Case studies that ignite and halt change
Explore landmark legal battles that have shaped, and continue to shape, the landscape of women's rights, LGBT rights, and equality. Prepare to feel the weight of injustice and the urgent call for a more equitable future.
Roe v. Wade: a right overturned
The legal history of abortion in the United States was significantly shaped by Roe v Wade (1973), in which the Supreme Court recognised a constitutional right to privacy that protected a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy. The Court held that, although the state had legitimate interests in protecting potential life and maternal health, these interests had to be balanced against an individual’s right to personal liberty. As a result, abortion access was protected nationally, with states restricted in their ability to prohibit abortion before fetal viability.
This position was fundamentally altered by Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), where the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and held that the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The Court rejected the reasoning that abortion was protected under the constitutional right to privacy and returned regulatory authority to individual states. The decision marked a significant shift from a rights-based framework centred on bodily autonomy and reproductive liberty towards a state-based approach, resulting in substantial variation in abortion access across the United States.
For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025, UKSC 16]
The Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 concerned the legal meaning of the terms “woman”, “man” and “sex” under the Equality Act 2010. The case arose after the Scottish Government issued guidance suggesting that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) recognising them as female could be included within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of gender representation legislation. For Women Scotland challenged this interpretation, arguing that the Equality Act’s protections relating to sex discrimination were based on biological sex rather than acquired gender identity.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the terms “woman” and “sex” refer to biological sex. The Court concluded that a person with a GRC does not fall within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of sex-based protections under the Act, although transgender people remain protected against discrimination through the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
The ruling has significant implications for debates surrounding women’s rights, equality law, and single-sex spaces. Supporters argue that the decision provides legal clarity and preserves sex-based protections designed to address historical inequalities experienced by biological women. Critics argue that the judgment creates tension between protections based on sex and protections based on gender identity. The decision therefore reflects a wider philosophical conflict between competing understandings of equality: one centred on biological sex as the basis for addressing structural disadvantage, and another focused on recognising gender identity as central to personal autonomy and inclusion.
Fordingbridge Appeal R v X, Y and Z [2026]
R v X, Y and Z [2026] concerned three boys convicted of rape against two teenage girls. The original sentencing by HHJ Rowland attracted significant criticism for placing considerable emphasis on the offenders’ youth, rehabilitation and future prospects, while the harm suffered by the female child victims appeared comparatively trivial.
Following an Attorney General’s reference, the Court of Appeal found the sentences to be unduly lenient and substituted substantially more severe custodial sentences. From a feminist perspective, the case raises important questions about the persistence of male-centred approaches to sexual offending, particularly where the welfare and potential of male offenders can overshadow the experiences and long-term consequences for female victims.
The case illustrated of ‘himpathy’- the tendency to extend disproportionate sympathy towards men and boys accused of wrongdoing, while the suffering of their female victims receives comparatively less attention. It therefore exposes the continuing tension between the legitimate rehabilitative principles of youth justice and the need for the criminal law to take sexual violence against girls seriously.