Show simple item record

dc.creatorChristopher, Catherine Martin
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-26T15:37:37Z
dc.date.available2019-08-26T15:37:37Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citation49 Seton Hall L. Rev. 307en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2346/85076
dc.description.abstractOffers a comprehensive analysis and critique of the two oral arguments in Roe. The article first analyzes the oral arguments pragmatically, undertaking a scholarly investigation of the arguments to investigate their impact on the majority opinion. Next, the article proceeds theoretically, engaging in a feminist legal theory analysis to assess how the Roe arguments were both a product of their time and shaped feminist legal theory going forward.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSeton Hall Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectRoe v. Wadeen_US
dc.subjectOral argumenten_US
dc.subjectSupreme Courten_US
dc.subjectFeminist legal theoryen_US
dc.titleNevertheless She Persisted: Comparing Roe v. Wade’s Two Oral Argumentsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record