Precarious positions? Gender, quotas and the politics of (re)appointment

How does judicial constraints impact the decision-making of female and male judges, and female judges appointed under a quota? I argue that the gender-based selection bias female judges face during their careers make them more inclined to support those in charge of their appointment, compared to male judges. I further argue that female judges selected under quotas, who may not have been appointed without a quota, may be more prone to support their appointing authority to secure reappointment. I examine this in the context of the European Court of Human Rights, which introduced gender quotas in the appointment process in 2004. My findings show that female judges are more likely, than their male counterparts, to support their appointing authority when rendering decisions and that female appointed under a quota are more likely to support their appointing authority compared to female judges who were appointed before the quota was introduced.