Bridging the Protection Gap: Analyzing Variation in Coercive Control Legislation Across the U.S.

By Chloe Exline '30

---

Coercive control, coined by Dr. Evan Stark, is a series of acts intended to frighten a victim and deprive them of their liberty. These behaviors include isolating victims from family and friends, controlling their finances, threatening to hurt them or a loved one, and micromanaging their daily habits. Coercive control is unique to each victim, and perpetrators are adaptive in employing tactics to instill domination. (1) In addition, patriarchal gender roles greatly influence the abuses. Stark describes the main objective of coercive control as the “micro-management of how women perform as women.” He also powerfully refers to coercive control as a “liberty crime” because the acts impede victims from living an autonomous life. (2)

Often accompanied by physical and/or sexual violence, coercive control can be an indicator of serious and fatal violence. In a secondary analysis of the Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution Study, researchers N. Zoe Hilton and Dana L. Radatz examined how coercive control had a strong correlation with physical intimate partner violence. (3) 

However, even by itself, coercive control is incredibly detrimental to a victim’s well-being. The perpetrator’s goal is to make the victim confused, anxious, and ultimately, subordinate. Women have reported feeling like they are being held hostage. In addition, having to keep perpetual hypervigilance due to their perpetrator’s gradually worsening yet erratic behaviors often results in a range of mental health issues. (4) Unfortunately, because coercive control is an invisible form of abuse, it has been slow in gaining legal traction, as legal recourse is still highly dependent on physical evidence. (5)

U.S. federal law acknowledges coercive behaviors, including those that “manipulate, humiliate, isolate, [or] frighten” the victim under the definition of domestic violence. (6) Unfortunately, the jurisdiction of domestic violence cases is mostly offloaded to state courts. (7) This is especially challenging for enforcement because states vary in their definitions of domestic violence. A few states, however, have included coercive control under the definition of domestic violence, enabling victims to obtain civil protection orders on the basis of coercive control alone. Yet, the majority of states still require proof of physical harm to move forward with any legal action. (8)

Hawaii became the first state to revise the definition of domestic abuse to include “coercive control…between family or household members” with HB 2425 in 2020. (9) This granted victims the ability to obtain domestic abuse protective orders on the basis of coercive control without having to show proof of other forms of domestic violence. In 2021, Hawaii also passed a temporary statute criminalizing coercive control as a petty misdemeanor. So far, Hawaii has been the only state to have even attempted criminalization. (10)

The majority of states that have a coercive control statute place it under civil or family law. Connecticut, one of such states, passed “Jennifer’s Law” in 2021, revising its domestic violence definition to include “coercive control of such family or household member.” This law was named in honor of two victims whose deaths could have been prevented through earlier legal intervention on the grounds of coercive control. (11)  In Connecticut, it is possible to obtain a restraining order on the basis of coercive control. This statute also uses coercive control as a revision for conditions for marriage dissolution, child custody, and temporary financial maintenance orders. (12)

By contrast, Arizona’s Alec & Lydia Act, passed in 2026, only takes coercive control into account for child custody issues. With this act, coercive control is to be considered for “any legal decision-making or parenting time matter.” (13) However, additional evidence of domestic violence is needed to obtain a civil protective order.

Florida is among the many U.S. states that currently do not have coercive control laws. In 2025, the legislature introduced a bill to include coercive control in its domestic violence definition, but it ultimately did not pass. (14) The exact reason for the Florida bill’s failure is unclear. However, scholarly debates about coercive control legislation can provide some insight into the overall hesitancy across states in implementing these statutes.

As crucial as coercive control protections are, there are still some problems with their legal implementation. Feminist scholars Sandra Walklate and Ellen Reeves, among many others, have researched issues in coercive control legislation. First of all, it is hard for courts to decide how to measure coercive control and how to differentiate it from more “normal” behaviors in intimate relationships. The power dynamics involved distinguish it from typical partner altercations, but it can be complicated for law enforcement to catch. 

In criminal trials, the high burden of proof compounds the issue of ambiguity. (15) That is, there cannot be any doubt of the perpetrator’s intent to inflict coercive control, and it must be shown explicitly. It is often impractical or even dangerous to gather evidence of harm, including long-term surveillance footage, digital communication, or financial records. (16) The threats, mental warfare, and micro-regulation from their abusers can make it nearly impossible for victims to show proof.

Exacerbating the situation, legal recourse introduces unintended consequences for the victim. In criminal cases, victims relive their trauma through testifying, only to have the power relinquished to the courts, “having no control over proceedings and only limited influence” in the courtroom. (17) An additional form of abuse can also be employed by perpetrators: using the justice system to their advantage by claiming to be the one who’s being victimized. For example, perpetrators, being alerted to having a restraining order filed against them, can cross-petition and invite the possibility of the courts favoring their side. Victims are then further harassed by having to defend themselves against false accusations. (18) Finally, the police force and justice system are unfortunately still gender-biased, trusting men’s accounts over women’s. Research has shown that perpetrators are often believed over victims, preventing them from obtaining a restraining order or pursuing other legal actions. (19)

Without recognizing harm, the case dies, whether criminal or civil. To move forward with legal processes, a victim’s situation must be fully understood. Therefore, police force training is a crucial element in ensuring a victim’s safety. A 2021 study on reformed police training in England and Wales showed a 41% increase in coercive control-based arrests when officers were taught to look out for signs of coercive control. (20) Comprehensive education would also mitigate the responsibility of victims to translate their experiences in a way that makes sense to their jurisdiction’s justice system. For victims, having their words and experiences understood and taken seriously is a crucial step in regaining their lost autonomy and trust. In addition, ambiguity in reporting slows down legal processes, which is dangerous for a victim who is in dire need of protection. Coercive control needs to become demarginalized through comprehensive education in order to successfully implement the laws on paper.

Because all but one of the states with coercive control statutes have established civil and family court actions, rather than criminal, many of the issues the scholars above raised are mitigated. For instance, the burden of proof is reduced because protection is valued over prosecution. Consequently, the repetitive relaying of the victim’s traumatic experience is reduced. The plaintiff has standing in these cases, allowing the victim to regain a sense of authority lost from their entrapment. Ultimately, the immediate goal is the victim’s safety, which is addressed faster through filing a civil remedy like a restraining order than through pursuing a lengthy criminal investigation. Protective orders are not just pieces of paper; they are the first step in holding perpetrators accountable.

Coercive control is a pervasive issue that has not garnered enough legal support in the United States. While devastating to the victim on their own, law enforcement intervention on the grounds of coercive control could also prevent further fatal domestic violence incidents. Some states have written coercive control into law, allowing victims to obtain civil protection orders. Still, many states have yet to broaden their definition of domestic violence. More research needs to be done to fully understand why legal implementation has been protracted. In light of its potential to grant victims protection before their situation turns lethal, coercive control legislation is worth the associated risks.

Endnotes

1. Stark, Evan. Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. Oxford University Press, 2007.

2. Stark, Coercive Control.

3. Hilton, N. Zoe, and Dana L.Radatz. “Coercive Control in a National U.S. Self-Report Survey: Prediction of Repeated Intimate Partner Violence.” Psychological Services 22, no. 1 (2025): 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000881.

4. Lohmann, Susanne, Kim Felmingham, Meaghan O’Donnell, and Sean Cowlishaw. “’It’s Like You’re a Living Hostage, and It Never Ends’ A Qualitative Examination of the Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 48, no. 4 (2024): 571-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843241269941.

5. Hanna, Cheryl. “The Paradox of Progress: Translating Evan Stark’s Coercive Control Into Legal Doctrine for Abused Women.” Violence Against Women 15, no.12 (2009): 1458-1476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209347091.

6. SAFE for Survivors Act of 2026, S. 4635, 119th Cong., 2d sess. (2026), 4.

7. Sack, Emily J. "The Domestic Relations Exception, Domestic Violence, and Equal Access to Federal Courts." Washington University Law Review 84, no. 6 (2006).

8. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). “Coercive Control.” Compiled March 2022. https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/cmte_testimony/2022/jud/17UK07nGbQXW6Y03IGiQi3oipDqyrEx2t.pdf; Note: This chart reflects legislative tracking up to 2022; additional states have since introduced or enacted statutory updates regarding coercive control).

9. Hawai’i State Legislature, House of Representatives. Relating to Domestic Abuse, HB 2425, HD1, SD1, 30^th Leg., 2020. https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/archives/measure_indiv_Archives.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2425&year=2020.

10. State of Hawai’i House Bill 1959, Relating to Domestic Violence, 33d Leg., Reg. Sess. (2026).

11. Kirby, Michelle. Jennifer’s Law (Connecticut). Report No. 2023-R-107. Hartford: Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research. April 24, 2023.

12. Conn. Gen. Assembly. An Act Concerning the Definition of Domestic Violence, Revising Statutes Concerning Domestic Violence, Child Custody, Family Relations Matter Filings and Bigotry or Bias Crimes and Creating a Program to Provide Legal Counsel to Indigents in Restraining Order Cases, Public Act No. 21-78 (2021). https://legiscan.com/CT/text/SB01091/id/2417540/Connecticut-2021-SB01091-Chaptered.pdf.

13. Ariz. House, H.B. 2995, 57^th Leg., 2^nd Reg. Sess. (2026), codified in part at A.R.S. § 25-403.03.

14. Fla. Senate, S. 844, 127^th Reg. Sess. (2025) (died in committee).

15. Walklate, Sandra, Kate Fitz-Gibbon, and Jude McCulloch. “Is more law the answer? Seeking justice for victims of intimate partner violence through the reform of legal categories.” Criminology & Criminal Justice 18, no.1 (2018): 119. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321769994_Is_more_law_the_answer_Seeking_justice_for_victims_of_intimate_partner_violence_through_the_reform_of_legal_categories.

16. Home Office. Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship: Statutory Guidance Framework. London: Home Office, 2015: 12-13.

17. Walklate, Fitz-Gibbon, and McCulloch, “Is more law the answer?,” 119-123.

18. Miller, Susan L., and Nicole L.Smolter. “Paper Abuse’: When All Else Fails, Batterers Use Procedural Stalking.” Violence Against Women 17, no. 5 (May 2011): 641. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211407290.

19. Reeves, Ellen, Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Silke Meyer, and Sandra Walklate. “Incredible Women: Legal Systems Abuse, Coercive Control, and the Credibility of Victim-Survivors.” Violence Against Women 31, no. 3-4 (2025): 776-779. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012231220370.

20. Brennan, Iain, Andy Myhill, Giulia Tagliaferri, and Jacki Tapley. "Policing a New Domestic Abuse Crime: Effects of Force-Wide Training on Arrests for Coercive Control." Policing and Society 31, no. 10 (2021): 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2020.1862838.