May It Please the Senate: Gender Norms and the Double Bind of US Supreme Court Confirmations

Abstract

Increased focus on the judicial qualifications of female U.S. Supreme Court nominees prompts an examination of barriers obstructing women's rise to this apex position. Contrary to scholars who emphasize “pipeline” theories of how increased women in the law will de facto increase the number of women in the judiciary, or that ideology as the primary predictor of confirmation votes regardless of gender, we argue that women nominees appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee must also clear an additional gendered hurdle. Incorporating the literature on the double bind and gender norm theories of women in leadership, we scrutinize all formal opening statements from Supreme Court nominees between 1981 and 2022 to decipher challenges female nominees' encounter. Using a structural topic model approach to compare opening statements from men and women nominees, we demonstrate how societal constructs compel women nominees to navigate a precarious path toward confirmation. We find that women nominees must fashion themselves as both strong legal advocate and soft, feminine wife and mother, exemplifying gendered social roles and the double bind for women in leadership. These findings bear significance for comprehending women's underrepresentation in the judiciary and how gender biases permeate the hearing process beyond Senatorial bias.