Methodology for the discursive analysis of judicial decisions

Abstract

This article offers a systematic methodology for the discursive analysis of judicial decisions. In contrast to the traditional doctrinal paradigm, centred on the internal reconstruction of “case law”, it proposes an empirical and qualitative approach that conceives judgments as socially and communicatively situated practices. The methodology identifies five possible analytical purposes—dialectical, rhetorical, explanatory, predictive and critical—which may be combined and which guide key research decisions concerning sample selection, theoretical framing, coding procedures and data interpretation. The article also highlights the value of focusing the analysis on the legal, rhetorical or substantive-justice dilemmas faced by judicial bodies, as a strategy to shed light both on the argumentative structure of decisions and on the institutional and social conditions that shape them. Ultimately, the proposed methodology aims to complement rather than replace the classical doctrinal approach by providing tools for rigorous and reflexive scrutiny of judicial reasoning, thereby contributing to a legal scholarship more attentive to its epistemological foundations and to the real effects of judicial discourse on individuals and vulnerable groups.