In this paper, a discursive analysis is applied to two legal texts: 1) a "request for reconsideration" from a prosecutor to a judge; and 2) the judge's "decision." Both texts are part of a larger study funded by CNPq, which examined 25 cases (approximately 200 legal documents) under Maria da Penha Law. The theoretical framework is based on Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 2003), a form of research that situates discursive material as social practices and focuses it within the broader socio-political structures of power. The premise that drives this line of study is the notion that linguistic meaning and ideology are inseparable and mutually dependent on social structure, and that both can be depicted through text structure. In this sense, this work considers how ideology is operated in texts, thereby revealing the subjective constitution of law professionals and their intentions. This work's analytical focus is on the linguistic arrangements used in the representation of social actors, evaluative resources, and facework and politeness strategies. The results critically discuss the basics that guide legal culture, such as "equal rights," "consensus," "objectivity," "neutrality," and "transparency."
Discourse; Ideology; Equal rights; Maria da Penha Law; Linguistics