Scholars have examined how legal mobilization unifies or divides social movement organizations, largely treating it as a singular process. Yet, social movement organizations united in litigation may diverge in legislative reform. Drawing on the case of South Korea’s statutory rape law, I show how organizational identities rooted in distinct ideological orientations and commitments to different victim populations remained implicit during collaborative litigation. When a legislative opening emerged from changing political opportunities, some organizations advanced age-based protections while others resisted, interpreting age-raising as undermining transformative reforms of rape law toward a consent-based definition of rape. The findings demonstrate that legal institutions mediate how organizational identity shapes responses to political opportunities: litigation enables bracketing differences, while legislation exposes divergent interpretations. This paper contributes to an understanding of how legal mobilization and movement factions are structured and operate.
