| Abstract: | We investigate how cause lawyers articulate their demands in court. We do so by examining feminist legal briefs submitted in US Supreme Court cases from 1970 to the present, specifically focusing on the use of race–gender analogical legal framing. We explore the frequency and trends in the use of such arguments as well as the forms these arguments take, including how race–gender analogies parallel frame bridging and transformation. Additionally, we also investigate why activists choose to deploy race–gender analogies in their legal framing and discern that different political, legal, and social contexts can produce different uses of the race–gender analogy. |
