Date of Award:

12-2025

Document Type:

Dissertation

Degree Name:

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department:

School of Teacher Education and Leadership

Committee Chair(s)

Alyson Lavigne (Committee Co-Chair), J. Kessa Roberts (Committee Co-Chair)

Committee

Alyson Lavigne

Committee

J. Kessa Roberts

Committee

Steven Camicia

Committee

Ryan Knowles

Committee

Sherry Marx

Committee

Christopher Thomas

Abstract

This study was critical analysis of the language of the court case Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County (2022). This case was brough by a student against the School District challenging a policy that prevented him, a transgender boy, from using the boys’ restroom. The analysis was not intended to determine the merits of the case or the correctness of the legal reasoning. Rather, the analysis was performed on the text of the case—the language used by the judges—to learn about the beliefs, attitudes, and values of the judges.

The reason this analysis is important is because judges are supposed to be objective decisionmakers without bias toward any ideologies. This case revealed that judges brought legal, political, and personal biases to the case, particularly on their definitions of sex and gender. The definitions of sex and gender are critical to the constitutional and statutory analysis of civil rights afforded to individuals based on their sex and gender. This study determined that the judges came to the case with predetermined ideas, which shaped the outcome of the decision. This is important for educators because the decision heavily impacts how educators make policies, govern students, and manage their schools.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License

Download

Share

COinS

Copyright for this work is retained by the student. If you have any questions regarding the inclusion of this work in the Digital Commons, please email us at .