Keywords
dissenting opinions
Obergefell v. Hodges
constitutional discourse
Supreme Court
framing
legal reasoning
persuasion
How to Cite
Abstract
This paper offers a rhetorical analysis of the four dissenting opinions in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that extended constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. Drawing on a ten-dimensional coding framework, the study investigates how Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito construct their dissenting positions not only in legal terms but as distinctive rhetorical performances. The framework includes appeals (ethos, logos, pathos), tone/style, framing devices, intertextuality, figurative language, rhetorical questions, identity and community appeals, and lexical polarity). While united in outcome, the dissents diverge sharply in form, intent, and audience. Roberts adopts a tone of institutional mourning; Scalia mounts a caustic protest; Thomas articulates a doctrinal and philosophical minimalism; and Alito warns against the erosion of pluralism and conscience rights. The analysis shows that judicial dissent operates on multiple discursive levels, revealing divergent conceptions of law, democracy, and cultural identity. By focusing on dissent as a rhetorical genre, this paper contributes to broader debates about constitutional discourse, the function of dissenting opinions, and the interplay between law and persuasion in pluralistic societies.
References
Alito, S. (2015). Dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/14-556.ZD4.html
Aristotle. (1991). The art of rhetoric (H. C. Lawson-Tancred, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
Boginskaya, O. (2022). Dissenting with conviction: Boosting in challenging the majority opinion. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 7, 257–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2073
Cockroft, R., & Cockroft, S. (2014). Persuading people: An introduction to rhetoric (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Frost, M. (2016). Introduction to classical legal rhetoric: A lost heritage. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315251868
Gibson, K. L. (2012). In defense of women’s rights: A rhetorical analysis of judicial dissent. Women’s Studies in Communication, 35(2), 123–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2012.724526
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
Goodrich, P.(1998). Legal hermeneutics. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved 22 Apr. 2025, from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/legal-hermeneutics/v-1.
Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (2020). Communicating dissent in judicial opinions: A comparative, genre-based analysis. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 33(2), 381–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09711-y
Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (forth. in 2025). Indicators of confrontation in separate judicial opinions. An exploratory, pragma-dialectical Study. In S. Goźdź-Roszkowski & G. Pontrandolfo (Eds.), In the minds of the judges: Argumentative discourse at the intersection of law and language. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569628
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. Arnold.
Hume, R. J. (2019). Disagreeable rhetoric, shaming, and the strategy of dissenting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice System Journal, 40(1), 3–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1598901
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (1999). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001
Kelemen, K. (2019). Judicial dissent in European Constitutional courts. A comparative and legal perspective. Routledge.
Kuypers, J. A. (2010). Framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. In P. D’Angelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 286–311). Routledge.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
McKeown, J. (2022). Stancetaking in the US Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence (1973–present): Epistemic (im)probability and evidential (dis)belief. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 7(2), 323–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2075
Nikitina, J. (forthcoming, 2025). Dialogical reasoning in separate judicial opinions: The path of negation. In S. Goźdź-Roszkowski & G. Pontrandolfo (Eds.), In the minds of the judges: Argumentative discourse at the intersection of law and language. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569628-009
Ohrvik, A. (2024). What is close reading? An exploration of a methodology. Rethinking History, 28(2), 238–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2024.2345001
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963
Roberts, J. (2015). Dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/14-556.ZD1.html
Scalia, A. (2015). Dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/14-556.ZD2.html
Thomas, C. (2015). Dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/14-556.ZD3.html
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
When submitting a paper the author agrees to the following publishing agreement and processing personal data.
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT, COPYRIGHT LICENSE, PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING CONSENT
This is a publication agreement and copyright license (“Agreement”) regarding a written manuscript currently submitted via Pressto platform
(“Article”) to be published in Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Journal”).
The parties to this Agreement are:
the Author or Authors of the submitted article (individually, or if more than one author, collectively, “Author”) and Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Publisher”), address al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, represented by its editor in chief Aleksandra Matulewska.
§1. LICENSE OF COPYRIGHT
a) The Author and the Publisher agree that the Author grants a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is incorporated herein by reference and is further specified at Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 copyright license in the Article to the general public.
b) The Author grants to the Publisher a royalty-free, worldwide nonexclusive license to publish, reproduce, display, distribute, translate and use the Article in any form, either separately or as part of a collective work, including but not limited to a nonexclusive license to publish the Article in an issue of the Journal, copy and distribute individual reprints of the Article, authorize reproduction of the entire Article in another publication, and authorize reproduction and distribution of the Article or an abstract thereof by means of computerized retrieval systems (such as Westlaw, Lexis and SSRN). The Author retains ownership of all rights under copyright in the Article, and all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author grants to the Publisher the power to assign, sublicense or otherwise transfer any and all licenses expressly granted to the Publisher under this Agreement.
d) Republication. The Author agrees to require that the Publisher be given credit as the original publisher in any republication of the Article authorized by the Author. If the Publisher authorizes any other party to republish the Article under the terms of paragraphs 1c and 1 of this Agreement, the Publisher shall require such party to ensure that the Author is credited as the Author.
§2. EDITING OF THE ARTICLE
a) The Author agrees that the Publisher may edit the Article as suitable for publication in the Journal. To the extent that the Publisher’s edits amount to copyrightable works of authorship, the Publisher hereby assigns all right, title, and interest in such edits to the Author.
§3. WARRANTIES
a) The Author represents and warrants that to the best of the Author’s knowledge the Article does not defame any person, does not invade the privacy of any person, and does not in any other manner infringe upon the rights of any person. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Publisher against all such claims.
b) The Author represents and warrants that the Author has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to grant the licenses granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author represents and warrants that the Article furnished to the Publisher has not been published previously. For purposes of this paragraph, making a copy of the Article accessible over the Internet, including, but not limited to, posting the Article to a database accessible over the Internet, does not constitute prior publication so long as the as such copy indicates that the Article is not in final form, such as by designating such copy to be a “draft,” a “working paper,” or “work-in-progress”. The Author agrees to hold harmless the Publisher, its licensees and distributees, from any claim, action, or proceeding alleging facts that constitute a breach of any warranty enumerated in this paragraph.
§4. TERM
a) The agreement was concluded for an unspecified time.
§5. PAYMENT
a) The Author agrees and acknowledges that the Author will receive no payment from the Publisher for use of the Article or the licenses granted in this Agreement.
b) The Publisher agrees and acknowledges that the Publisher will not receive any payment from the Author for publication by the Publisher.
§6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
a) This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the Author and the Publisher with respect to the subject of this Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the warranties and agreements between the parties with respect to the Article, and each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements have been made by or on behalf of any party except those warranties and agreements embodied in this Agreement.
b) In all cases not regulated by this Agreement, legal provisions of Polish Copyright Act and Polish Civil Code shall apply.
c) Any disputes arising from the enforcement of obligations connected with this Agreement shall be resolved by a court competent for the headquarters of the Publisher.
d) Any amendments or additions to the Agreement must be made in writing and signed by authorised representative of both parties, otherwise being ineffective.
e) This Agreement is signed electronically and the submission of the article via the PRESSto platform is considered as the conclusion of the Agreement by the Author and the Publisher.
f) Clause for consent to the processing of personal data - general
g) The Author shall give his or her consent to the processing of their personal data in accordance with the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of persons physical in connection with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation) for the purpose and in connection with making publications available on the PRESSto scientific journals platform and DeGruyter platform, guaranteeing the security of services rendered, and improving them.
I HAVE READ AND AGREE FULLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
The Author The Publisher