The paradigm ‘outsider’ group for equality studies in the legal profession has traditionally been women; demands for judicial diversity have likewise been premised upon the integration of this group. This impressive interdisciplinary volume, edited by Ulrike Schultz and Gisela Shaw, continues with this focus but adds a comparative perspective. The papers discuss the appearance and work of female judges in civil and common law jurisdictions. The reader should be prepared to encounter international reflections on many different facets of gender and judging from disciplinary perspectives including history, sociology, social work, political science, law, gender studies, Islamic studies, German studies and psychology.

The volume consists of 30 contributions in total, covering 19 countries on five continents. However the book is thematically divided into seven parts that can be thought of as two halves. Parts 1–3 cover personal and professional aspects. Part 1 contains biographical reviews of the first women judges in different jurisdictions—it is hard not to admire the focus and determination of these women. Most importantly, they seem to share a keen awareness of the need to be strategic. Part 2 focuses on work and professional progress covering continually relevant topics such as skills, stress management, work–life balance and discrimination. Part 3 moves onto the topic of gender perspectives in judging. It is not easy to argue that women judges make different decisions to their male counterparts, but as stressed here the perspectives women bring to the discussion of issues is equally—if not more—significant. For example, only the probing of a female judge revealed that a young girl ran away from home to escape sexual abuse by her mother's partner (262).

Parts 4–7 contain chapters on political and methodological questions. Part 4 considers the identity of women judges—do they think of themselves as such? If so, how is this manifested? Containing only two papers, this section may have been better combined with Part 5 which turns to the ideological question of the alignment with feminism—are women seen to be successful as judges if they function as judges who happen to be women without seeking to further the feminist cause? Ultimately, judges are co-creators of the law and thus, regardless of personal ideology, every decision of a female judge—just like every decision of a male judge—has an impact on feminist goals. Part 6 considers the means used to achieve diversity: this section contains just three papers that could perhaps have been placed in the following Part 7 on judicial education—education of all judges is, after all, a key mechanism for achieving gender diversity within the judiciary and the thematic separation may give the impression that it is not.

Overall, this structure works well to convey the understated complexity of gender and judging as a theoretical and practical project. One slight disadvantage is that it overshadows the main comparative distinction presented by the authors between civil and common law jurisdictions. They ameliorate this by presenting a table in the opening overview (9–13) that shows readers which family of law is used where. Key differences are also briefly summarized. However, this means the distinction acts more on a descriptive level than as an analytical lens. In addition, the table is incomplete: Cambodia is missing, as is some information. Nonetheless, it provides a snapshot of the presence of female judges and their seniority in the judicial system. It illustrates well the common factor which may be the key point of the editors—that the glass ceiling continues to exist in all systems, especially at the higher levels of the judiciary.

The contributions are well written—they indicate that challenges for women are multi-faceted and present in all jurisdictions. Yet one major challenge that exists in the majority of the countries represented, mentioned only in passing, is intersectionality—the volume does not look beyond the paradigm ‘other’ of equality projects in law. A reflection upon intersectionality and judging would contribute an approach that recognizes the synergy between multiple forms of oppression rather than gender identity alone. For example, a substantive critical race feminist perspective would have made an interesting addition to the disciplines mentioned above. It is also problematic that many judicial systems remain dominated by the white majority, whether female or male. This need to think beyond gender alone is mentioned briefly in the contribution by Rackley (501).

Notwithstanding this omission, the book is a good investment and provides an enlightening read—it should be core reading for all senior judges. There are no quick or easy answers and none are offered. Constant critique and comment remains a powerful tool to keep the issue pre-eminent in the minds of the decision-makers, who remain overwhelmingly white, male and middle-class. It contributes valuable insights into the trials and tribulations facing women around the world who dare to dream of and pursue a career in the judiciary. The essays make clear that achieving judicial diversity cannot rely alone on action by the judiciary: it requires proactive intervention at many different levels of legal education from the university stage onwards. It may also require a conscious broadening of the goal to diversity in judicial institutions: this objective would encompass not only judges but also those who work with and around them—from clerks to persons on appointment and disciplinary bodies as well as those in training and regulatory organizations.