Judicial Authority and Rhetorical Strategies in Egyptian Abortion Rulings: A Computational Forensic Analysis

This study employs a computational forensic linguistic framework to examine how the Egyptian Court of Cassation discursively and semiotically constructs judicial authority in abortion rulings amid tensions between statutory criminalization, Islamic jurisprudence, and international human rights norms. Analyzing 200 Court of Cassation decisions (1990–2023) through Natural Language Processing (NLP), Frame Semantics, and Appraisal Theory, the paper uncovers a strategic interplay of legal, religious, and rhetorical strategies. The research identifies prevailing trends such as the dominant use of doctrinal modification and a marked absence of religious or international legal discourse while also uncovering interpretive divergences that reveal the flexible and pragmatic character of Egyptian jurisprudence. Through close reading and semiotic analysis, the study shows how courts selectively affirm precedent, introduce forensic evidence to modulate legal culpability, and strategically omit religious justification, thereby signaling a shift toward legal secularization. Medical semiotics and procedural nuances serve as symbolic resources that allow courts to navigate moral ambiguity without openly contradicting established doctrine. This discursive economy reflects a hybrid legal model: stable in its symbolic invocation of precedent, yet dynamic in practice. The findings contribute to scholarship on legal semiotics, reproductive governance, and the evolving role of judicial discourse in negotiating state, science, and religion in contemporary Egypt. By integrating computational methods with critical discourse analysis, this study advances Arabic legal NLP and illustrates how hybrid legal systems strategically navigate plural normative orders.