How would judicial opinions change if the judges were to use feminist methods and perspectives when deciding cases? That is the question that various groups of scholars, working around the globe and mostly independently of each other, have taken up in a series of books of “shadow opinions” – literally, rewritten judicial decisions – using precedents, authorities, theories, and approaches that were in existence at the time of the original decision to reach radically different outcomes and often using saliently different reasoning. This global sociolegal movement toward critical opinion writing originated when a group of lawyers and law professors who called themselves the Women’s Court of Canada published a series of six rewritten decisions in 2008 in the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. Inspired by that project, scholars have produced similar projects in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, Ireland, and New Zealand/Aotearoa. There is an international law feminist judgments project and a Scottish project. Other feminist judgments projects are underway in India, Africa, and Mexico.