Romantic Injustices: A History Of Common Law Legal Thought About Heartbreak

This project will work out what it means to behave responsibly and fairly during, and at the end of, a romantic relationship. While young people today are especially vulnerable to emotional and psychological damage caused by heartbreak, 'incel' culture, misogyny, and abandonment, romantic conduct has been the focus of normative thinking for centuries. As an exercise in applied history, this project draws upon established principles, to inform current discourse on interpersonal relationships.   I derive such principles from the history of legal thought on romantic injustices. When common law judges decided ‘heartbalm’ torts in the 18th and 19th centuries, they developed moral positions on what it means to behave wrongfully in romantic relationships. Trials for seduction and breach of promise to marry cases, resulted in judges clarifying the exact nature of injustice or wrong that took place towards the end of a relationship. While some observations on faulty romantic conduct are now outdated (eg. financial abandonment caused by a break-up), other principles remain relevant to this day. Through extensive archival research at the Library of Congress, I will identify and isolate principles which are still relevant from those that were more contextual. I will curate such legal heritage, to inform current discourse. This work has implications for social and emotional learning at the adolescent level, with governments and thinktanks having turned their attention to revising current pedagogy to include training on responsible interpersonal conduct. My work will inform academic writing, as an online resource adaptable for therapeutic and educational use.