O funcionamento discursivo em acórdãos judiciais: ideologia, gênero e poder na produção de sentidos sobre a violência contra a mulher

Abstract

This thesis investigates the discursive functioning of judicial rulings in cases of violence against women, focusing on the production of meaning shaped by the ideological and discursive formations that traverse the legal field. The analysis is grounded in French-Brazilian Discourse Analysis, based on the formulations of Pêcheux (2014) and Orlandi (2020), and draws on the dialogic perspective of the Bakhtin Circle to reflect on the notion of discursive genre. The research also engages with gender studies (Scott, 1986; Butler, 2015, 2020) and Applied Linguistics. This theoretical amalgam allows us to problematize the alleged neutrality and technicality of legal discourse, unveiling its constitution as a space permeated by meaning disputes, interdictions, and silencing mechanisms articulated with patriarchal ideology. The general objective is to understand the discursive functioning of judicial rulings in cases of violence against women. The specific objectives are: (i) to identify the linguistic mechanisms that characterize a discursive pattern in the rulings; (ii) to analyze how the involved subjects are named and ideologically positioned, and which meaning effects emerge from this inscription in legal discourse; and (iii) to investigate the process of meaning production regarding the figure of the 'woman' in judicial rulings. To this end, we identified the linguistic mechanisms that establish a discursive pattern in these rulings; analyzed how subjects are named and ideologically positioned, and examined the effects of meaning arising from this process; and investigated the discursive construction of the 'woman' figure in judicial texts. Grounded in the theoretical and methodological framework of French-Brasilian Discourse Analysis, we analyzed five judicial rulings related to cases of violence against women and femicide within conjugal relationships, judged under the Maria da Penha Law and the Feminicide Law. Based on selected discursive sequences from these rulings, our analysis shows that legal discourse, in certain cases, updates discursive formations marked by ideological disputes, while in others, it reinforces the victimization of women and relativizes the severity of violence. Moreover, we observed discursive shifts that recognize violence against women as structural, thereby breaking with the apparent neutrality of legal discourse and allowing for the circulation of counter-hegemonic meanings. The study also identifies lexical and syntactic patterns that minimize victims' suffering and naturalize inequalities through impersonality and formal language. This thesis contributes to a critical reading of legal discourse by highlighting its ideological role in the construction of subjectivity and the regulation of gender relations. Finally, it proposes a reflection on the need to transform discursive practices within the legal system to promote a more equitable and gender-sensitive justice.