A law dissertation at LL.M., master's or PhD level justifies its method in a methodology chapter or in a method section inside the introduction. This page explains what that part of the text has to justify in law, what a supervisor reads for in it, what law faculties in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Latvia ask for, and which weak passages to look for before you hand the draft in.
From within your field, Esmond points out where your findings claim more than your method can show and where your design choices contradict each other.
In the social sciences, a methodology chapter explains above all how data were collected and analyzed. A doctrinal law dissertation may collect no data at all. Its material is the law itself: treaties, constitutions, statutes, regulations, judgments, preparatory works and legal scholarship. The method section therefore answers other questions. Which sources does the thesis treat as law? How much weight does each kind of source carry? Which methods of interpretation are used, and what happens when two sources point in different directions?
A guide on doctrinal research from the Indian Institute of Legal Studies describes the core of that work: “It is concerned with the analysis of the legal doctrine and how it was developed and applied.” The PhD guidelines of the Faculty of Law at the University of Copenhagen list, among the parts a monograph thesis should include, “An account and explanation of key theories, concepts and methods used in the thesis.” For the article-based thesis, the same page asks the introductory chapter for “An account of the criteria for selecting the empirical material and legal sources (if applicable).” The selection of legal sources is part of the method.
This page goes into the method part only. For the full chapter plan of an LL.M. thesis, see the page on the LLM dissertation; for the wider set of chapter guides, see thesis chapter feedback.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour method section calls the study doctrinal, but chapter three relies on twelve interviews with insolvency practitioners. Where do you explain how those practitioners were chosen and what their answers can tell a reader about the law?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewDoctrinal research is also called black-letter research or legal dogmatics. Non-doctrinal research covers several approaches that look at law from outside the legal sources: law in context (socio-legal research), empirical legal research, legal history, and law and economics. A dissertation can combine two approaches, for example a doctrinal analysis of current law and a comparative chapter. The method section then justifies each approach and says which chapter uses which.
| Approach | What it studies | What the method section has to justify |
|---|---|---|
| Doctrinal (black-letter) | What the law is on a point, how it fits together, where it is unclear | Which sources count, their order of weight, the methods of interpretation, and whether the thesis states current law, proposes changes, or both |
| Socio-legal (law in context) | How law works in society, and the social or economic setting of a rule | Which theory frames the study, which non-legal material is used, and how the findings feed back into the legal argument |
| Comparative | Two or more legal systems and how they deal with the same problem | Why these jurisdictions, what the common point of comparison is, and how foreign sources were accessed and read |
| Empirical legal research | Data about law in practice: case files, interviews, surveys, court statistics | Sampling, data collection, ethics review where people take part, analysis, and what the data can and cannot show about the law |
In a doctrinal thesis the hierarchy of sources plays the role that a sampling plan plays in empirical work. How does the thesis rank a statute, a judgment of the highest court, a lower-court decision, a guideline and a textbook? The answer depends on the legal order. In Swedish and Norwegian legal method, preparatory works carry real weight in interpretation. In EU law the treaties rank above directives and regulations, and recommendations and guidelines are not binding. In a common law system, the court hierarchy decides which judgments bind and which only persuade.
Two things belong in the method section here. First, the order of weight the thesis applies, stated for the legal order or orders it studies. Second, how conflicts are resolved. The classic rules are lex superior (the higher norm prevails), lex specialis (the specific rule prevails over the general) and lex posterior (the later rule prevails over the earlier). They do not cover every case. Where an EU provision has direct effect, primacy requires the national court to set aside conflicting national law, whatever the dates; otherwise national law is interpreted in conformity with EU law as far as possible.
Name the methods of interpretation as well: textual, systematic, historical and teleological readings can lead to different results, and the chapters should show which one decides when they do. The weight given to scholarship is a question for the review chapter; see the page on the literature review in a law dissertation.
A common legal problem is the point of comparison (the tertium comparationis). Without it, two country chapters sit next to each other and the reader has to do the comparing.
A method section in a comparative dissertation should give a reason for each jurisdiction that relates to the research question. Reasons that can carry weight: the systems face the same problem and answer it differently; one system served as a model for the other; the systems belong to different legal families, so the comparison tests whether a solution travels; or one system is the one the thesis wants to reform. Practical reasons, such as the languages you read, are legitimate but should be stated as such. The section should also say whether the comparison covers statutes only or also case law and practice, and which translations were used.
Lund University's Faculty of Law offers an elective course on legal methods for students who want to deepen their method before the master's thesis. Its syllabus expects students to “distinguish and compare between different methodological approaches and their suitability for specific research questions” and to “justify methodological decisions with reference to both internal coherence and external relevance of legal research”. Suitability for the question is the test: a method is chosen because it can answer this question.
At Stockholm University, students in the LL.M. in European Economic Law hand in a draft methodology and introduction chapter for their thesis during a methods course. The course description sets out its content: “The chapter should include: (i) aim and research question(s) of the thesis; (ii) (de-)limitations; (iii) reflection on the choice of method(s) to be employed; (iv) comments on research conducted in the field (state of the art).” The Riga Graduate School of Law asks for the method when an LL.M. student registers the thesis topic. Its registration form asks: “Which research methods do you intend to apply?”
At the University of Oslo, the regulations for master's theses in the international LL.M. and M.Phil. programs (adopted in 2014) allow subjects that are legal or partially legal, and add that “it may have a perspective-based approach (such as the philosophy of law, legal history, sociology of law, criminology or the economics of law, and be related to the main perspective of the LL.M. degree)”. The University of Bergen's LL.M. thesis course lists, among the skills a student should show, the ability to “assess current law and discuss the need for changes”. In a method section, that distinction matters: stating the law as it is (de lege lata) and arguing for what it should be (de lege ferenda) rest on different arguments, and the reader should see when the thesis moves from one to the other.
Bergen's course description also refers to appendices describing the use of artificial intelligence. If your faculty asks you to declare AI use, ask your supervisor before you use Esmond on your dissertation.
Each line pairs a statement in the method section with the place in the draft where a reader can test it.
| The method section says | Where a reader checks it |
|---|---|
| The study is doctrinal | Do the chapters work from primary sources, or mainly retell commentaries? |
| Sources are ranked in a stated order | When a guideline and a statute conflict in chapter three, which one does the analysis follow? |
| Teleological interpretation is used | Is the purpose of the rule identified, with a source, before it is used to read the text? |
| Jurisdictions A and B are compared | Does each country chapter cover the same questions, so the comparison chapter has material to compare? |
| Interviews complement the doctrinal analysis | Is the selection explained, and do the conclusions keep apart what the law says and what practitioners report? |
| The thesis proposes reform | Is the move from current law to proposal marked, and argued from findings in earlier chapters? |
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 draft from within law and can flag, in the text you upload, factual errors, inconsistencies and blind spots in the method part: a doctrinal label on a chapter built on interviews, a conflict between sources that the analysis resolves differently from the stated rule, jurisdictions chosen without a reason that relates to the question, or a reform proposal the method section never announces. See the sample report for the form of the feedback, and how Esmond works for the steps.
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 choose a method for you, doesn't check whether a provision is still in force or a judgment still good law, and doesn't check your text against your faculty's regulations. You decide what to change.
It is the part that explains how the thesis answers its legal question: which approach it takes (doctrinal, socio-legal, comparative, empirical or a mix), which legal sources it uses and how it weighs them, and how it interprets them. Some programs, such as the Stockholm LL.M. in European Economic Law, combine it with the introduction.
Doctrinal or black-letter research works from legal sources to state what the law is, how its parts fit together and where it is unclear or inconsistent. Its method section names the sources, their order of weight, the methods of interpretation and how conflicts between sources are resolved.
Research that studies law from outside the legal sources: socio-legal or law in context work, empirical legal research, legal history, or law and economics. Its method section justifies the theory or data and links the findings to the legal question.
Start from the legal problem the systems share and give each jurisdiction a reason tied to your research question. State practical reasons, such as language, openly.
Not always as a separate chapter. The University of Copenhagen's Faculty of Law, for example, asks a monograph PhD thesis to include an account of key theories, concepts and methods, without fixing where it goes. Your faculty's rules and your supervisor decide the form.
Read on November 8, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit