Gender and judging revisited: Voting patterns of male and female judges under different judicial constraints

Decades of research have investigated: 1) whether female judges decide cases differently from their male counterparts, and 2) how judicial constraints influence judicial decision-making. However, we know less about how judicial constraints impacts the decision-making of female and male judges. I argue that the gender-based selection bias (aspiring) female judges face during their careers make them more inclined to support those in charge of their appointment. I examine this claim in the context of the European Court of Human Rights and exploit a sudden change in judicial terms to demonstrate that it is not "female traits", but rather institutional structures that make female judges less independent in their rulings. My findings show that female judges are more likely, than their male counterparts, to support their appointing authority when rendering decisions, but only when they can be reappointed to court, suggesting that it is institutional structures that undermine judicial independence.