Evolving Jurisprudence On Marital Rape: A Comparative Legal Study

Abstract

Marital rape, long shielded by patriarchal legal doctrines and socio-cultural norms, remains a contentious issue across jurisdictions. This comparative legal study examines the evolving jurisprudence on marital rape through a cross-jurisdictional analysis of legislative frameworks, constitutional interpretations, and judicial precedents in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, India, South Africa, and select Scandinavian nations. By exploring the interplay between sexual autonomy, marital consent, and constitutional rights, the article investigates how courts and legislatures have addressed — or failed to address — the systemic exclusion of spousal sexual violence from the ambit of criminal law. The study also evaluates international human rights obligations, particularly the role of CEDAW and the UN Special Rapporteurs, in shaping domestic legal reforms. Through a critical lens, the research reveals both the progressive dismantling of marital rape immunity in some jurisdictions and the persistent resistance in others, especially where legal exceptions continue to reflect patriarchal assumptions about marriage. The article concludes with policy recommendations for harmonizing domestic laws with global gender justice norms and calls for a reimagining of consent and equality within intimate relationships.