Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Mother, Monster, Mrs, I: A Critical Evaluation of Gendered Naming Strategies in English Sentencing Remarks of Women Who Kill


In this article, we take a novel approach to analysing English sentencing remarks in cases of women who kill. We apply computational, quantitative, and qualitative methods from corpus linguistics to analyse recurrent patterns in a collection of English Crown Court sentencing remarks from 2012 to 2015, where a female defendant was convicted of a homicide offence. We detail the ways in which women who kill are referred to by judges in the sentencing remarks, providing frequency information on pronominal, nominative, and categorising naming strategies. In discussion of the various patterns of preference both across and within these categories (e.g. pronoun vs. nomination, title + surname vs. forename + surname), we remark upon the identities constructed through the references provided. In so doing, we: (1) quantify the extent to which members of the judiciary invoke patriarchal values and gender stereotypes within their sentencing remarks to construct female defendants, and (2) identify particular identities and narratives that emerge within sentencing remarks for women who kill. We find that judges refer to women who kill in a number of ways that systematically create dichotomous narratives of degraded victims or dehumanised monsters. We also identify marked absences in naming strategies, notably: physical identification normally associated with narrativization of women’s experiences; and the first person pronoun, reflecting omissions of women’s own voices and narratives of their lived experiences in the courtroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    This is the time period for which data is available and that is closest to the time period we have used to collect the sentencing remarks.

  2. 2.

    It is worth noting that this is a point of interest in and of itself as it prima facie supports some suggestions that when women co-offend it is typically with men and that when women commit particularly heinous crimes it is also typically as part of a co-offending relationship (see, for example, [7]).

  3. 3.

    This idea of women as “Other” asserts that women are defined in opposition to men, by everything that men are not.

  4. 4.

    That is to say that these women’s gender identities “correspond” with the sex that they were assigned at birth.

  5. 5.

    A critical evaluation of the grammatical ‘case’ of WWK forms the basis of our follow-up paper, currently in preparation.

  6. 6.

    Compared to third person pronouns, first person pronouns have a log likelihood value of −1710.96. Compared to second person pronouns, first person pronouns have a log likelihood value of −235.28. This represents significant underuse, with p values well below 0.0001.

  7. 7.

    It is noteworthy that in line 18, offenders are referred to by surname only, whereas the victim and her mother are referred to by first name, further underscoring our previous findings in Sect. 3.2, where ‘norm’ identities are constructed as socially close and feminised with first name use, whereas ‘deviant’ identities are distanced through surname use, with femininity erased.


  1. 1.

    Allen, Hilary. 1987. Justice Unbalanced: Gender, Psychiatry and Judicial Decisions. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

  2. 2.

    Almog, Shulamit. 2001. As I Read, I Weep: in Praise of Judicial Narrative. Oklahoma City Law Review 26: 471.

  3. 3.

    Ashe, Marie. 1991. The ‘Bad Mother’ in Law and Literature: A Problem of Representation. Hastings Law Journal 43: 1017–1038.

  4. 4.

    Ballinger, Anette. 2012. A Muted Voice from the Past: The ‘Silent Silencing of Ruth Ellis. Social and Legal Studies 21(4): 445–467.

  5. 5.

    Barlow, Charlotte. 2015. Silencing the Other: Gendered Representations of Co-Accused Women Offenders. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 54(5): 469–488.

  6. 6.

    Beauvoir, Simone de. 2010. The Second Sex (trans: Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier). London: Random House.

  7. 7.

    Becker, Sarah, and Jill McCorkel. 2011. The Gender of Criminal Opportunity: The Impact of Male Co-Offenders on Women’s Crime. Feminist Criminology 6(2): 79–110.

  8. 8.

    Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

  9. 9.

    Boshoff, Anel. 2007. Women as the Subject of (Family) Law. In Choice and Consent: Feminist Engagements with Law and Subjectivity, ed. Rosemary Hunter and Sharon Cowan, 41–57. Oxon: Routledge.

  10. 10.

    Carline, Anna. 2005. Zoorah Shah: An ‘Unusual Woman’. Social and Legal Studies 14(2): 215–238.

  11. 11.

    Conley, John, and William M. O’Barr. 1998. Just Words: Law, Language, and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  12. 12.

    Coulthard, Malcolm. 1994. On the Use of Corpora in the Analysis of Forensic Texts. The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 1(1): 27–43.

  13. 13.

    Coulthard, Malcolm, and Janet Cotterill. 2006. Introducing Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge.

  14. 14.

    Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Judgments. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/. Accessed 30 Dec 2016.

  15. 15.

    Cunningham, Clark. 1992. The Lawyer as Translator, Representation as Text: Towards an Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Cornell Law Review 77: 1298–1387.

  16. 16.

    Easteal, Patricia, Lorana Bartels, Noni Nelson, and Kate Holland. 2015. How are Women Who Kill Portrayed in Newspaper Media? Connections with Social Values and the Legal System. Women’s Studies International Forum 51: 31–41.

  17. 17.

    Edwards, Susan. 1984. Women on Trial: A Study of the Female Suspect, Defendant and Offender in the Criminal Law and Criminal Justice System. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

  18. 18.

    Edwards, Susan. 1996. Sex and Gender in the Legal Process. London: Blackstone Press Limited.

  19. 19.

    Habermas, Jürgen. 1977. Erkenntis und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

  20. 20.

    Halliday, Michael. 1970. Language Structure and Language Function. In New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. John Lyons, 140–165. London: Penguin.

  21. 21.

    Hardie, Andrew. 2014. Modest XML for Corpora: Not a Standard, But a Suggestion. ICAME Journal 38(1): 73–103.

  22. 22.

    Heffer, Chris. 2005. The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  23. 23.

    Henderson, Claire, and Graham Thornicroft. 2009. Stigma and Discrimination in Mental Illness: Time to Change. The Lancet 373(9679): 1928–1930.

  24. 24.

    Hirsch, Susan. 1998. Pronouncing and Persevering: Gender and the Discourses of Disputing in an African Islamic Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  25. 25.

    Hook, Donald. 1984. First Names and Titles as Solidarity and Power Semantics in English. IRAL 22(3): 183–189.

  26. 26.

    Hunter, Rosemary, Clare McGlynn, and Ericka Rackley. 2010. Feminist Judgments: An Introduction. In Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 3–29. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  27. 27.

    Jackson, Bernard. 1988. Law, Fact and Narrative Coherence. Merseyside: Deborah Charles Publications.

  28. 28.

    Lacey, Nicola. 1998. Unspeakable Subjects: Feminist Essays in Legal and Social Theory. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  29. 29.

    Leech, Geoffrey. 1999. The Distribution and Function of Vocatives in American and British English Conversation. In Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, ed. Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell, 107–118. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  30. 30.

    Lips, Hilary. 2007. Sex and Gender: An Introduction. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  31. 31.

    Matoesian, Gregory. 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  32. 32.

    McCarthy, Michael, and Anne O’Keefe. 2003. ‘What’s in a Name?’: Vocatives in Casual Conversations and Radio Phone-in Calls. In Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, ed. Pepi Leistyna and Charles F. Meyer, 153–185. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  33. 33.

    McEnery, Tony, and Andrew Hardie. 2011. Corpus Linguistics: Method, theory, Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  34. 34.

    Ministry of Justice. 2014. Freedom of Information Request: FOI 89214 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/306601/decision-criteria-to-publish-judgments-rulings-sentencing-remarks-on-websites-and-social-media.doc. Accessed 23 June 2017.

  35. 35.

    Morris, Allison, and Ania Wilczynski. 1994. Rocking the Cradle: Mothers Who Kill Their Children. In Moving Targets: Women, Murder and Representation, ed. Helen Birch, 198–217. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  36. 36.

    Morrissey, Belinda. 2003. When Women Kill: Questions of Agency and Subjectivity. London: Routledge.

  37. 37.

    Nicolson, Donald. 1995. Telling Tales: Gender Discrimination, Gender Construction and Battered Women Who Kill. Feminist Legal Studies 3(2): 185–206.

  38. 38.

    Nicolson, Donald. 2000. Criminal Law and Feminism. In Feminist Perspectives on Criminal Law, ed. Donald Nicolson and Lois Bibbings, 1–28. London: Cavendish Publishing.

  39. 39.

    Office for National Statistics (ONS). 2016. Appendix tables: focus on violent crime and sexual offences. Appendix table 2.17a. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2015/bulletintablesfocusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffencesyearendingmarch2015 Accessed 23 June 2017.

  40. 40.

    Philips, Susan. 1998. Ideology in the Language of Judges: How Judges Practice Law, Politics, and Courtroom Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  41. 41.

    Potts, Amanda, and Anne Lise Kjær. 2015. Constructing Achievement in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY): A Corpus-Based Critical Discourse Analysis. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 29(3): 525–555.

  42. 42.

    Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

  43. 43.

    R v Dennehy, Stretch, Layton and Moore. 2014. Crown Court at Cambridge sitting at the Central Criminal Court. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/the-queen-v-dennehy-sentencing-remarks-28022014.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.

  44. 44.

    R v Hutton and Khan. 2013. Bradford Crown Court. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-hutton-and-khan-sentencing-remarks+.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.

  45. 45.

    R v Kunene and Kunene. 2014. Central Criminal Court. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-nkosiyapha-kunene-and-virginia-kunene-formatted-sentencing-remarks.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.

  46. 46.

    R v Matthews and Hoare. 2015. Bristol Crown Court.

  47. 47.

    Rackley, Ericka. 2010. The Art and Craft Writing Judgments: Notes on the Feminist Judgments Project. In Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 44–58. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  48. 48.

    Roberts, Dorothy. 1993. Motherhood and Crime. Iowa Law Review 79: 99–123.

  49. 49.

    Rock, Frances. 2007. Communicating Rights: The Language of Arrest and Detention. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  50. 50.

    Seal, Lizzie. 2010. Women, Murder and Femininity—Gender Representations of Women Who Kill. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  51. 51.

    Sentencing Guidelines Council. 2004. Overarching Principles: Seriousness. Guidelines. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_seriousness_guideline.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2017.

  52. 52.

    Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  53. 53.

    Weare, Siobhan. 2013. ’The Mad’, ‘The Bad’, ‘The Victim’: Gendered Constructions of Women Who Kill Within the Criminal Justice System. Laws 2(3): 337–361.

  54. 54.

    Weare, Siobhan. 2017. Bad, Mad or Sad? Legal Language, Narratives, and Identity Constructions of Women Who Kill Their Children in England and Wales. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 30: 201–222.

  55. 55.

    Worrall, Anne. 1990. Offending Women: Female Lawbreakers and the Criminal Justice System. London: Routledge.

Download references


We would like to thank our colleagues at Cardiff University School of English, Communication and Philosophy, and Lancaster University Law School for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Author information

Correspondence to Amanda Potts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Potts, A., Weare, S. Mother, Monster, Mrs, I: A Critical Evaluation of Gendered Naming Strategies in English Sentencing Remarks of Women Who Kill. Int J Semiot Law 31, 21–52 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-017-9523-z

Download citation


  • Corpus linguistics
  • Forensic linguistics
  • Language and law
  • Feminist legal methodology
  • Critical discourse analysis
  • Women offenders
  • Women who kill
  • Interdisiplinary approaches
  • Discourse analysis