In a law dissertation the word literature covers two different things: the legal sources the thesis analyzes and the scholarship that comments on them. The page explains how the two fit together, what law faculties in the Nordic and Baltic countries, Austria, the Netherlands, India and Canada ask for, what a supervisor reads for, and how to check your draft before it goes in.
Esmond doesn't open your sources. From within your field, it points out where your use of them leaves a claim unsupported, where you cite a source in two conflicting ways, and other blind spots.
Outside law, a literature review discusses earlier studies. A doctrinal law dissertation works with two layers. The first is primary authority: constitutions, treaties, statutes, regulations and judgments. These are the object of the analysis. The second is secondary authority: commentaries, textbooks, journal articles, monographs and reports, which interpret the primary sources and argue about them. The Riga Graduate School of Law draws the line in its bachelor thesis outline form, where the bibliography has a section for primary sources: “Put only legislation (laws, conventions, directives, regulations) and case law here. All other sources are secondary.”
The University of Groningen's Faculty of Law, for one, expects a thesis to handle both layers. In its LLM Legal Research, the master's thesis shows that you can “Identify, collect, assess, and evaluate relevant sources (such as legislation, case law, and academic literature)”. A review that cites a textbook for what a statute says, or treats a commentator's view as if it were a holding, mixes the layers.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour review presents the 2019 Supreme Court judgment as the leading authority, but chapter four says the same court departed from it in 2024. Which judgment does your review treat as current law?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewIt depends on the faculty. Some guides list a review of literature as its own part. Others expect the state of research inside the introduction. Three examples:
The Indian Institute of Legal Studies includes both layers in one step of doctrinal research: “The researcher has to review the background material including articles, legislation, cases, reports, books, etc. on the chosen topic.” Hidayatullah National Law University, in its guidelines for LL.M. course projects, ties the review to the purpose of the study: “The proposed study must be presented as an attempt to fill the gap identified by the researcher.” The University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law sets the bar for the LL.M. thesis: “A master’s thesis must demonstrate that the student has the ability to produce scholarly work and is familiar with the main scholarly works in the subject area of the thesis.”
Two European guides add the warning that a review is more than a collection. Tallinn University's guidelines for law theses say: “The thesis must not be of a compilation nature”, and then explain that positions from the literature, preparatory materials and decisions should be analyzed and joined by the student's own position. The University of Bergen's LL.M. thesis course asks students to “find relevant sources, and distinguish sources with academic weight from others”.
Both guides also deal with artificial intelligence: Tallinn allows generative AI under conditions, including a record of which tool was used and how, and Bergen's course description refers to appendices describing AI use. If your faculty has rules like these, ask your supervisor before you use Esmond on your dissertation.
A review in a law dissertation shows where the debate stands on the question the thesis asks. A reader wants to see which positions exist, who holds them and on what grounds, where scholars and courts disagree, and which view the courts have followed. In German legal writing the prevailing view is often named as such (herrschende Meinung), with the minority views beside it. In a common law system, the review shows how the case law has moved and where commentators think it should go.
The thesis then needs a place in that map. Does it side with one position, reconcile two, or show that both rest on a reading of the sources that no longer holds after an amendment or a new judgment? That is where the research gap of a law dissertation sits. For the full chapter plan around the review, see the page on the LLM dissertation.
TU Wien's Research Unit of Law reminds its students that “Special citation rules apply to legal sources”, with separate rules for legal provisions and for court decisions. A supervisor also reads for what each source is used to prove.
| Source | Its role in the thesis | What a reader checks |
|---|---|---|
| Legislation and treaties | Primary authority, the object of analysis | Is the version in force cited, with the date, and are later amendments covered? |
| Judgments | Primary authority; binding or persuasive depending on court and system | Which court, is the judgment still followed, and does the review cite the reasoning or only the outcome? |
| Preparatory works | Aid to interpretation, with more weight in some legal orders than others | Is their weight explained for the legal order studied? |
| Guidelines and soft law | Non-binding, sometimes influential in practice | Does the review present them as binding? |
| Commentaries and textbooks | Secondary authority; statements of the law and its reading | Which edition, and is a statute cited through a textbook instead of directly? |
| Journal articles and monographs | The scholarly debate | Are the main positions on the question there, including the ones the thesis disagrees with? |
| Practitioner notes, blogs, reports | Context, early commentary, practice | Is their weight stated, and are they used only for what they can support? |
These fragments are made up. None of them comes from a real thesis.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
Esmond reads your review from within law and can flag, in the text you upload, factual errors, inconsistencies and blind spots: a judgment treated as current in the review and as overruled in a later chapter, a statute cited only through a commentary, a debate presented as settled when the draft itself cites a dissenting view, or a gap that the draft's own discussion of earlier work already fills. See the sample report and how Esmond works. For the other chapters, start from thesis chapter feedback.
Esmond reads what you upload. If the file holds the whole draft, it can set this chapter against the others; if it holds one chapter, the review stays within that chapter and may raise a point that another chapter already answers.
Esmond doesn't search for case law or literature you missed, doesn't confirm that a source is still in force, and doesn't check your citation style. You decide what to change.
It depends on your faculty. Some guides list a review of literature as a separate part, as Hidayatullah National Law University does for LL.M. course projects. Others, such as Stockholm University's European Economic Law program, ask for comments on the state of research inside the introduction and method chapter. Ask your supervisor which form your faculty expects.
A review of the sources and scholarship on a legal question: the legislation and case law that make up the law, and the commentaries, articles and books that interpret it. It shows where the debate stands and where the thesis fits in.
Primary sources are the law itself: constitutions, treaties, legislation and case law. Secondary sources comment on the law: textbooks, commentaries, articles and reports. The Riga Graduate School of Law's outline form, for example, lists only legislation and case law as primary and treats all other sources as secondary.
No general number exists. Some outlines set a floor: the Riga Graduate School of Law's bachelor thesis outline asks for at least five books, ten articles and about two to three cases in the preliminary bibliography. Your faculty's rules and your topic decide.
A doctrinal thesis can discuss the scholarship where each legal issue comes up. Whether your faculty accepts that instead of a separate chapter is a question for your supervisor and your program's guide.
Read on November 8, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit