Framing agency, identity and credibility in court: closing arguments in Danish rape trials

This study is a linguistic investigation of rape trial discourse, based on a framing analytical approach incorporating pragmatic, functional linguistic and forensic linguistic analysis. As the first linguistic treatment of Danish rape trials, the chapter explores persuasive framing strategies, and the framing devices realising them, in the closing arguments by prosecutors and defence lawyers in two district court trials concerning acquaintance rape. Focusing on three central themes — agency and volition, identity, and credibility — linguistic framing choices employed by the opposing counsel in the two trials are analysed in comparison and as reflections of underlying cultural, social and legal institutional norms. Finally, the notion of credibility, and its recent implementation in Danish rape law, is discussed based on the analytical findings.