaret, Feminist Jurisprudence: Illusion or Reality?, 3 Austl. J. L. & Society5 (1986)Google Scholar
Scales, Ann, The Emergence of Feminist Jurisprudence: An Essay, 95 Yale L. J. 1373, 1401 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Susan H., Religion, Politics, and Feminist Epistemology: A Comment on the Uses and Abuses of Morality in Public Discourse, 77 Ind. L. J. 267, 271–272 (2002)Google Scholar
Strauss, David A., What Is Constitutional Theory?, 87 Calif. L. Rev. 581, 584 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, Robert C. & Siegel, Reva B., Legislative Constitutionalism and Section 5 Power: Policentric Interpretation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 112 Yale L. J. 1943 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, Robert & Siegel, Reva, Popular Constitutionalism, Departmentalism and Judicial Supremacy, 92 Calif. L. Rev. 1027 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Reva B., 2005–06 Brennan Center Symposium Lecture: Constitutional Culture, Social Movement Conflict and Constitutional Change: The Case of the De Facto ERA, 94 Cal. L. Rev. 1323 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, David A., Common Law, Common Ground, and Jefferson's Principle, 112 Yale L. J. 1717 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cass, Deborah and Rubenstein, Kim, Representation/s of Women in the Australian Constitutional System, 17 Adel. L. Rev. 3, 11, 28–39 (1995)Google Scholar
Becker, Mary, The Politics of Women's Wrongs and the Bill of “Rights”: A Bicentennial Perspective, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 453, 456 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass, Constitutionalism and Secession, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 633, 637–40 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenoir, Noëlle, The Representation of Women in Politics: From Quotas to Parity in Elections, 50 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 217 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Meg & O'Cinneide, Colm, Positive Action to Promote Women in Politics: Some European Comparisons, 53 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 587, 604 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, David, Disestablishing Sex and Gender, 90 Calif. L. Rev. 997 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushnet, Mark, Marbury in the Modern Era: Alternative Forms of Judicial Review, 101 Mich. L. Rev. 2781 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardbaum, Stephen, The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism, 49 Am. J. Comp. L. 707 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidman, L. Michael, Public Principle and Private Choice: The Uneasy Case for a Boundary Maintenance Theory of Constitutional Law, 96 Yale L. J. 1006, 1007–1008 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavison, Ruth, Feminism and the Public/Private Distinction, 45 Stan L. Rev. 1, 20 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Tracy, Reviving the Public/Private Distinction in Feminist Theorising, 75 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 858 (2000)Google Scholar
Resnik, Judith, “Naturally” Without Gender: Women, Jurisdiction, and the Federal Courts, 66 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1682 (1991)Google Scholar
Hasday, Jill, The Canon of Family Law, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 825, 831 (2004)Google Scholar
Cahn, Naomi, Family Law, Federalism, and Federal Courts, 79 Iowa L. Rev. 1073 (1994)Google Scholar
Dailey, Anne C., Federalism and Family Law, 143 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1787, 1821–24 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedle, Lucille, The Impact of Quebec Independence on Canadian Federalism, 51 New Brunswick L.J. 283, 284–85 (2002)Google Scholar
Landler, Mark, German Judge Cites Koran, Stirring Up Cultural Storm, N.Y. Times, p. A10, Mar. 23, 2007Google Scholar
Baines, Beverley, Federalism and Pregnancy Benefits: Dividing Women, 32 Queen's L. J. 190, 212–213 (2006)Google Scholar
Morgan, Denise C. & Zeitlow, Rebecca E., The New Parity Debate: Congress and Rights of Belonging, 3 U. Cinn. L. Rev. 1347, 1388–1389 (2005)Google Scholar
Sawer, Marian & Vickers, Jill, Women's Constitutional Activism in Australia and Canada, 13 Can'n J. Women & L. 1, 35 (2001)Google Scholar
Resnik, Judith, Tiers, 57 S. Cal. L. Rev. 840, 868 (1984)Google Scholar
Bermann, George, Taking Subsidiarity Seriously: Federalism in the European Community and the United States, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 332, 334 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, Hilary, Chinkin, Christine & Wright, Shelley, Feminist Approaches to International Law, 85 Am. J. Int'l L. 613, 621 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuwirth, Jessica, Inequality Before the Law: Holding States Accountable for Sex Discriminatory Laws Under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and Through the Beijing Platform for Action, 18 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 19, 45 (2005)Google Scholar
Resnik, Judith, Law as Affiliation: “Foreign” Law, Democratic Federalism, and the Sovereigntism of the Nation-State, 6 Int'l J. Const. L. 33 (2008)Google Scholar
Hathaway, Oona A., Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?, 111 Yale L. J. 1935 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hathaway, Oona A., The Cost of Commitment, 55 Stan L. Rev. 1821 (2003)Google Scholar
Becker, Mary, Patriarchy and Inequality: Towards a Substantive Feminism, 1999 U. Chi. Legal Forum21, 82 (1999)Google Scholar
West, Robin L., Rights, Capabilities and the Good Society, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 1901, 1925–27 (2001)Google Scholar
McClain, Linda C., Toward a Formative Project of Securing Freedom and Equality, 85 Cornell L. Rev. 1221 (2000)Google Scholar
Jackson, Vicki C., Multi-Valenced Constitutional Interpretation and Constitutional Comparisons: An Essay in Honor of Mark Tushnet, 26 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 599 (2008)Google Scholar
Glenn, H. Patrick, Persuasive Authority, 32 McGill L. J. 261, 278–288 (1987)Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catherine A., The Logic of Experience: Reflections on the Development of Sexual Harassment Law, 90 Geo. L. J. 813 (2002)Google Scholar
Jackson, Vicki C., Constitutions as “Living Trees”? Comparative Constitutional Law and Interpretive Metaphors, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 921 (2006)Google Scholar
Strauss, David A, Common Law Constitutional Interpretation, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 877 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Ernest, Rediscovering Conservatism: Burkean Political Theory and Constitutional Interpretation, 72 N.C. L. Rev. 619 (1994)Google Scholar
Monaghan, Henry, Doing Originalism, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 32, 37–38 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence, Understanding Changed Readings: Fidelity and Theory, 47 Stan. L. Rev. 395 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallon, Jr Richard H.., A Constructivist Coherence Theory of Constitutional Interpretation, 100 Harv. L. Rev. 1189 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West German Abortion Decision: A Contrast to Roe v. Wade, 9 J. Marshall J. Prac. & Proc. 605 (Jonas, Robert E. & Gorby, John D. trans., 1976)PubMed
Neuman, Gerald L., Casey in the Mirror: Abortion, Abuse, and the Right to Protection in the United States and Germany, 43 Am. J. Comp. Law273 (1995)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, Reva B., Constitutional Culture, Social Movement Conflict and Constitutional Change: The Case of the De Facto ERA, 94 Cal. L. Rev. 1323, 1419 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedelsky, Jennifer, The Practical Possibilities of Feminist Theory, 87 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1286, 1300 (1993)Google Scholar
Minow, Martha, Foreword: Justice Engendered, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 10 (1987)Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C., Human Rights Theory: Capabilities and Human Rights, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 273, 296 (1997)Google Scholar
Morgan, Martha I., Taking Machismo to Court: The Gender Jurisprudence of the Colombian Constitutional Court, 30 U. Miami Inter-American L. Rev. 253, 269, 281–83 (1999)Google Scholar
Fried, Charles, Scholars and Judges: Reason and Power, 23 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y807 (2000)Google Scholar
Clark, Bradford R., Constitutional Structure, Judicial Discretion, and the Eighth Amendment, 81 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1149 (2006)Google Scholar
Cleveland, Sarah H., Our International Constitution, 31 Yale J. Int'l L. 1 (2006)Google Scholar
Kirby, Michael, International Law – The Impact on National Constitutions, 21 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 327, 335–336 (2006)Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha, Human Rights and Human Capabilities, 20 Harv. Hum. Rts. J., 21, 21 (2007)Google Scholar
Mossman, Mary Jane, Feminism and Legal Method: The Difference it Makes, 3 Wisc. Women's L. J., 147, 152 (1987)Google Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats