Feminist judgements as a method of feminist legal debate:

exploring conceptual differences about autonomy in a case of irregular adoption

Abstract

https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-8966/2026/93543 

This article argues that the feminist rewriting of judicial decisions can serve as a genuinely feminist method for critiquing feminist legal theories themselves. It does so by presenting a feminist rewriting of a court ruling that had previously been rewritten by another feminist scholar. The case examined is the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice's decision in Habeas Corpus No. 503125/SP, which addressed the placement of a six-month-old child during a legal dispute over custody and paternity under strong suspicion of irregular adoption. By contrasting two feminist rewritings of the same ruling, the article explores the concept of autonomy assumed by different feminist theories, critiques dominance feminism, and highlights the legal consequences of distinct feminist theoretical stances in concrete situations of conflict. The aim is to qualify the feminist legal debate, including its practical dimension, while also expanding the repertoire of possible legal interpretations.