“She Clearly Thought That Something Bad Had Happened to Her”: How Military Lawyers Construct Narratives of Victim Legitimacy and Perceived Harm in Sexual Assault Cases
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2026
“She Clearly Thought That Something Bad Had Happened to Her”: How Military Lawyers Construct Narratives of Victim Legitimacy and Perceived Harm in Sexual Assault Cases
It has been well established that survivors of sexual assault are revictimized as they navigate the civilian criminal justice system. Significantly less is known, however, about how sexual violence is navigated within the military justice system. In this study, we use qualitative interviews with military lawyers about sexual assault cases to explore their constructions of victim legitimacy. Lawyers create a distinction between perceived and actual harm done to a victim and perpetuate the notion that victims falsely accuse men of sexual violence. Through these discursive strategies, lawyers suggest that the issue of military sexual violence is inflated. Finally, lawyers blame the institutional structure of the military for teaching victimization to young women. This helps them explain why victims who they do not perceive as legitimate report sexual violence. These findings emphasize the need for further inquiry into how those working in the military justice system perceive and interact with victims.
AckerJ. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21, 565–570.
2.
AlderdenM.UllmanS. (2012). Creating a more complete and current picture: Examining police and prosecutor decision-making when processing sexual assault cases. Violence Against Women, 18(5), 525–551.
3.
BeichnerD.SpohnC. (2005). Prosecutorial charging decisions in sexual assault cases: Examining the impact of a specialized prosecution unit. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, 461–498.
4.
BelknapJ. (2010). Rape: Too hard to report and too easy to discredit victims. Violence Against Women, 16(12), 1335–1344.
5.
BergB. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
6.
BonnesS. (2017). The bureaucratic harassment of U.S. servicewomen. Gender & Society, 31(6), 804–829.
7.
BostockD. J.DaleyG. (2007). Lifetime and current sexual assault and harassment: Victimization rates of active-duty United States Air Force women. Violence Against Women, 13, 927–944.
8.
BurtM. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230.
9.
CastroC.KintzleS.SchuylerA.LucasC.WarnerC. (2015). Sexual assault in the military. Current Psychiatry Reports, 17(7), 54–72.
10.
CerrettiJ. (2016). Rape as a weapon of war(riors): The militarisation of sexual violence in the United States, 1990-2000. Gender & History, 28(3), 794–812.
11.
CharmazK. (2002). Grounded theory analysis. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 675–694). SAGE.
12.
CharmazK. (2012). The power and potential of grounded theory. Medical Sociology, 6, 2–15.
13.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
14.
DardisC.ReinhardtK.FoynesM.MedoffN. E.StreetA. (2018). Who are you going to tell? Who’s going to believe you? Women’s experiences disclosing military sexual trauma. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(4), 414–429.
EdmondsS. W.MengelingM.SyropC.TornerJ.SadlerA. (2021). Associations between sexual assault and reproductive and family planning behaviors and outcomes in female veterans. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 137(3), 461–470.
18.
EmersonR. (2001). Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations. Waveland Press, INC.
19.
EmersonR.FretzR.ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.
20.
FerroC.CermeleJ.SaltzmanA. (2008). Current perceptions of marital rape: Some good and not-so-good news. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 764–779.
21.
FirestoneJ.HarrisR. (1999). Changes in patterns of sexual harassment in the U.S. military: A comparison of the 1988 and 1995 DoD survey. Armed Forces & Society, 25(4), 613–632.
22.
FontanaA.FreyJ. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 361–376). Sage.
23.
FraniukR.SeefeltJ.VandelloJ. (2008). Prevalence of rape myths in headlines and their effects on attitudes toward rape. Sex Roles, 58(11–12), 790–801.
24.
FrazierP. A.HaneyB. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20(6), 607–628.
25.
FrohmannL. (1998). Constituting power in sexual assault cases: Prosecutorial strategies for victim management. Social Problems, 45(3), 393–407.
26.
GeertzC. (Ed.) (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
27.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
28.
JeffreysS. (2007). Double jeopardy: Women, the U.S. military and the war in Iraq. Women’s Studies International Forum, 30(1), 16–25.
29.
JohnsonD. R. (1995). Prior false allegations of rape: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 7(2), 243–278.
KahlorL.MorrisonD. (2007). Television viewing and rape myth acceptance among college women. Sex Roles, 56(11–12), 729–739.
32.
KellyL. (2010). The (in)credible words of women: False allegation in European rape research. Violence Against Women, 16(12), 1345–1355.
33.
KonradiA. (1996). Preparing to testify: Rape survivors negotiating the criminal justice process. Gender & Society, 10(4), 404–432.
34.
KonradiA. (1997). Too little, too late: Prosecutor’s pre-court preparation of rape survivors. Law and Social Inquiry, 22(1), 1–54.
35.
LeaS. J.LanversU.ShawS. (2003). Attrition in rape cases: Developing a profile and identifying relevant factors. British Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 583–599.
36.
LisakD.GardinierL.NicksaS. C.CoteA. M. (2010). False allegations of sexual assault: An analysis of ten years of reported cases. Violence Against Women, 16(12), 1318–1334.
37.
LoflandJ.SnowD. A.AndersonL.LoflandL. (2006). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Thomson Wadsworth.
38.
LonswayK.FitzgeraldL. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(2), 133–164.
39.
LordV. B.RasselG. (2000). Law enforcement’s response to sexual assault: A comparative study of nine counties in North Carolina. Women and Criminal Justice, 11(1), 67–88.
40.
LosM.ChamardS. E. (1997). Selling newspapers or educating the public? Sexual violence in the media. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39(1), 293–328.
41.
MaierS. L. (2012). Sexual assault nurse examiners’ perceptions of their relationship with doctors, rape victim advocates, police and prosecutors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(7), 1314–1340.
42.
MartinP. Y.PowellM. (1994). Accounting for the “Second Assault”: Legal Organizations’ Framing of Rape Victim. Law & Social Inquiry, 19(4), 853–890.
43.
McMillanL. (2018). Police officers’ perceptions of false allegations of rape. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(1), 9–21.
44.
MeyerA. (2010). “Too drunk to say no”: Binge drinking, rape, and The Daily Mail. Feminist Media Studies, 10(1), 19–34.
45.
MonsonC. M.Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ.BinderupT. (2000). Does “no” really mean “no” after you say “yes”? Attributions about date and marital rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(11), 1156–1174.
46.
O’NealE. N. (2019). “Victim is not credible”: The influence of rape culture on police perceptions of sexual assault complainants. Justice Quarterly, 36(1), 127–160.
47.
O’NealE. N.TellisK.SpohnC. (2015). Prosecuting intimate partner sexual assault: Legal and extra-legal factors that influence charging decisions. Violence Against Women, 21, 1237–1258.
48.
OrensteinA. (2007). Special issues raised by rape trials. Fordham Law Review, 76, 1585–1608.
49.
PayneD. L.LonswayK. A.FitzgeraldL. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27–68.
50.
PershingJ. L. (2003). Why women don’t report sexual harassment: A case study of an elite military institution. Gender Issues, 21, 3–30.
51.
PowellA. J.HlavkaH. R.MullaS. (2017). Intersectionality and credibility in child sexual assault trials. Gender & Society, 31(4), 457–480.
52.
ReddyV.PotgieterC. (2006). Real men stand up for the truth: Discursive meanings in the Jacob Zuma rape trial. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 24(4), 511–521.
RubinH. J.RubinI. S. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
55.
SadlerA. B.BoothB.CookB.DoebbelingB. (2003). Factors associated with women’ risk of rape in the military environment. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 43(3), 262–273.
56.
SadlerA. B.MengelingM.BoothB.O’SheaA. M. J.TornerJ. C. (2017). The relationship between US military officer leadership behaviors and risk of sexual assault of reserve, national guard, and active component servicewomen in non-deployed locations. American Journal of Public Health, 107(1), 147–155.
57.
SchullerR. A.StewartA. (2000). Police responses to sexual assault complaints: The role of perpetrator/complainant intoxication. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 535–551.
58.
SmallJ. L. (2019). Constructing sexual harm: Prosecutorial narratives of children, abuse, and the disruption of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 33(4), 560–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243219846598
59.
SmallJ. L. (2020). Conceptualizing consent: How prosecutors identify sexual victimization in statutory rape cases. Law and Social Inquiry, 45(1), 111–131.
60.
SpearsJ. W.SpohnC. (1996). The genuine victim and prosecutor’s charging decisions in sexual assault cases. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 183–205.
61.
SpohnC.BeichnerD.Davis-FrenzelE. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice.”Social Problems, 48(2), 206–235.
62.
SpohnC.HolleranD. (2001). Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly, 18, 651–688.
63.
SpohnC.WhiteC.TellisK. (2014). Unfounding sexual assault: Examining the decision to unfound and identifying false reports. Law and Society Review, 48(1), 161–192.
64.
StanderV. A.ThomsenC. J. (2016). Sexual harassment and assault in the U.S. military: A review of policy and research trends. Military Medicine, 181, 20–27.
65.
St. GeorgeS.SpohnC. (2018). Liberating discretion: The effect of rape myth factors on prosecutors’ decisions to charge suspects in penetrative and non-penetrative sex offenses. Justice Quarterly, 35(7), 1280–1308.
66.
TurchikJ. A.WilsonS. M. (2010). Sexual assault in the U.S. military: A review of the literature and recommendations for the future. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(4), 267–277.
67.
UllmanS. E. (2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors. American Psychological Association.
68.
VenemaR. M. (2019). Making judgments: How blame mediates the influence of rape myth acceptance in police response to sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(13), 2697–2722.
69.
WarnerC.ArmstrongM. (2020). The role of military law and systemic issues in the military’s handling of sexual assault cases. Law & Society Review, 54(1), 265–300.
70.
WeiserD. A. (2017). Confronting myths about sexual assault: A feminist analysis of the false report literature. Family Relations, 66(1), 46–60.
71.
WorthingtonN. (2008). Encoding and decoding rape news: How progressive reporting inverts textual orientations. Women’s Studies in Communication, 31(3), 344–367.
72.
Ziesk-SocolovK. (2021). Two-front war: The struggle for legitimacy in military sexual assault adjudications. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 44(1), 101–160.
