The publication of a dissenting judgment is overt evidence of judicial disagreement and judicial difference. This chapter starts to explore the factors that underpin this judicial difference. Drawing on a method of content analysis of legal judgments grounded in theories and techniques from psychology, this chapter highlights the values that underpin decision making and disagreement in the High Court of Australia. The value analysis provides an insight into division in the High Court reframing the discussion of dissent from differences in understandings of the law to differences in the values espoused and affirmed by the individual decision maker. Rather than a binary decision between one outcome and another, value analysis of the judgments frames judicial decision-making as a nuanced balancing of competing value(s) by the individual Justices. In doing so, the chapter presents a value-decision paradigm with differential patterns of values expression associated with opposing positions in hard cases. Value expression provides an element of consistency in decision making across these difficult cases, but the analysis of values also highlights the complex nature of the High Court decision-making process and the many factors that may influence the final outcome.

In Chapter 8, we turn to a slightly different question, but one that has occupied much public interest – the topic of judicial polarization. Looking at the federal courts, we document how our framework of the judicial tug of war can explain ideological polarization in the courts as politicians attempt to replace judges with ones who are more ideologically compatible. In addition, we show that greater polarization leads to greater judicial conflict, including more dissenting opinions and increased intra-court uncertainty. To this extent, the American judiciary has followed the general trend in American politics toward increased partisan conflict and polarization, facilitated by the tension between political and legal elites.