The number of women on high courts across the globe has been steadily increasing. Recent estimates found that women now make up 61% of the judiciary in European countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2019). The large number of women now serving in judicial positions has resulted in a changing demographic makeup of courts. While the majority might think this is a step forward for diverse representation, there is ultimately a dichotomy between judicial accountability that comes as a result of increased diversity in descriptive representation and judicial independence. Given this dichotomy, along with the increase in women on courts, it follows that the public’s perceptions of courts’ independence has the potential to change. We explore this phenomenon by asking the following question: How does the presence of women on high courts impact perceptions of judicial independence among the public? Using survey data gathered from respondents in twenty-seven European countries from 2016 to 2022, we examine how the dynamics of an increasing number of women on high courts alters the public’s perceptions on the level of independence of the court in their country. We draw from literature on judicial independence as well as women political elites and corruption. Importantly, we document that increasing the percentage of women on courts results in higher perceptions of judicial independence for women. Overall, our findings highlight important trends regarding gender diversity in political institutions and how changes in descriptive characteristics shape perceptions of judicial independence.

Examining oral argument in the Australian High Court and comparing to the U.S. Supreme Court, this article shows that institutional design drives judicial interruptive behavior. Many of the same individual- and case-level factors predict oral argument behavior. Notably, despite orthodoxy of the High Court as “apolitical,” ideology strongly predicts interruptions, just as in the United States. Yet, important divergent institutional design features between the two apex courts translate into meaningful behavioral differences, with the greater power of the Chief Justice resulting in differences in interruptions. Finally, gender effects are lower and only identifiable with new methodological techniques we develop and apply.

Do lower court judges influence the content of Supreme Court opinions in the United Kingdom? Leveraging original data, we analyze opinion language adoption practices of the UK Supreme Court. We advance a theory where the justices’ choices to adopt language from lower court opinions are influenced by Supreme Court-level attributes and Court of Appeal case characteristics. We uncover compelling evidence that UK Supreme Court justices incorporate language extensively from the written opinions of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. Our findings have significant implications for opinion formulation, doctrinal development, and higher and lower court interactions within comparative courts.

We contribute to the literature on judicial independence and performance in the states by analyzing opinion clarity. Written opinions are the primary means of communication for state supreme court justices, and clarity is a core component of judicial performance. Using automated text analysis on a sample of state supreme court opinions from all 50 states, we find that variation in judicial retention systems is not associated with substantively meaningful differences in opinion clarity. Furthermore, elected judges do not seem to produce clearer opinions in salient cases notwithstanding the increased public visibility of those decisions. These results suggest that judges tend to conform to prevailing professional norms despite differing institutional pressures.