Voices Against the Majority
The Rhetoric of Pathos in ECtHR Dissenting Opinions on Gender-based Violence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13136/2281-4582/2026.i27.1738Keywords:
English linguistics, Discourse analysis, Legal discourse, Gender-based violence, RhetoricsAbstract
Although often perceived as carrying little authoritative influence, dissenting judicial opinions are increasingly recognised as critical instruments where judges articulate alternative legal interpretations that may become future doctrine. This forward-looking function creates a distinctive rhetorical imperative: dissenters must strategically select language to maximise persuasive impact across time, ensuring lasting influence on judicial evolution. Among the persuasive resources available to dissenting judges, emotional appeals prove particularly potent, as they render institutional failures viscerally comprehensible and morally intolerable in ways that purely doctrinal argumentation cannot achieve. This article therefore examines the strategic deployment of pathos-laden segments – the third of Aristotle’s three persuasive means – in dissenting judicial opinions from gender-based violence cases at the European Court of Human Rights. Drawing on a 33,000-token corpus of dissenting opinions addressing feminicide, domestic violence, and sexual violence cases issued between 2012 and 2024, this study undertakes a qualitative textual analysis integrating Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal Theory with Aristotelian rhetoric to analyse how evaluative language functions as a textual mechanism for generating specific emotions central to judicial persuasion. The analysis reveals that dissenting judges strategically use three attitudinal resources to build a tripartite emotional architecture that transforms readers from detached legal observers into morally compelled advocates for reform. Ultimately, findings also demonstrate that dissenting opinions in gender-based violence cases are not neutral vessels of legal reasoning but sophisticated rhetorical artifacts that balance formalist argumentation with affective engagement.
References
Anthony, Laurence. AntConc (Version 4.3.1) [Computer software]. 2024. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/. Last visited 5/5/2025.
Aristotle. Rhetoric. Ca 4th century BC. Translated by W. R. Roberts. Mineola. New York: Dover Publications, 2004.
Ayine, Bernard and Emmanuel Mensah Bonsu. “Moralizing Illegal Mining: A Corpus-Assisted Appraisal Analysis of Media Reports on Galamsey (2020–2024).” Sustainable Development 34.1 (2025): 1-12.
Biber, Douglas, et al. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman, 1999.
Boccaccini, Marcus T. and Stanley L. Brodsky. “Believability of Expert and Lay Witnesses: Implications for Trial Consultation.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 38.5 (2007): 547-555.
Bronstein, Jenny. “Like me! Analyzing the 2012 Presidential Candidates’ Facebook Pages.” Online Information Review 37.2 (2013): 173-192.
Bruinsma, Fred J. “The Room at the Top: Separate Opinions in the Grand Chambers of the ECHR (1998-2006).” Ancilla Iuris 32 (2008): 32-43.
Cavalieri, Silvia and Chiara Preite. “Argumentative Strategies in the Judgments of the European Court of Justice: On the Use of Connectives in French and English Judgments.” Constructing Legal Discourses and Social Practices: Issues and Perspectives. Edited by G. Tessuto. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars, 2016. 171-190.
Cohen de Lara, Emma. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric and the Persistence of the Emotions in the Courtroom.” Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics. Edited by Liesbeth Huppes-Cluysenaer and Nuno M. M. S. Coelho. Cham: Springer, 2018. 385-399.
Corradi, Silvia. “The Role of Ethos in Legal Rhetoric.” Proceedings of the Tenth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (2024): 218-226.
Council of Europe. Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention, CETS No 210). Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2011.
---. Gender Equality Strategy 2024-2029. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2024.
Ding, Ailan. “The Analysis of Attitudinal Resources in Obama's Victory Speech from Perspective of Appraisal Theory.” Higher Education of Social Science 12.1 (2017): 37-44.
Donahue, Ray T. and Michael H. Prosser. Diplomatic Discourse: International Conflict at the United Nations – Addresses and Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1997.
Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Mark A. Pollack. “Separate Opinions in International Courts and Tribunals.” Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2023-20 (2023): 1-65.
European Institute for Gender Equality – EIGE. “What is Gender-Based Violence?” https://eige.europa.eu/gender-based-violence/what-is-gender-based-violence. Last visited 24/08/2025.
Eurostat. EU Gender-Based Violence Survey – Key Results – 2024 Edition. Statistical Reports KS-01-24-013. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-reports/w/ks-01-24-013. Last visited 23/08/2025.
Feteris, Eveline T. Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Cham: Springer, 2017.
Fredman, Sandra. Women and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Frost, Michael. “Ethos, Pathos & Legal Audience.” Dickinson Law Review 99.1 (1994): 85-116.
Garzone, Giuliana. “Polyphony and Dialogism in Legal Discourse: Focus on Syntactic Negation.” Constructing Legal Discourses and Social Practices: Issues and Perspectives. Edited by Girolamo Tessuto et al. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016. 2-27.
Giammarioli, Anna M., Eloise Longo and Raffaella Bucciardini. “Gender-Based Violence is a Never to Be Forgotten Social Determinant of Health: A Narrative Literature Review.” Women’s Health Problems – A Global Perspective. Edited by Russell Kabir, Ali Davod Parsa and Igor Victorovich Lakhno. London: IntechOpen, 2023.
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw. “Communicating Dissent in Judicial Opinions: A Comparative, Genre-Based Analysis.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 33.2 (2020): 381-401.
Hinkle, Rachel H. and Michael J. Nelson. “The Importance of Being Caustic: The Linguistic Features of Influential Dissents.” Southern Political Science Association 2017 conference. New Orleans, 12-14 January 2017. http://mjnelson.org/papers/HinkleNelsonDissent.pdf. Last visited 5/5/2025.
Horstmann, Jan. “Undogmatic Literary Annotation with CATMA.” Annotations in Scholarly Editions and Research, Functions, Differentiation, Systematization. Edited by Julia Nantke and Frederik Schlupkothen. Berlin: De Grutyer, 2020. 157-176.
Hsiu-Ching, Ko. “Culturally Inspired Metaphorical Concepts of Argumentation: The Case of Taiwan President Ma's China Policy Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 30.4 (2015): 337-356.
Kopaczyk, Joanna. “Terms and Conditions: A Comparative Study of Noun Binomials in UK and Scottish Legislation.” Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. Edited by Stanislaw Goźdź-Roszkowski and Gianluca Pontrandolfo. London: Routledge, 2017. 160-187.
Kowalski, Patryk. “Documentary and Guarantee Function of Polish Administrative Court's Dissenting Opinions in Direct Tax Cases.” European Journal of Behavioral Sciences 2.4 (2020): 19-30.
Kurt v. Austria [GC], Application No. 62903/15. European Court of Human Rights. 2021. Web. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-210463%22]}. Last visited 01/09/2025.
Levin, Beth. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1993.
Lian, Yun. “Analysis of Xi’s Diplomatic Speeches from the Perspective of Appraisal Theory.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research 9.4 (2018): 759-764.
Martin, James R. and Peter R. R. White. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Mazzi, Davide. “The Construction of Argumentation in Judicial Texts: Combining a Genre and a Corpus Perspective” Argumentation 21 (2007): 21-38.
McCormack, Krista C. “Ethos, Pathos, and Logos: The Benefits of Aristotelian Rhetoric in the Courtroom.” Washington University Jurisprudence Review 7.1 (2014): 131-155.
McKeown, Jamie. “A Corpus-Based Examination of Reflexive Metadiscourse in Majority and Dissent Opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Pragmatics 186 (2021): 224-235.
Montesanti, Stephanie R. and Wilfreda E. Thurston. “Mapping the Role of Structural and Interpersonal Violence in the Lives of Women: Implications for Public Health Interventions and Policy.” BMC Women’s Health 15 (2015): 15:100.
Mshvenieradze, Tamar. “Logos, Ethos and Pathos in Political Discourse.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3.11 (2013): 1939-1945.
Nikitina, Jekaterina. Human Rights Discourse: Linguistics, Genre and Translation at the European Court of Human Rights. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, 2025.
Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, European Court of Human Rights. 2009. Web. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-92945%22]}. Last visited 01/09/2025.
Palmer, Frank R. Modality and the English Modals. New York: Longman, 1990.
Pandea, Anca-Ruxandra, Dariusz Grzemny, Ellie Keen and Rui Gomes, edited by. Gender Matters: A Manual on Addressing Gender-Based Violence Affecting Young People. 2nd ed. 2019.
Pinho, Fabiana. “On Logos, Pathos and Ethos in Judicial Argumentation.” Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics. Edited by Liesbeth Huppes-Cluysenaer and Nuno M. M. S. Coelho: Springer, 2018. 133-153.
Pinto de Albuquerque, Paulo, and Daniela Cardamone. “Efficacia della dissenting opinion.” Questione Giustizia 1 (2019): 148-155.
Pontrandolfo, Gianluca. “Phraseology in Criminal Judgments: A Corpus Study of Original vs. Translated Italian.” Sendebar 22 (2011): 209-234.
Renzulli, Isobel. “Discrimination and Gender Stereotypes in Judicial Decisions: The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Light of JL V Italy – A Retreat into the Shadows?” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 41.3 (2023): 155-173.
Rubinelli, Sara. “Logos and Pathos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A Journey into the Role of Emotions in Rational Persuasion in Rhetoric.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 72.286.4 (2018): 361-374.
Samuel-Azran, Tal, Moran Yarchi and Gadi Wolfsfeld. “Equalization vs. Normalization: Facebook and the 2013 Israeli Elections.” Social Media + Society 1.2 (2015): 1-9.
Sun, Chao, Wan F. Wan Fakhruddin and Wan N. A. Wan Adnan. “Appraisal Theory Assessment of Stance in Climate Change News Discourses in China Daily and The New York Times.” Cogent Arts & Humanities 12.1 (2025): 1-14.
Talpis v. Italy, Application No. 41237/14, European Court of Human Rights. 2017. Web. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-171994%22]}. Last visited 01/09/2025.
Uddin, Awais, Haitao Miao and Xun Xu. “Words Matter: Appraisal Theory in Action during the 2024 Harris-Trump Presidential Debate.” Journal of Applied Linguistics and TESOL (JALT) (2024): 740-753.
United Nations General Assembly. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (A/RES/48/104). New York: United Nations, 1993.
Yakutina, Marina, et al. “Rhetorical Categories of Ethos, Logos and Pathos: Sounding Judicial Speech of Lawyers.” Utopía y praxis latinoamericana. Revista internacional de filosofía y teoría social 25.7 (2020): 111-120.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ilaria Giordano
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Iperstoria is an Open Access journal.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 BY License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of their work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. We kindly ask authors to inform us of any instances of re-publication.
