Legitimizing Violence: The role of language in gender-based violence in Portugal

This thesis examines how linguistic constructs in judicial rulings and media narratives shape public perceptions of gender-based violence (GBV) in Portugal, reinforcing or challenging systemic gender inequalities. The function of language in influencing judicial decisions and public discourse has received little attention in literature, which has mostly concentrated on statistical analysis, policy implementation, and legislative reforms. This study examines how language normalizes, defends, or challenges GBV by examining court decisions and media coverage, which affects public perceptions and access to justice. The research adopts an interdisciplinary approach, integrating constructivism, critical discourse analysis (CDA), and feminist legal theory. It examines ten judicial rulings on GBV in Portugal, assessing how language shapes victim credibility, perpetrator accountability, and judicial bias. Additionally, 57 media articles are analyzed through a coding framework that evaluates the portrayal of victims, perpetrators, judicial decisions, and the use of gendered language. Quantitative and qualitative methods are employed to identify recurring discursive patterns and their implications. Findings reveal that judicial discourse often minimizes GBV by reinforcing stereotypes, questioning victim credibility, and framing violence as private or trivial. Media coverage varies in its portrayal of cases, with some articles challenging judicial bias while others perpetuate gendered narratives that romanticize violence or shift blame onto victims. Statistical analysis highlights disparities in the framing of perpetrators and judicial rulings, demonstrating how linguistic choices contribute to the normalization of GBV. These findings suggest that entrenched sociocultural attitudes continue to shape institutional responses to GBV, limiting the effectiveness of legal protections despite Portugal’s commitments to international frameworks such as the Istanbul Convention and CEDAW. By critically examining language in law and media, this thesis highlights the need for discourse-aware legal reforms and media accountability in shaping more just and equitable narratives around GBV.

This thesis examines how linguistic constructs in judicial rulings and media narratives shape public perceptions of gender-based violence (GBV) in Portugal, reinforcing or challenging systemic gender inequalities. The function of language in influencing judicial decisions and public discourse has received little attention in literature, which has mostly concentrated on statistical analysis, policy implementation, and legislative reforms. This study examines how language normalizes, defends, or challenges GBV by examining court decisions and media coverage, which affect public perceptions and access to justice. The research adopts an interdisciplinary approach, integrating constructivism, critical discourse analysis (CDA), and feminist legal theory. It examines ten judicial rulings on GBV in Portugal, assessing how language shapes victim credibility, perpetrator accountability, and judicial bias. Additionally, 57 media articles are analyzed through a coding framework that evaluates the portrayal of victims, perpetrators, judicial decisions, and the use of gendered language. Quantitative and qualitative methods are employed to identify recurring discursive patterns and their implications. Findings reveal that judicial discourse often minimizes GBV by reinforcing stereotypes, questioning victim credibility, and framing violence as private or trivial. Media coverage varies in its portrayal of cases, with some articles challenging judicial bias while others perpetuate gendered narratives that romanticize violence or shift blame onto victims. Statistical analysis highlights disparities in the framing of perpetrators and judicial rulings, demonstrating how linguistic choices contribute to the normalization of GBV. These findings suggest that entrenched sociocultural attitudes continue to shape institutional responses to GBV, limiting the effectiveness of legal protections despite Portugal’s commitments to international frameworks such as the Istanbul Convention and CEDAW. By critically examining language in law and media, this thesis highlights the need for discourse-aware legal reforms and media accountability in shaping more just and equitable narratives around GBV.