| Abstract [eng] |
The research problem concerns why, under conditions of prolonged political inaction, actors turn to courts as a means of seeking rights recognition and social change. The aim of the thesis is to develop a grounded theory-based explanation of how strategic litigation is understood and chosen by the actors involved. The main research question is: how do actors involved in strategic litigation understand the choice of litigation as a strategy for pursuing the recognition of same-sex couples’ relationships in Lithuania? The thesis does not test a hypothesis, as it follows the logic of grounded theory. The objectives of the thesis are to define the theoretical framework for analysing strategic litigation and legal mobilization; to present the grounded theory methodology and research process; to examine how participants understand the political context and the turn to courts; and to analyse how they evaluate the consequences, limits and democratic meaning of strategic litigation. The thesis is based on qualitative semi-structured interviews with actors involved in or closely connected to strategic litigation. The data were analysed using grounded theory principles, allowing the main categories and relationships between them to emerge from the empirical material. The main finding is that strategic litigation is understood as a necessary legal route under conditions of political non-action. The turn to courts is not perceived simply as a rejection of politics, but as a response to the failure of the political process to provide recognition and protection. Courts are seen as institutions capable of securing rights when legislative action remains blocked. The research also shows that litigation becomes possible through the interaction of rights consciousness, legal framing and support structures. Participants understand the lack of recognition through the language of equality, dignity, family life and belonging. However, these understandings become a concrete litigation strategy only with the help of lawyers and NGOs capable of translating rights claims into legal action. At the same time, strategic litigation is assessed pragmatically. Participants recognize its limits: it is slow, costly, emotionally burdensome for applicants and cannot replace legislative reform. Therefore, the thesis shows a softened version of the “myth of rights”: actors believe in the strategic value of courts, but do not view litigation as a complete solution. The significance of the thesis lies in its contribution to the study of strategic litigation from below. It shows how litigation emerges from actors’ interpretations of political failure, rights and available strategies. The thesis argues that strategic litigation in this context should be understood as a form of democratic engagement that creates legal and political openings, while remaining dependent on broader advocacy, political action and support for applicants. |
