The institutional legitimacy and impact of the Supreme Court, like all political institutions, ultimately depend on public support. However, unlike other political institutions, the Court does not draw that support directly from the democratic process. Scholars in the United States have examined this problem by analyzing the relationship between public perceptions of judicial institutions and their legitimacy, emphasizing the importance of myth in sustaining support for courts in the absence of democratic accountability. This thesis extends American research to the Canadian case, by examining the role of the media as a significant source of popular perceptions of the Canadian Supreme Court. The objective of this thesis is to provide a preliminary assessment of this role by analyzing newspaper coverage of three of the Court's important and high-profile decisions: The Morgentaler, Thibaudeau and Symes cases. The thesis contends that the media, at times through oversimplifications and mischaracterization of issues, help to perpetuate a positive myth of the Court. Through qualitative and quantitative analysis, this thesis shows that the public appears to base its support on this myth, which is built upon incomplete and oversimplified information. This distorted image of the Court helps to strengthen its legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

No description available.