University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

These are their stories: two decades of Showrunner production, content, and context in Law & Order: SVU

(USC Thesis Other)

These are their stories: two decades of Showrunner production, content, and context in Law & Order: SVU

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THESE ARE THEIR STORES:
TWO DECADES OF SHOWRUNNER PRODUCTION, CONTENT, AND CONTEXT IN LAW
& ORDER: SVU

by

Lauren Alexandra Sowa

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY
(COMMUNICATION)

May 2022

i
Acknowledgements

For me, the dissertation acknowledgements page is like the academic version of the
awards ceremony acceptance speech. Luckily, in a written acknowledgement, I can give space to
everyone I want to thank, and I do not need to worry about exit music playing me off when I go
over the broadcast’s allotted time limit. There are so many people who have been an integral part
of my education over the years, and each have helped me become the scholar I am, aiding me in
my journey to and through my PhD and with this dissertation. It is my honor to highlight these
people here.
Thank you to the incredible educators of whom I have been lucky to have been a student.
When I look back at my schooling, I know the special teachers who saw me for “me” imparted
lessons and skills that aided me in achieving my highest educational goals. To my grade school
teachers at Holy Ghost School: Donna Itritch, Cynthia Pighini, Anita Fischer, Kathy Doherty,
and Irene Gulley - I am eternally grateful that you encouraged and supported my imagination,
curiosity, and enthusiasm. You fostered my joint love for learning and expressing myself; these
are skills that have served me throughout my many years of education. To my Fenton High
School teachers and mentors: Leah Johnson-Manos, Mike Mitchel, Christine Casey, Ann Smith,
Kathie Pierce, and Diane McBain: Thank you for embracing my talents and giving me the
opportunity, space, and confidence to break conventions, dream big, and shine. To my high
school guidance counselor, Kim Zimmianin-Garret, the guidance counselor of all guidance
counselors. Thank you for being a lifelong mentor and dear friend. I can never thank you enough
for your support over all these years or express what your guidance has meant to me. To my
college professors at NYU: Ann Dowd, Jane Malmo, Laura Levine, and Mana Allen thank you
for inspiring me and setting the stage for how I would think about higher education for years to
ii
come. To my professors at USC Annenberg during my time in the Communication Management
master’s program: Anne Framroze for propelling my writing to the next level, Michael Cody for
your wise and keen encouragement, and Daniela Baroffio for valuing my work and suggesting I
pursue a PhD. Daniela, you recognized my passion and skill and mentored me to successful
admittance into PhD programs. Thank you.
My sincerest gratitude to the USC professors and administrators who I worked with and
learned from during my PhD years: Daniela Baroffio, Manuel Castells, Michael Cody, Ange
Marie Hancock Alffaro, Peter Monge, Mary Murphy, Courtney Pade, Patti Riley, Chris Smith,
Alison Trope, and Cristina Visperas. To Anne Marie Campian and Sarah Holterman – for all the
emails, support, and keeping me and the rest of the PhD students on track – we owe you more
gratitude than we can express. I would especially like to thank Tara McPherson, for serving on
my qualifying exam committee and for your guidance regarding all-things television in
academia. To Larry Gross, your feedback and suggestions over the years have positively
contributed to my development as a media studies scholar, and I am grateful for your significant
experience in the field. Thank you, Sarah Banet-Weiser - from being my first advisor, to outside
member for my quals committee, to my un-official mentor and friend - we have come full circle.
I admire you and all that you do, and I appreciate your advice and counsel more than you know.
To Josh Kun – thank you for taking me on as your mentee and guiding me through this program.
Your mentorship has impelled me to produce work beyond my own expectations, and I owe the
scholar I am to your investment in me. Thank you for keeping me grounded, critical, and
challenging me to my best. To my dissertation co-chair, Henry Jenkins, I am grateful for so
much. Thank you for transforming USC into Hogwarts and Annenberg into House Ravenclaw
for me. You have made me feel seen and heard; your support of my ideas, your
iii
recommendations for my work, and your thoughtful feedback on every draft (of this and other
work) is nothing short of wizardly magic.
I am continuously in awe of my brilliant collogues in the USC Annenberg PhD
community and their work. In particular, I want to thank individuals from previous cohorts,
Leanne Sangalang, Katie Elder, Courtney Cox, Perry Johnson, Traci Gillig, Nathan Walter,
Christy Shaeff Hagan, Matt Bui, Emily Sidnam-Mauch, Joan Miller, TJ Billiard, and Rachel
Moran for all your advice, direction, and motivation. An extra thank you to my “3
rd
year buddy,”
Kate Miltner, and my “Annenberg Angel,” Brandon Golob, for holding my hand anytime I
reached out for extra support. To those in the cohorts after mine, an additional big thank you to
Sierra Bray, Olivia Gonzalez, Jessica Hatrick, Simogne Hudson, Natalie Jonckheere, and Paulina
Lanz for always cheering me on and cheering me up; I cannot wait to see the wonderful things
you all accomplish. To my Tree Planters/ Soup Group/ Sour Dough Bakers: Rachel Moran,
Franny Corry, Donna Kim, Andrea Alacron, Sole Altrudi and Sulafa Zidani, thank you for your
accountability, collaboration, needed distractions, and love. To my inspiring, radiant cohort, the
PhDivas – I have been so lucky to have gone through this journey with all of you. Thank you for
not only indulging but embracing my Disney/ musical theatre fanaticism and my enthusiasm for
themed parties and holidays. To Sophia Baik, Franny Corry, Brianna Ellerbe, Brooklyne Gipson,
and Sulafa Zidani, I greatly appreciate your friendship, comradery, generosity, and inspiration!
From my Communication Management program at Annenberg, I want to thank those
who became lifelong friends and deeply supported my return to Annenberg for the PhD. Paola
Adler, Ricardo Horna, Radha Jhatakia, J’Net Nguyen, Vika Smilansky, Holly Thompson, and
Vihan Chelliah - you were always checking in on me and asking about my work. I appreciate
iv
you all. To Eric Moore and J.D. Brown, my eternal gratitude and love to the two big brothers I
never had.
To my best friends who have always been so supportive of my endeavors but have been
there in an extra capacity throughout the roller coaster that is a PhD program, qualifying exam,
and dissertation writing: Hannah Alarian, Jennifer Bissell, Melissa Feinberg, Sarah Kowal, Moy
Medina, Caitlin McCormick, Megan Mekjian, Nicola Rossi, Matt Steele, Mike Steele, and
Heather Styka. Thank you for your motivation, balance, merriment, steadfastness, and love.
Those who helped directly with my dissertation, thank you to my undergrad USC
students, who expressed such interest in my research and volunteered to help code Law & Order:
SVU episodes: Allison Cheng, Stephanie Cheng, Stephanie Glick, Amanda Lee, Jose Mendoza
Ruiz, and Kelly Zhou. I want to thank my amazing Los Angeles neighbors, Ron Kellum and Josh
Adamson, for believing in my research and helping to make this dissertation possible through
your contacts and your work in the industry. Thank you for your trust.
I am grateful to my entire family for always being 100 percent behind my endeavors. I
feel your love, and it has always meant more to me than I can express. In particular, thank you to
Lester and Joy Northe for regularly asking about my doctorate and my time at USC. To Cindy
and Larry Tash, my two wonderful in-laws, who sent me anything Law & Order: SVU related
and watched every episode of the series. I love you both and I am grateful for your pride in me.
I consider myself so lucky to have had the love and support of Matthew Tash throughout
the last 5 ½ years. During this program you have gone from my boyfriend, to fiancé, to husband.
I cannot imagine having anyone else as “my person” to navigate this chapter with me and I am
beyond grateful to have had you by my side for every step. Thank you for helping me focus on
my writing, brainstorming ideas with me, cheering me on emotionally, celebrating the wins with
v
me, listening to me share all the ins and outs of this PhD journey, and introducing me to Top
Chef to offset all the Law & Order: SVU at just the right moment. Even during a pandemic,
where you have been on the front lines for exhausting hours month after month on end, you
made time to support me a priority. Your partnership has been invaluable to me in this process,
and I love you with all my heart.
To the most amazing parents, Dennis and Susan Sowa, I owe all of this to you and
everything you are. Daddy, thank you for always standing behind my career moves and
unequivocally believing in my abilities. You have imparted to me the steadfast confidence,
pragmatic logic, and interpersonal diplomacy I needed to succeed. I am grateful for ALL the
math help over SO many years. From math homework at the kitchen counter (and introducing
me to X variables long before I knew algebra), to recently helping me write the equations to run
data (or grades) in Excel, I appreciate you so much. And thank you for keeping me company on
my commute to campus with our morning phone calls. To Mommy – wow – WE did it! I can
honestly say, I would not have been able to accomplish this without you. Thank you for being
my grammar teacher and writing coach. I have learned so much from you, from hooked-on-
phonics days, to hours of typing and co-editing essays on the playroom computer, to emailing
pages of papers back and forth (Doc.Edit.3.final.FINAL.lastedit.version2) with our uniquely
crafted editing notations that only the two of us understand. Not only have you proof-read and
edited every paper I have ever written, but you have read and reread an untold number of drafts
and iterations of this dissertation. I do not even know how many hours you have put into my
work (probably 20 seasons of Law & Order: SVU worth), but you deserve all the recognition and
credit for your significant contribution to my writing. For every comma added and every comma
deleted – Thank you. But beyond the mechanics of writing, I thank you from the bottom of my
vi
heart for “taking care of me” through all my years of school - all 25 grades. Thank you for all the
school lunches (with cheery notes), the hugs when I needed them, and phone call updates and
chats. I love you so much. What’s our next mission?
I would like to briefly close with a thank you to those who unknowingly played a role in
this accomplishment. In life, there are always those who either try to impede our path, don’t wish
to see us succeed, or don’t recognize our value. To those people, I thank them for giving me that
extra fire, drive, and motivation to prove a point. As Detective Olivia Benson once said, “No one
can tell you who you are and what you are made of, only you yourself know what you are made
of, and only you yourself can do the work to become who you want to be.”

vii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………. i
List of Figures…………………………………………………………..viii
Introduction………………………………………………….………... 1
Chapter 1…………….……………………………………….……….. 41
Chapter 2 ………………….…..…………………………….………... 94
Chapter 3 ………..…............................................................................ 116
Chapter 4…….………………………………………………….…..... 161
Dissertation Conclusion………………………………………...….… 204
Afterward………………..………………………………………….…216
References………………………………………………………….... 217
viii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Hall’s ecoding/ decoding model …………………………………………...…44

Figure 2: The showrunner at the site of encoding………….………..………………......45

Figure 3: The showrunner’s influence at the site of encoding….…………………..….. 48

Figure 4: Manhattan demographics 2000 and 2020 by race….……………………..…. 69

Figure 5: Cast demographic percentages by showrunner……....………………..…….. 70

Figure 6: SVU race demographics by year(s) of showrunners with Manhattan census
demographics…………………………………………...……....……………………..... 72

Figure 7. Season 1: race and gender demographics for Robert Palm’s victims /
survivors……………..……………………………………………………………….…..76

Figure 8. Seasons 2-12: race and gender demographics for Neal Baer’s victims /
survivors……………..……………………………………………………………….…..77

Figure 9. Seasons 13-17: race and gender demographics for Warren Leight’s victims /
survivors……………..…………………………………………………………………...77

Figure 10. Season 18: race and gender demographics for Rick Eid’s victims /
survivors……………..…………………………………………………………………...78

Figure 11. Seasons 19-20: race and gender demographics for Michael Chernuchin’s
victims / survivors…..……………………………………………………………….…...78

Figure 12. Season 1: race and gender demographics for Robert Palm’s suspects and
perps…..………….……….………………………………………………………….…..79

Figure 13. Seasons 2-12: race and gender demographics for Neal Baer’s suspects and
perps…..………….……….………………………………………………….…………..80

Figure 14. Seasons 13-17: race and gender demographics for Warren Leight’s suspects
and perps…..………….……...…………………………………………………………..80

Figure 15. Season 18: race and gender demographics for Rick Eid’s suspects and
perps…..………….……….……………………………………………………………...81

Figure 16. Seasons 19-20: race and gender demographics for Michael Chernuchin’s
suspects and perps…..………….………………………………………………………...81

ix
Figure 17. Season 1: race and gender demographics for Robert Palm’s
interviewees…..………….………………………………………………………….…..83

Figure 18. Seasons 2-12: race and gender demographics for Neal Baer’s
interviewees…..………….………………………………………………………….…..83

Figure 19. Seasons 13 - 17: race and gender demographics for Warren Leight’s
interviewees…..………….………………………………………………………….…..84

Figure 20. Season 18: race and gender demographics for Rick Eid’s interviewees……84

Figure 21. Seasons 19-20: race and gender demographics for Michael Chernuchin’s
interviewees…..………….………………………………………………………….…..85

Figure 22. Crime type percentage by showrunner ….………………………………….92

1
Introduction

Storytelling, as a form of entertainment, is a critical component to how meaning is
created within society and the storyteller is the key to dictating the narratives that inform culture.
Even now, as I write this, I am dictating how to introduce my topic and what pieces of
information to share that will articulate my argument. While I have the agency in how I present
my research, I am constrained by the medium (written word), the genre (dissertation), the format
(introduction, chapters, conclusion), content (rethinking a theoretical generalization through
data), and tone (although I will push those boundaries slightly). Furthermore, the dissertation
committee has the ultimate power to weigh-in on the dissertation content and can choose to
accept or reject its completion. Yet, within these confines, the way I write this dissertation is
unique to me, my personality, creativity, and life experiences. Anyone else, with the same topic,
data, and committee, would organize and write a different dissertation. However, when it comes
to the creation of television content, this individual agency becomes obfuscated through theories
of production, medium, genre, format, content, and tone as those creating the television
narratives are often reduced to an interchangeable piece within the system of the television
industry. Throughout this dissertation, I seek to reclaim agency on behalf of the television series’
authors i.e., the directors, the writers, the actors, the producers, and most notably – the
showrunner.
This dissertation contributes to a development within Communication by bridging the
fields of media studies, production cultures, and cultural studies through rethinking and
analyzing the showrunner’s agency, power, and personal experiences in relation to those they
lead in the creative production process (actors, writers, directors, producers) and their impact on
the text and its intertextuality. Here, using Law and Order: SVU as a case study, I introduce how

2
television’s non-celebrity showrunners’ interpretation of sociohistorical conjunctures are
reflected through their series’ narratives and demonstrate how the showrunners themselves can
be considered can be considered as critical thinkers and social analysts. As the showrunner (if
you will) of this dissertation, I argue that while the structures of the television industry do matter,
and the sociohistorical conditions and events of our culture will and do impact storytelling, the
showrunners’ meaningful negotiations and interpretations of these structures and conditions are
at the center of television’s produced content. I explore and demonstrate this process through a
deep and critical analysis of the U.S.’s longest running primetime drama: Law & Order: SVU.
This dissertation submits showrunner agency and identity as having powerful implications for
how we can rethink television’s role as a social intervention and public forum (Newcomb &
Hirsch, 2000).
Television, whether it be viewed as a technology, a cultural artifact, and/ or a public
forum, is a pivotal topic within the extensive and integrative discipline of Communication. The
extent of television’s power has been the subject of core debates regarding (but not limited to)
ideology (Horkheimer and Adorno, 1972; Morley, 1992; & Gitlin, 2000), medium (McLuhan,
2001 & Lotz, 2018), and agency (Fiske, 1987 & Modleski, 1984). Broadly, media culture, and
specifically, television narratives “offer patterns of proper and improper behavior, moral
messages, and ideological conditioning” (Durham & Kellner, 2012, p.1). This is to say that while
we, as television audiences, are active, relatively autonomous viewers (Fiske, 1987; Hall, 1973),
the entertainment narratives we consume do contribute to how we view ourselves and others as
we move through our culture. This is why scholars have been posing questions about how we
make meaning through entertainment; who and what appears on our screen is a critical

3
component of our culture. Consequently, extensive research has been (and continues to be)
conducted on television content, representation, labor, reception, and effects.
My dissertation project positively contributes to this line of scholarship through
underpinning the showrunner’s power and agency as a critical thinker and social analyst by
highlighting and integrating the content, intent, and context of their work. Grounded in cultural
studies and production cultures, this project not only establishes why the showrunner (a vastly
understudied topic) is a critically significant component for any television content or production
analysis within Communication, but why who occupies the role of the showrunner matters
immensely. Cultural studies grapples with the “intertextuality of texts in their institutional
positions, of texts as a source of power, [and] of textuality as a site of representation and
resistance” (Hall, 1996, p. 271); and production cultures has a “concerted interest in revealing
the everyday experiences in which power and agency actually operate for a range of different
industrial workers, who are organized in relation to other industrial workers.” (Herbert, Lotz, &
Punathambekar, 2020, p. 138). Here, I extrapolate how the agency and power of television’s
production creatives (actors, writers, directors, producers) operate under the direction of the
showrunner in relation to the series’ response to sociohistorical conditions. Primarily informed
by interviews from Law and Order: SVU producers, writers, directors, and actors, as well as
entertainment industry professionals outside of Law and Order: SVU (casting directors, agents,
and auditioning actors), this dissertation explores and scrutinizes the way in which scripted
television’s representations, politics, and narratives manifest and shift in accordance to socio-
historical conditions or conjunctures through the showrunner’s autonomy. As such, it will
extricate the extent to which television’s showrunners hold the power to dictate social change
discourses and when and how their influence can perpetuate regressive cultural assumptions. The

4
dissertation argues for the showrunner as critical thinker and social analyst, and examines how
the showrunner’s perspective creates a system of cyclical agency among the writers, directors,
producers, and actors within the television production process

Running the Show – “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”
The showrunner is a relatively recent demarcation in television (compared to positions
such as producer, writer or director). It is a role that is often misunderstood and misattributed by
those outside of the entertainment industry. Yet, from an artistic power perspective, the
showrunner is to television what the director is to movies (Landau, 2014). In a television series,
the showrunner is always an executive producer and the head writer. Sometimes a show’s creator
will also be the showrunner (such as Vince Gilligan with AMC’s Breaking Bad), but this is not
always the case. As with Law & Order: SVU, Dick Wolf is the creator but has never been the
showrunner; he and the network hire the showrunners. As head writer, the showrunner
determines the character arcs and plotlines of a series, and they lead and oversee the series’ other
writers and story contributors. As an executive producer, the showrunner takes the lead on
production logistics that will enhance their vision for the show, such as hiring or approving the
directors, actors, casting director, cinematographers, production designers, costume designers,
and editors (MasterClass, 2021). Furthermore, the showrunner also acts as a liaison between the
network, studio, and production company regarding content, “final scripts, cuts, air dates, show
timing, and standards and practices” (Masterclass, 2021, para. 4). Figure 3 in Chapter 1 visually
depicts this hierarchy of creative influence in the television production process.
Shonda Rhimes, an esteemed media creator, producer, and showrunner, serves as a strong
example of how the showrunner position can elude audiences’ understanding of the role. In

5
2004, Rhimes created the concept for Grey’s Anatomy (ABC, 2005- ) and wrote its pilot. She
was showrunner for Grey’s Anatomy for the first two seasons before Krista Vernoff, who had
been writing for the show from the beginning, took over as showrunner from 2007-2011 and then
again in 2017 (Chow, 2016). So, while Shonda Rhimes was the creator and initial showrunner of
Grey’s Anatomy, she did not continue in this role throughout the series’ two decade run (just
trailing Law & Order: SVU for longest running primetime drama). In 2017, Rhime’s signed a
multi-year deal to work and develop content with Netflix (Ong, 2017). Two notable Netflix
series under the Shondaland production company are Bridgerton and Inventing Anna. Both are
Shonda Rhimes productions; yet Shonda is the showrunner for Inventing Anna, but not
Bridgerton. Chris Van Dusen is the showrunner for Bridgerton. This example articulates how the
boundaries between producer, creator, and showrunner can overlap. But it is important to
understand that television show creators and/ or producers are not necessarily showrunners, even
if their name is intrinsically tied to the series (such as Dick Wolf with Law & Order: SVU).
The work of famed television producer Norman Lear, who created and managed popular
television shows in the 1970s and 1980s, essentially set the precedent for what would eventually
become known as “the showrunner” (Blakely, 2017). Although the term did not exist at the time.
Interestingly, in Arron Sorkin’s Amazon Prime movie, Being the Ricardos, there is a scene
between Lucile Ball (Nicole Kidman) and Jess Oppenheimer (Tony Hale) where Ball is trying to
persuade Oppenheimer (who is head writer and executive producer of the show) to give Desi
Arnez an executive producer credit on I Love Lucy. She points to Arnez’s creative narrative input
as well as his logical and business acumen, which has enhanced the series. She argues that
Oppenheimer does not give Arnez credit, to which Oppenheimer responds, “I didn’t win my
credit in a raffle, I earned it, I am the showrunner!” This moment is noteworthy because, by

6
today’s standards, Oppenheimer occupied the position of the I Love Lucy showrunner based on
his role with the series. It makes sense that Aaron Sorkin would include this line, as
Oppenheimer was the creator, head writer, and producer of I Love Lucy. However, the moniker
“showrunner” was not a defined concept or role before the late 1980s (Hong, 2011).
The first time the term showrunner appeared in the New York Times was in a 1995 article
about John Wells’ work on E.R. (Newman and Levine, 2012). This is oddly serendipitous to this
project, as John Wells was eventually replaced by Neal Baer as showrunner for E.R., and Neal
Baer would eventually move from E.R. to be the showrunner of Law & Order: SVU (but more on
these specifics in Chapter 2). The article, “The Man Who Keeps ‘E.R.’s’ Heart Beating” states,
“John Wells and other ‘show runners
1
’ are among the most anonymous, but most important
people in the television business” (Meisler, 1995, para 4). Over almost three decades later, this
sentiment has not altered much. As I will detail below, there has been some increase in
showrunner celebrity, but in general, the position that is the driving force of television series’
holds little public recognition.
Over the last decade, and in part due to the burgeoning of cable and streaming platforms,
there has been a surge in celebrity showrunner culture (Blakely, 2017). A parallel can be drawn
here between the disruption of broadcast, the new golden age of television, and the celebrity
showrunner (Lotz, 2018; Blakely, 2017; Landau, 2014); all these elements came together to
create an emergence of celebrity showrunners. For example, thinking about several shows that
comprise what is being deemed as the new golden age of television (on which various
scholarship focuses) the showrunner/ creator is synonymous with the identity of the show: ie.
Vince Gilligan with Breaking Bad (AMC), Jon Favreau with The Mandalorian (Disney+), Jenji

1
In this initial article, showrunner appeared as two words: “show runner.”

7
Kohan with Orange is the New Black (Netflix)
2
. These examples demonstrate what Blakely
(2017), as well as Newman and Levine (2012) articulate as the “auteur” component of the
showrunner. The showrunner, seen as an auteur, elevates the position from one of production
logistics and narrative construction, to that of “an artist of unique vision whose experiences and
personality are expressed through storytelling craft, and whose presence in cultural discourses
function to produce authority for the form with which he is identified” (Newman & Levine,
2012, p. 39). However, Newman & Levine (2012), argue the showrunner only meets auteur
status if they are also the creator of the show, citing Aaron Sorkin of The West Wing as an
example. They see the showrunner as an auteur as a term which contributes to “the discourse of
television’s legitimation, promoting the author-function of the showrunner as a guarantee of
value” (Newman & Levine, 2012, p. 40). Such a legitimation is a marketing strategy for
networks wanting to gain viewership (the commerce being a byproduct of the showrunners’
artistry). This is not unlike (in film) “the rise of auteurs in the 1960s [which] boosted new
Hollywood marketing strategies based on filmmakers as public star personas” (Marghitu, 2021,
p. 9). In both instances (TV and film), auteurism, which was intended to legitimize media as an
artform over a mass medium, was ultimately used as a branding strategy to gain audiences,
which as Marghitu (2021) suggests, sits in contention with “the notion of a pure artist – one who
pursues art for art’s sake” (p. 9). Yet, Newman & Levine (2012) contend, “in contrast to the
impersonal conception of industrial culture production, auteurism poses the possibility that the
individuals who create culture are crafting expressions of their concerns within the constraints of
a commercial medium” (p. 49). It is interesting to consider what the showrunner (or which

2
To be clear, these creators are also the showrunners, which differs from my previous example
of Rhimes’ transient roles in her production company’s series.

8
showrunners) as auteurs means in practice. To Newman & Levine’s point (2012), because
showrunners essentially combine the specialties of art and business, granting them an auteur title
would allow showrunners to claim a certain degree of artistry within an economic structure. One
of the showrunners’ challenges is that they must manage and understand the financial side of the
production while also creating compelling stories and characters. Blakey (2017) contends, “to be
successful, showrunners must bridge the divide between the cultural goals of creativity and the
economic goals of commerce. They must bridge the culture/ economy binary” (p. 329).
However, through my work on this project, it was the creative agency component to that binary
that surfaced. The interviews from the showrunners, (those I have conducted personally and
those published in the press) demonstrate how the artistic element, their desire to develop
engaging stories that impact their audience, is the driving force behind the binary. My interviews
with the other industry creatives echo this sentiment; the economics of the series are present (and
are often refenced as “NBC” or “the network”), but the aspects of developing and running Law
& Order: SVU that inspired passion and enthusiasm from the interviewees were the artistic
elements. This finding is interesting in relation to Herbert, Lotz, & Punathambekar’s (2020)
statement:
Auteurism prompted scholars to attend more to issues of textual form, style, and
‘personality’ rather than work practices, labor conditions, or industrial contexts… much
auteurist scholarship sought to single out the individual style of a director in spite of
industrial context, without examining that context in any meaningful way. (p. 99).
Looking at showrunners as auteurs, according to Herbert et al. (2020), could mean the structures
of the entertainment industry are largely ignored. However, as I stated above, the creatives I
interviewed had significantly more to stay about artistic agency and its resulting social impact

9
than about media economies or industry structures
3
. Given the potential limitations of auteurist
theory (Herbert et al., 2020; Marghitu, 2021) and the fact that the Law & Order: SVU
showrunners did not create the series, I am not arguing that the showrunners are auteurs in the
traditional sense nor in the framing presented by Newman & Levine (2012). However, taking the
structures and barriers of the entertainment industry into account, while earnestly bringing the
creatives’ stories of agency and meaning making to the forefront, it is a goal of this project to
demonstrate the showrunner as critical thinker and social critic. Through their engagement with
and dissemination of social discourses and cultural moments in their work, the showrunners
provide individualized commentary through their series. This commentary is individualized in
that it is unique to each showrunner’s background, interpretation, and agenda. The themes,
morals, and lessons imbedded in each episode or season is created and guided by the
showrunner.
In general, the showrunner has significant creative control and is in charge of leading the
entire production. Landau (2014) describes showrunners as having “the last and final word on all
production decisions, including casting, locations, art direction, the hiring of the directors for
each episode, and all final cuts in the postproduction for the series” (p. 1). However, through my
interviews, it became apparent that showrunners do have to answer to the heads of network (or
platform) and can be redirected if there is disagreement from network (this is why industry
structures are still important to consider). I will explore the intricacies of this dynamic
throughout the chapters, but to Landau’s (2014) point more broadly, the showrunner does have
considerable power. Like a director, who makes decisions based on a series of options provided

3
The economic and industry structures are present for creatives as it certainly comes up in the
interviews. The broader influence from Dick Wolf and NBC are bounds they work within, but
they were not the central focus of their work.

10
to them from the other creatives working on a film, the showrunner is also presented with ideas
and options from the team and makes the choices (from broad strokes ideas to specific details)
that eventually make it to the television screen. The showrunner has significant agency which
impacts how television stories are told. As the head writer, the showrunner is more intimately
entrenched in a series than the network or platform (which has numerous programming to
manage); the showrunner’s perspective and input is considerable.
The showrunner’s power is intriguing because, aside from a handful of famous series and
their celebrity creators (who tend to also be the showrunners for the duration of the series) the
showrunner’s place still largely adheres to Meisler’s 1995 New York Times article; it is not a role
that is widely known or discussed outside the entertainment industry. There is no Emmy
category for showrunner, no showrunners guild, nor does the denotation of showrunner appear in
television credits (Newman & Levine, 2012). Furthermore, information on showrunners is not
easy to find. As an example, IMDB (International Movie Data Base) and Wikipedia are the sites
where most audiences would go to seek information about a series’ production. IMDB does not
list showrunner as a designation. It lists the executive producers (of which the showrunner is
one), the creator (of which the showrunner is sometimes), and the writers (of which the
showrunner is head). The showrunners name will be listed in several of these categories, but it is
not clearly distinguished. On Wikipedia, listing the showrunner is inconsistent. Law & Order:
SVU’s Wikipedia page lists the showrunners’ tenure under the “production” column, but Law &
Order and Law & Order: Criminal Intent do not. This lack of showrunner data remains the case
with many other series, short-lived and long-running. Even the UCLA Hollywood Diversity
report, which details the demographics of directors, writers, actors, and lead actors in television
has an entire section on show creators but does not assess the showrunners. Showrunner

11
announcements and the changing of showrunners is mainly discussed in trade publications, such
as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline and for the edification of those on “the
inside” of the industry. This demarcation is important, because the leader of a television series is
largely obscured from the general, non-industry public – who are the series’ own viewers. Of
course, the exception to this, would be those celebrity creator/ showrunners who are intrinsically
associated with their series and shows’ legitimation (Newman & Levine, 2012).
However, through this project, I am stepping away from such esteemed and elevated
showrunners that have been discussed (albeit minimally) in scholarship (Blakely, 2017; Newman
& Levine, 2012) and arguing that all showrunners who create and produce television content
(which scholarship credits as a public forum/ reflection of society/ morality guide) are significant
critical thinkers and social analysists of culture. Even those seemingly invisible showrunners
(specifically for this project, the Law & Order: SVU showrunners), the ones who didn’t create
the show and do not have their names marketed for the show’s success, still substantially impart
content, tone, and style to a series. As evidenced through my interviews with industry
professionals on Law & Order: SVU, everything is filtered through the showrunner’s lens.
Therefore, it is ironic that the majority of showrunners are not household names, yet they are the
ones (with whatever personal bias and experience they bring to the table) directly pulling the
strings. For all the research (including but not limited to: media effects, rhetoric, genre, cultural
studies, television studies, industry studies, new media) that looks at how various television
series play a role culturally and socially, the key to all of it is seemingly hidden, imbedded in the
identity of these invisible showrunners. Even if someone is the creator of a show (if they are not
the one to continue in the role of the showrunner), their concept, characters, foundational vision,
and future direction all become dictated by someone else. Each character arc, episode arc,

12
narrative arc, casting decision, and visual choice are created by the showrunner. This means that
while many might attribute the various “ripped from the headlines” interpretation of Law &
Order: SVU episodes to its creator, Dick Wolf, it is not actually Dick Wolf who is dictating the
series’ direction. As the interviews in the coming chapters will reveal, Dick Wolf, who is far
from invisible in his association to Law & Order: SVU, actually has little involvement in
specifics of the series. Dick Wolf is the one who hires the showrunners to do exactly that for him
– run the show.
Focusing on this idea of the invisible showrunner – or as famously stated in The Wizard
of Oz “the man behind the curtain” (and yes, behind the curtain it usually is a man) is significant
because it underpins the importance of one’s identity and personal perspectives’ influence on
portraying television narratives. Using gender and race as an example, White men are still
largely the dominating demographic for the showrunner position. For the 2017-2018 TV staffing
season
4
, women composed 24% of showrunners and 88% of showrunners were White (Sun,
2019). This is an increase from when Law & Order: SVU first aired in 1999, yet all the
showrunners for Law & Order: SVU have been White men: Robert Palm (Season 1), David J.
Burke (Season 2), Neal Baer (Season 2-12), Warren Leight Season 13-17, 21-present), Michael
S. Chernuchin (season 19-20). Several interviewees describe executive producer/ writer Julie
Martin as an unofficial co-showrunner to Warren Leight, but she is not granted this title
contractually.

4
In 2019, in an effort for more transparency and to bring attention to the under-representation
and lack of diversity in the entertainment industry the Writers Guild of America West released
its Inclusion Report Card for the first time.

13
Continuing to run with The Wizard of Oz metaphor here (because while potentially cliché
is also entertaining) these invisible showrunners are actively creating the concept of the wizard -
the ideas and stories to which we all subscribe through television entertainment. Yet audiences
are rarely informed about who that person is or are ever aware of the degree to which they
determine the television narratives populating the screen. Yet however “great and powerful" they
might be, they are not all powerful. The network (and in the case of Law & Order: SVU, Dick
Wolf) can scrap a scene, an episode, or even the showrunner themself if they deem it. So, while
I’ve always envisioned myself as a Dorothy, it was Toto who noticed some activity behind the
emerald curtain and pulls it back to reveal the man who had been controlling the levers,
microphones, and smoke effects. Therefore, think of me as the Toto of Law & Order: SVU,
uncovering the people behind the narratives and exploring the innerworkings of the
showrunners’ contribution to television productions.

The Case (Study) for Law & Order: SVU (Dun Dun)

Law and Order: SVU poses a unique platform for this study and my development of
showrunner agency for several, pertinent reasons. I chose Law & Order: SVU for its longevity,
its banality, its impact, its cultural and political content, and (full disclosure) its appeal to me as a
viewer. If I was going to study/ watch over 320 hours of television content, I should at least
enjoy the series I’m watching. Personal viewing preferences aside, Law & Order: SVU’s other
components greatly contribute to its use as a case study for this project.
Law & Order: SVU made television history when on Thursday, September 26th, 2019, at
10:00 p.m., EST, it commenced its 21st season and becomes the longest running primetime
series on American television. Its intro began, as it has for two decades, with white text against a

14
black background appearing on the screen while the familiar male announcer’s voice recites the
following: “In the criminal justice system, sexually based offences are considered especially
heinous. In New York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are
members of an elite squad known as the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories.” The
iconic chords “dun dun” echo, and the 459th episode, “I’m Going to Make You a Star” began.
While this distinctive introduction suggests this show will share narratives of the NYPD’s
Special Victims Unit’s detectives, the stories told in this series are more expansive and
immediate. As Law and Order: SVU star and executive producer, Mariska Hargitay posted on
her Instagram account, “20 years ago, we started a conversation. We’re not finished. I’m
profoundly proud of how far we've come. Prouder still of how far we will go. We have broken
this ground together" (@therealmariskahargitay, 2019). Mariska Hargitay is referring to what is
arguably the main theme throughout the series: sexual assault trauma and amplifying advocacy
for victims and survivors through these Law and Order: SVU narratives.
Because this component is specific to the series and will be utilized throughout my
writing, I want to take a moment to define my use of “victim,” “survivor,” and “assault” in this
dissertation. While not an official part of my interview methodology for this project, I consulted
with a former Assistant District Attorney (who chooses to remain anonymous) for clarification
on terms. On Law and Order: SVU, on television in general, and in cultural vernacular, assault
and battery are frequently conflated. Broadly in legal terms, assault means there is physical threat
whereas battery refers the threat progressing to physical contact. On Law and Order: SVU the
word assault is used to describe crimes that are actually battery. The specific definitions and
distinctions of sexual assault, sexual battery, and rape vary among states. For clarity and
congruence with the show, I will use assault and/ or sexual assault to mean physical, bodily

15
harm, but want to point out that in the courts this is called battery. Additionally, there is
extensive literature and discourse surrounding the terminology of those who have experienced
sexual violence (Dunn, 2005; Patterson & Campbell, 2010; Schwark & Bohner, 2019;
Thompson, 2000). Schwark and Bohner (2019) explain, “the term victim has been long-
established, especially in scientific literature. It is debated, however, whether this term might
have a negative impact on women who have been raped and whether the alternative term
survivor should be adopted instead” (p. 1491). Even the Law and Order: SVU scripts do not take
a clear stance on which terminology to use. The unit is for special victims, and the detectives
actively fight on behalf of “the victims,” but they will also refer to them as “survivors.” In this
project, I make the conscious choice to use “victim/ survivor” with the slash to encompass both
terms, which are used interchangeably on the show. I will only use the term “victim” when the
person the crime is committed against resulted in a homicide.
While the Law and Order: SVU’s premise is based on investigating and prosecuting the
atrocious crimes such as sexual assault, rape, incest, pedophilia, infanticide, and hate crimes, an
additional pervasive theme continuously emerges. More than the detectives’ stories and more
than the victims’/survivors’ stories, the series reflects our societies’ cultural stories explicitly
through what is commonly referred to as their “ripped from the headlines” strategy. For
Newcomb and Hirsch (2000):
A cultural basis for the analysis and criticism of television is… the bridge between a
concern for television as a communications medium, central to contemporary society,
and television as an aesthetic object, the expressive medium that, through its
storytelling functions, unites and examines a culture. (p. 503).

16
It is with this account in mind that I seek to explore how the production process of Law and
Order: SVU’s narratives and representations operate as its own discourse and as a link between
communication and culture. The Law and Order: SVU showrunners take what our culture has
labeled as the most “heinous” of crimes and uses this as the foundation to explore the politics of
race, gender, sexuality, religion, citizenship, and class. The showrunners examine how identity
politics and cultural politics are performed, made visible, and overlooked in extreme and vile
scenarios while contending with national narratives including, but not limited to: gun rights,
surveillance, privacy, technology, immigration, media, diplomacy, class, addiction, mental
health, and the penal system. Spanning the presidencies of Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, as a
series Law and Order: SVU has endured significant political and cultural shifts and conjunctions
over the last two decades. Law and Order: SVU is a paradox of juxtaposing paradigms. It is
simultaneously Eurocentric while critiquing eurocentrism. It brings awareness to the horrors of
sexual assault while visually tantalizing and shocking audiences with its depictions of the
assaults, walking the line between pleasure and rejection of violence. It is a show that dismantles
stereotypes while perpetuating hegemonic norms. Season 2-12 showrunner, Neal Baer repeatedly
says of the two original leads, “Mariska [Detective Benson] and Chris [Detective Stabler] are the
yin and yang of the audience. Benson is the emotions we feel and Stabler is the rage.” This
dichotomy and juxtaposition is also a metaphor for the series.
I had initially embarked on this project to untangle and make sense of these
contradictions and tensions. Having been a casual viewer of the show for many years, I felt clear
shifts in tone, content, and intention. This led me to believe our cultural moments were dictating
the changes within the series and intrigued me enough to follow this curiosity down the path of a
dissertation grounded in a conjunctural analysis, “seeking to identify what is specific to a given

17
historical moment,” and connecting these moments to the shifts within the show (Lawrence &
Wishart, 2017, p. 61). Specifically, Lawrence and Wishart (2017) situate, “conjunctural analysis
as a means of historical periodization, [which] places special emphasis on crisis as a driving
force of history” (p. 63). As a hypothesis for why these shifts felt so clearly defined, I suggested
Law and Order: SVU’s presence over the last 20 years, from a pre 9/11 to a post #metoo era,
demonstrated the impact of socio-political rhetoric on the show’s content. Law and Order: SVU
has spanned an internet culture of chat rooms to social media, evolving LGBTQ rights advocacy,
inflammatory rhetoric surrounding anxieties of terrorists and immigration, violence of mass
shootings to racialized police brutality, and the uncovering of sexual trauma from the abuse of
children within the Catholic Church to women by men in the media/ entertainment industry.
However, as I began to group Law and Order: SVU’s episodes according to the obvious shifts I
witnessed in the series, I was troubled by the fact that these noticeable tone changes did not
neatly align with the conjunctures in the way I had expected. Episode discourses that were
responding to cultural moments traversed the tone, style, and content changes I had noted. As I
continued to delve into the production side of Law and Order: SVU, I was struck by a glaring
“aha!” moment; the shifts I had been witnessing were correlated to something entirely different –
the change in showrunners.
It was clear that while these socio-historical conditions certainly impacted the series’
content, the way in which this content was being delivered was far more influenced by the
person leading the production. When that person is changed, the way in which the cultural
discourses discussed in the show is changed. Each showrunner’s headline-ripping and
engagement in popular culture and politics is unique to them. It is through a deep reading of
these stories and representations as told from the showrunners’ perspective, against the

18
background of historical conjunctures that we have the ability to discern just how influential the
person in the showrunner role is. Julie D’Acci’s (1994) study of Cagney and Lacey concludes
with:
As television opts more and more for topics that it can play as alluring spectacles
but that many people experience at the quotidian pain and terror of everyday life, we
must be clever and energetic in inventing new ways of looking at and
analyzing the medium. We must also think anew about coalitions that will help us
deal with TV’s power and pleasures and with its potential for influencing politics and
social change. (p. 209).
Thus, this dissertation seeks to commence where D’Acci’s project on a crime television show
suspended; I am “energetically” (certainly!) and “cleverly” (I believe so) introducing the
invisible showrunner’s agency through Law & Order: SVU to rethink and analyze the “power
and pleasure [of television] with its potential for influencing politics and social change” (D’Acci,
1994, p. 209). Engaging with the complexities of historic and current events by looking at the
country's most controversial debates and crimes, Law and Order: SVU’s showrunners fluctuate
between presenting the series as a public forum to bring out multiple arguments of an issue and
adopting clear, social justice stances. The showrunner position has the power to prioritize
different factors amongst the discourse available to them. In this way (for those who like
experiments and scientific methodologies), we can consider Law & Order: SVU the control. It is
the frame that does not change – its main characters, episode format, process, and broadcast
network are consistent. Instead of comparing showrunners from different series (which each
have their own culture, tone, production process), we can get a clearer view on the showrunner’s
direct influence when the basic conditions of the series we are studying is the same. To be clear,

19
this is not meant to be an exhaustive review of all showrunners. In arguing that showrunners are
critical thinkers and social critics, it was important to choose a show that directly absorbs
current, cultural narratives. While the showrunners of period pieces, science fiction series, and/
or sitcoms are certainly influenced by the cultural narratives of our time, and these ideas
influence their writing, few series have the same “ripped from the headlines” reputation as Law
& Order: SVU. This why genre, a topic I discuss in chapter 1, is important.
Furthermore, beyond Law and Order: SVU’s longevity allowing for a rigorous
examination of the changing non-celebrity-showrunners’ impact on its cultural and political
content, this series’ steadfast endurance (despite little critical acclaim) adds to its strength as a
case study. The show itself is rather banal, which speaks to the ordinariness and everyday-ness
that Raymond Williams’ (1958) contends not only counts as culture but is worthy of academic
inquiry. Both Raymond Williams’ (1958) and Richard Hoggart’s (1957) validation of working-
class culture ushered in a field of inquiry that endorsed the study of popular culture as more than
a tool used by the culture industries to pacify and control audiences (Adorno & Horkheimer,
2000). If for Williams, culture is “the sum of available descriptions through which societies
make sense of and reflect their common experiences” (Hall, 1980, p. 59), then this is the moment
for Law and Order: SVU to be the site of this reflection.
Law and Order: SVU is a popular show; even after over two decades on the air it
continues to boast an average of 6.78 million viewers an episode (Porter, 2021). However, its
audience has been slowly declining over the seasons. The first 10 seasons saw their weekly
viewers in the double digits millions, with its height in Season 3 at an average of 15.2 million
viewers. The show itself has never been nominated for an Emmy. In fact, the only Emmy

20
nominations (and wins) it has received are for its lead actors
5
and guest actors
6
. The show, the
script, the directors, do not have any individual Emmy recognition. It is not, as we might say,
“critically acclaimed.” It’s actors certainly are, but the show itself does not carry that same
artistic gravitas as other Emmy nominated series. Conversely, Law and Order: SVU has been
nominated for and won many People’s Choice awards. While I personally find award shows to
be biased, unreliable measures of objective worth, it does demonstrate, culturally, how a show is
received. It is the people’s choice. It has broad, mass popularity, but its predictability formulas
relegate it to a large group of undervalued crime dramas that rarely make the cut for academic
scholarship (Turnbull, 2014). Turnbull (2014) laments, “in this way, confessing to
love…Midsomer Murders may produce a very different response from admitting to being an
ardent devotee of The Wire” (p. 10). Law and Order: SVU is not what we would classify as
“quality TV” which, according to Ng (2021) is:
Defined by innovations in storytelling and formal characters, quality television
typically offers viewers strongly constructed narratives that do not shy away from
serious social and political issues, with high production values and distinctive
aesthetic qualities that may play with genre and other conventions (e.g., see Cardwell,

5
Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series: Mariska Hargitay - 2004 (nominated), 2005
(nominated), 2006 (won), 2007 (nominated), 2008 (nominated), 2009 (nominated), 2010
(nominated), 2011 (nominated). Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series – Christopher Meloni
– 2006 (nominated).
6
Outstanding Guest Actress in a Drama Series: Jane Alexander - 2000 (nominated), Tracy
Pollan - 2000 (nominated); Martha Plimpton - 2002 (nominated); Barbara Barrie - 2003
(nominated); Marlee Matlin - 2004 (nominated), Mare Winningham - 2004 (nominated); Angela
Lansbury - 2005 (nominated), Amanda Plummer - 2005 (won); Marcia Gay Harden - 2007
(nominated), Leslie Caron - 2007 (won); Cynthia Nixon - 2008 (won); Ellen Burstyn - 2009
(won), Brenda Blethyn 2009 (nominated), Carol Burnett - 2009 (nominated); Ann-Margret 2010
(won). Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series: Robin Williams - 2008 (nominated).

21
2007; Feuer, Kerr & Vahimago, 1984; Thompson, 1996)” (p. 2400).
While Law and Order: SVU certainly engages with political/ cultural issues head-on, it falls
short in the other criteria for “quality TV” compared to the television content through cable and
the digital platforms of the last decade. So, while Law and Order: SVU would have been
considered quality TV in the 1980’s, as was Hill Street Blues and Cagney & Lacey (Bower,
1992), and even at its onset in the late 1990’s, our contemporary understanding of “quality TV”
has progressed alongside the advent of risk-taking content ushered in by the onset of cable and
streaming (Lotz, 2018) and the celebrity showrunner (Newman & Levine, 2012).
The traditional flow of television (Feuer, 1983) has been entirely altered through binge-
watching and stream capabilities. Even the narrative structure of television has been significantly
altered. Where once most television shows were relatively self-contained and episodic
7
in
structure, cable ushered in the era of serial narratives, which were then easily adopted through
the binge-watching format enabled through the internet (Lotz, 2018). This is not to say that one
cannot stream or binge-watch Law and Order: SVU. Furthermore, its narratives, by the very
nature of the crimes committed on the show, are certainly taking risks with its ever-inventive,
disturbing content. However, its formulaic, episodic, procedural
8
format is a carryover from an
older era of television. Law and Order: SVU premiered on NBC, a broadcast channel, in 1999,
falling directly in the middle of cable’s rise and critical success (Lotz, 2018). From 1996 to 2010,
“cable programming went from being a backwater of old broadcast series to being a source of
ambitious and original storytelling” (Lotz, 2018 p. 103). This is the era in which cable was
taking risks, being innovative, and captivating audiences. With the increase in successful shows

7
This is excluding soap operas and melodramas as their own generic, serial form (Feuer, 2000).
8
Although this is debated by Season 2-12 Showrunner Neil Baer.

22
on the growing number of cable networks, cable started to chip away at the audiences that
broadcast had held for decades. Aside from successful broadcast shows, “mass cable hits
emerged and steadily broke viewership records to suggest just how thoroughly old norms had
been disrupted” (Lotz, 2018, p. 103). We can see why, as I mentioned above, Law and Order:
SVU’s viewership dropped (even its actors’ Emmy nominations have been at a halt over the last
decade). However, regardless of broadcast’s competition with cable and streaming, Law &
Order: SVU has diversified, syndicating its episodes to cable channels and eventually streaming
sites. In 2001, after TNT’s rebranding toward dramatic programming, it picked up reruns from
the Law & Order franchise. Furthermore, after NBC’s purchase of the USA Network in 2003,
they began airing Law & Order: SVU reruns in marathon format. Selected seasons, as well as the
full series, of Law & Order: SVU have floated between Netflix and Hulu since 2014. So, while
new episodes air weekly on broadcast, Law & Order: SVU is available to audiences tuning into
cable and digital platforms. In terms of responding to the narrative shift cable and digital has
evoked, Law & Order: SVU has noticeably started incorporating more two-part episodes and full
season narrative arcs into their writing style – a result that can be attributed to showrunner shifts
explored in this dissertation. However, their standard genre, the crime drama procedural, is still
their strength as a broadcast show. I contend that the later seasons of Law and Order: SVU exist
as a culmination of past television influences while gradually adjusting to contemporary
expectations.
Its audience has been slowly declining, but not enough for it to be canceled; even after
two decades, Law and Order: SVU has been consistently ranked as one of the most watched
shows on broadcast television (de Moraes & Hipes, 2018). This type of longevity and endurance
says something about its worth and its reach to viewers regardless of the newer, edgier, big

23
production value, instantly accessible content. Through Law & Order: SVU’s 20+ years on NBC,
its marathon runs on TNT, TBS, and Ion, and now its presence on Hulu, it a consistent artifact of
our televisual lives. And while the level of engagement with Law & Order: SVU may vary from
active fans (Duffet, 2013; Fiske, 1992), routine viewers, and casual viewers (Bird, 2003) to those
who have perhaps only watched a handful of episodes or have only heard of it, the longevity of
the show makes it a television icon. It might be odd to say something so banal could be iconic –
and yet, it has been an American cultural staple over the last two decades, not only ripping from
headlines but appearing in headlines season after season. It is for this type of popularity that the
show has merit and therefore it is worthy because of its banality.
Few have operationalized Law and Order: SVU for the purpose of academic inquiry.
Barnard (2017), Bernabo (2019), Cuklanz & Moorti (2011), Harkins (2020), Hurst, Marett, Lei,
Ren, & Ran (2015), Merken, S. & James (2019), and Shniderman (2014) are the extent of Law
and Order: SVU’s presence in the academy. Their work traverses disciplines and methodologies
which I will incorporate throughout the dissertation when appropriate. But here, I want to
highlight Shniderman’s (2014) thoughts on the series:
The impact of the Law & Order franchise on society … has been greatly under-
studied. Over the last decade, significant attention has been paid the ‘CSI
Effect,’ although there is little evidence that such an effect exists. Law & Order, given
its long run, cultural ubiquity, and documentary-type portrayal of the legal system, is
arguably more likely to impact the layperson’s general understanding of the legal
system and collective conscience (p. 107).
While my approach is less centered on the real-world effect or the legal ramifications of the
show, which undoubtedly exist, I find Shniderman’s (2014) justification compelling. I

24
enthusiastically submit this project as a contribution to the current dearth of literature that exists
about this cultural icon.

A Different Perspective on Television
This dissertation takes a unique intervention by understanding and negotiating several,
sometimes contradictory, fields and approaches. I demonstrate how the showrunners’ work on
television series is impacted by their relationship to culture, both in terms of how it influences
and is influenced by socio-historical conditions, making the showrunner a critical thinker and
social critic in how they reflect their perspective and interpretations of these moments in the
series’ content. How and where production and artistic components intersect with these
influences are key to creating content that has broader ramifications on audiences. The impact
from society’s engagement with television content is why it is important to understand the
nuance of what is happening at the site of content creation. The following anecdote serves as a
compelling, real-world example of why studying the showrunner matters – why we care what the
showrunner does and what narrative content they imbed.
11-year-old Alyssa Bonal was waiting at a bus stop playing with some blue slime when a
man grabbed Alyssa’s arm in an attempt to abduct her. She bravely fought him off, and before
running away she managed to intentionally mark him by smearing the blue slime on him. Amber,
Alyssa’s mother explains: “She said, ‘Mom, I had to leave some sort of evidence behind like
on Law & Order SVU.’ We’ve watched probably every episode on Hulu. She’s a smart cookie,
she thinks on her toes. She got that slime everywhere” (Haring, 2021, para 7). The detectives on
the case confirm that Alyssa’s blue slime was an important clue that aided their identification of

25
the man who has a criminal history of child sex abuse charges (Inside Edition, 2021). Upon
hearing this story, SVU star, Mariska Hargitay wrote the following message in an Instagram post:
Alyssa, first and most important, I am so relieved and grateful to know that you are safe.
And I am so honored to be part of your incredible story. You are one BRAVE, Strong
and Smart young woman. I think the SVU squad might have to add slime to their
crimefighting gear! Take good care of yourself and each other. With all my love, your
number one fan, Mariska.
Alyssa’s mother states, “It’s just amazing and so great to see that she actually used what she saw
on TV, what we talked about and actually put it into reality” (Inside Edition, 2021, para 11). And
as Inside Edition concludes, “The girl’s family is thankful she’s OK, and that her taste in TV
shows may have saved her life” (Inside Edition, 2021, para 13).
While this story made headlines, and even captured the attention of Hargitay, there is an
abundance of scholarship that addresses the myriad ways television impacts its viewers in their
real-world situations. This dissertation is not focused on effects, but the “effects” (however
explicit or periphery) contextualize the study of the production. If we think about the cyclical
nature of media and society, studying the media component should not entirely discount or
ignore the society component – this is where production cultures, which is concerned with “the
cultural values and logics” of the industry creatives, usefully enters the scene (Herbert, Lotz, &
Punathambekar, 2020, p.136). And the industry professionals who create media entertainment,
such as television, are members of the same society as their audiences, all who are making
cultural meaning from media. From the fields of media effects, television genre, audience
studies, industry studies, production cultures, to cultural studies, the range of Communication
research is vast, nuanced, and interdisciplinary. While there is debate regarding the degree and

26
manner in which we are influenced by the television narratives we consume, it is clear that
shows’ impact ranges from the simple pleasure of entertainment, to addressing broader cultural
issues, to (in the case of Alyssa Bonal) even saving our lives. I pose a showrunner will rip from
this headline, and next season we will see an episode where a victim/ survivor’s’ crime drama
fan practices will help aid the SVU detectives in catching her perp.
Some might argue elements of media effects (Neuendorf & Jeffres 2017) are at play here.
Narrative persuasion through television shows, particularly as it relates to health communication
has seen extensive research (Moyer-Guse, 2008; Slater & Rouner, 2002; Frank, Murphy,
Chatterjee, Morgan and Baezconde-Garbanati, 2014; Morgan, Movius, & Cody, 2009; de Graaf,
Hoeken, Sanders, & Beentjees, 2011). As I will explore in Chapter 2, Law & Order: SVU’s early
content was dictated by the seasons 2-12 show runner, Neal Baer – a Harvard trained
pediatrician. His experience accounted for much of the show’s medical related storylines and his
personal interest in either relaying unusual situations he read about in medical journals or
pushing a health narrative for which he felt a passionate advocacy prompted his narrative
themes. I would also be remiss to not acknowledge how character identification might play a role
in Law & Order: SVU’s social impact. Identifying with a television character can affect a
viewer’s self-concept, going so far as to temporarily alter the way one thinks about oneself and
acts in the real world (Sestir & Green, 2010). While my work on this project does not engage
with viewers’ identification with the characters, character identification research points to the
importance of representation in contributing to social change, and representation is an important
aspect to this project. Cohen, 2001 explains: “by introducing other perspectives and persuading
others to identify with them, new possibilities for understanding are opened that may result in
attitude change” (p. 260). Research shows Law & Order: SVU can inform valuable change in

27
perspectives. Hurst et. al, (2015) surveyed 313 college freshmen and found that exposure to the
Law & Order franchise was “associated with decreased rape myth acceptance and increased
intentions to adhere to expressions of sexual consent and refuse unwanted sexual activity” (p.
1369). This is to say that those who were general viewers of either Law & Order, Law & Order:
SVU, and/ or Law & Order: Criminal Intent were more likely to disagree with rape myths such
as: “she asked for it; it wasn’t really rape; he didn’t mean to; she wanted it; she lied;…if a
woman is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out
of control;…a woman who goes to the home or apartment of a man on the first date is implying
that she wants to have sex” (Hurst, et. al, 2015, p. 1375). The students exposed to the shows
within the Law & Order franchise were also more likely to ask for consent in advance of sexual
activity, respect consent during sexual activity, and reject unwanted sexual advances.
Conversely, Merken and James’ (2019) content analysis of television stories (which included
series and TV movies) that depicted sexual assault looked at the dissemination of rape myths on
women’s networks (Lifetime, Lifetime Movie Network, USA, Oxygen, and WE). In their
analysis sample of networks, USA, which included episodes of Law & Order: SVU, resulted in
73% of the shows “involving a ‘stranger-danger’ rape/ sexual assault myth” (p. 1179). However,
Merken and James’ (2019) results accounted for all the content they coded on the USA network,
not just Law & Order: SVU (which did not include an episode count). Although, an interesting
finding from their analysis showed that “the majority of the Law & Order: SVU episodes
involved rape victims reporting the victimization to the police almost instantly,” which is not the
norm for sexual assault victims (p. 1180). They also describe a quick arrival of detectives to the
crime scene where then they would offer to accompany the victims to the hospital for a rape kit.
Merken & James (2019) identify this as a rape myth which presents a misconception about the

28
speed and or support offered when calling the police. These studies demonstrate impact from
Law & Order: SVU’s content – specific content that is dictated by - you guessed it - the
showrunner.
I believe it is also critical to address the area of media effects research that look at
television violence (Bushman & Heusmann, 2001; Sparks, 2015). This is tricky, as Law &
Order: SVU’s main theme is violence – specifically heinous, violent crimes against women,
children, and other protected groups. The show must conform to NBC broadcast content
standards, the violence is mildly depicted, and the more atrocious actions are explained/
described rather than shown. However, I am arguing here for the influence Law & Order: SVU’s
showrunners have on how viewers may think about and move through society culturally, not
how it directs our actions specifically. Furthermore, I am largely looking at broader social and
political issues, and not violence. In her book, Rape in Prime Time, Lisa M. Cuklanz (1999)
states, “hegemony theorists examining television are interested in understanding this give-and-
take between televisual representation and events in the realm of social change politics” (p. 12).
Cuklanz saw rape on television as a site for understanding how society interacted with this type
of television content and engaged with hegemonic masculinity and feminist discourses on rape
(more on this in Chapter 4). I am jumping off this argument and saying that we can use Law &
Order: SVU beyond its discourse on violence and that we should not be concerned about its
depictions of violence. I want to turn to a piece written by Henry Jenkins here to aid in my
navigation of this topic. In a section called “The War Between Effects and Meanings” on his
Confessions of an Acafan blog, Jenkins writes:
A high percentage of the work done in the media effects tradition -- a specific strand
of social science research -- has arrived at the conclusion that consuming media

29
violence has some vaguely defined relationship to real world aggression. There is
wide disagreement about how much influence, what kind of influence, etc. A high
percentage of the work done in the humanistic tradition has arrived at the exact
opposite conclusion -- looking at media violence in terms of the meanings it
generates within a cultural context as opposed to the direct effects or influence it
exerts over the people who consume it.
Therefore, putting this perspective in the context of Law & Order: SVU, the violence shown is
telling its audience that violence is wrong. The National Television Violence Study (1998) does
contend that “the portrayal of violence on television need not lead to the reinforcement of
aggressive attitudes and behaviors…but if violence is glamorized, sanitized or made to seem
routine, then the message is that it is an acceptable, and perhaps even desirable course of action”
(Federman,1998, p. 4). Ironically, many of the series’ episodes center on media violence anxiety.
Several TV prosecutors use media effects research to submit the innocence of their clients; they
blame the video games, the comic books, the stand-up comedians, or (ironically) the television
for corrupting the young, perpetrators’ minds. Rarely, do these episodes end with this defense
exonerating their clients, as Law & Order: SVU usually takes the stance that one is in control of
their own actions (showrunners’ agency is taking a stand for audience agency). For the series this
is a necessary stance, as after over two decades of sexual assault storylines the series could
arguably fall into the “sanitized or made to seem routine” warning from The National Television
Violence Study. All this is to say, the context of the content is critical.
Speaking of varying perspectives, content, context, and violence, I would like to take a
moment here to address another elephant in the room: this dissertation is operationalizing Law &
Order: SVU as a case study, a show distinctly situated in the police drama genre, at a time when

30
cultural and political feelings toward real-world police are heightened and divisive. Amongst the
outcry to cancel many police centered series, thought pieces appearing in publications such as
The Atlantic and Rolling Stone specifically called out Law & Order: SVU and their 20-year
protagonist, Olivia Benson, for promoting hero-cop images and storylines that disproportionately
depict cops as pillars of morality (Calhoun, 2020; Dickson, 2020; Lawler, 2020). The show’s
series regulars are police officers, and as the opening moments of each episode state, these are
their stories – meaning the stories are going to be from the point of view of the detectives. But
much to the same argument regarding the depiction of violence (whether it be violence from a
perpetrator or violence from a member of the SVU squad), contextualizing the nuance is vital.
As to Jenkins’ point above, it is necessary to understand how and why media violence is depicted
in terms of the stories being told within an understanding of a given culture, a moment, a
narrative, a storyteller. Currently, there is significant tension surrounding depictions of police in
this cultural moment, and therefore examining the storyteller presenting these narratives is
critical. Hall (1975) explains:
If we refuse for a moment, to bracket and isolate the issue of violence, or the violent
episode from its matric in the complex codes governing the genre, how many other
crucial kinds of meaning were in fact transmitted whilst researchers were busy
counting the bodies…it is to insist that what audiences were receiving was not
‘violence’ but messages about violence. (p. 7).
So, while at one point in my critical content analysis I decided to start counting instances of
police brutality and over-aggression, notating the race and gender of the cop and the deemed
suspect, I felt this quantification was missing the nuance of the stories. Within the Law & Order:
SVU world, the SVU detectives are depicted as heroes and as villains, following procedure and

31
breaking procedure, making honest mistakes and being purposefully corrupt. In response to any
misstep on an episode, they are being investigated by the Internal Affairs Bureau (which is also
sometimes corrupt) and being held accountable by the public and media (who sometimes get it
wrong). Critiquing the show for showing either too much humanity or desensitized brutality from
the detectives started to feel too similar to making the The National Television Violence Study’s
argument about depicted violence. I had to acknowledge that I was ignoring my own nuance and
context in these instances. As I will address in the conclusion, the producers responded to this
cultural moment regarding the police and police centered shows, which I would insist continues
to highlight the agency these content creators have to address these issues even within the
context of a police drama series. This contextualization and the credit given to audience
members to negotiate anticipated codes from stories is what forms genre (which I will explore
more in Chapter 1).
All this is to say, that such perspectives are important to spotlight because, while
certainly not my focus with this project, I cannot ignore the topic of violence or police heroism/
brutality on TV when talking about a TV show where every episode arc revolves around police
and a violent crime. While it is not my intention to take time here to discuss the politics between
qualitative, quantitative, and mixed research methods and/ or the tension between Media Effects
and Cultural Studies as well as the intra-discipline debates, I do want to acknowledge we are all
looking at the same phenomena: television and society. However, at its core, this project is
grounded in a Cultural Studies perspective using primarily qualitative research methods (with
only a splash of numbers for those who like their numbers). For Stuart Hall (1996), an integral
aspect of cultural studies lives in and engages with the tensions of texts and “intertextuality …as
a source of power” (Hall, 1996, p. 271). Hence, this project grapples with tensions between the

32
showrunners’ creations of normative and/or progressive representations generated under the
structure of the entertainment industry – an important facet, which underpins production studies’
role regarding the logistics of producing television. So, while some see the media effects of
violence or police programming as detrimental, the media effects imparted on Alyssa Bonal by
watching Law and Order: SVU saved her life. Therefore, I argue a cultural studies approach to
studying the creation of such popular culture content, the room for nuance and agency within the
production structure might have also led to her survival. As Jenkins et al. (2002) state about
popular culture from the emergent cultural studies perspective it “sticks to your skin;” much like
the blue slime Alyssa Bonal used to mark-up her attacker.

Dissertation Overview
I have conducted a series of interviews with Law & Order: SVU cast, crew, and creatives
as well as casting directors, agents, and actors within the entertainment industry at large. Several
prominent Law & Order: SVU interviewees agreed to have their name used in this project. I
conducted an additional 18 interviews from industry professionals (casting directors, agents, and
actors) who wished to remain anonymous (I will reference them throughout the dissertation by
their occupation title: casting director, agent, or actor). The data gathered from these interviews
are used throughout the dissertation to demonstrate the detailed knowledge and unwritten
intricacies of the entertainment industry that contribute to the showrunner’s (and the creators
under their charge) agency.
Chapter 1 introduces the showrunner’s position in conjunction with Hall’s (1975)
“Encoding/ Decoding” and situates the showrunner’s agency within the broader structures of the
television industry, the crime drama genre, and how the early production process of Law &

33
Order: SVU (created by Dick Wolf under the NBC network) functions within these frames. I
discuss cyclical agency as a way of conceptualizing the process of creative agency within the
production structures and industry hierarchies. In this chapter, I also introduce the relevance of
representation and context of representation for understanding both the qualitative and
quantitative effects of industry structures. I present the results from the critical content analysis
that examines the Law & Order: SVU showrunners’ engagement with onscreen representation.
The findings demonstrate minimal quantitative change over the series’ two decades and
underpins the entertainment industries’ lack of diversity and growth despite showrunner and
producer self-identified progress in the arena. This chapter serves to establish the tension
between industry structures and individual agency.
Chapter 2 explores the early showrunner transitions that resulted in hiring Neal Baer (Dr.
Baer is a pediatrician who started his tv career as a writer for early seasons of ER and served as
executive producer of ER for 5 seasons). Through a detailed interview with Neal Baer, where he
shares episodes and personal stories that dictated the direction he took the series, I demonstrate
the influence the showrunners’ past experiences and personality can have on a series. Here, I
start to branch out and explore the agency other artists have under the direction of the
showrunner. I introduce actor Ann Dowd (Emmy award winner for her performance as Aunt
Lydia on Netflix’s The Handmaiden’s Tale) whose earliest television appearances were as three
different Law & Order: SVU guest star characters during Neal Baer’s time as showrunner
(“Victims” (2001), “Soulless” (2003), and “Lead” (2009)). In this chapter, we start to see the
impact of production cultures, the perspective of the showrunner as consequential to the series’
content, and how those working under the showrunner (such as actors) participate in cyclical
agency.

34
Chapter 3 marks the showrunner transition of Neal Baer to Warren Leight (with associate
Julie Martin) and highlights how the content and tone of the show changes as a result of the
showrunner shift (despite representational structures remaining relatively stagnant). In this
chapter, I employ deep readings of several episodes and put them in conversation with detailed
interviews from key creatives who worked on these episodes with Warren Leight. I start with
Law & Order: SVU’s 300
th
episode, “Manhattan Vigil” (2012) from the perspective of its writer,
Peter Blauner (New York City writer and journalist). Then, I move to the director’s role on Law
& Order: SVU through sharing Sharat Raju’s television directorial debut with “Spousal
Privilege” (2014). I conclude the chapter with an interview from Billy Porter’s (Tony, Grammy,
and Emmy winner) guest star experience in a role and episode written specifically for him -
“Dissonant Voices” (2013). Through my detailed exploration of these episodes from Warren
Leight through the perspective of main content contributors who worked under the showrunner, I
continue to develop my argument which reclaims agency and personal influence at specific
moments in the episodes’ construction and production. Thus, the tone and theme of the episodes
shift with Warren Leight, further supporting the showrunner’s interpretation of cultural moments
is significant to how such narratives are depicted as televised fictions.
Chapter 4 utilizes the guiding force of the show for two decades, Mariska Hargitay, to tie
the final showrunner shifts (Rick Eid to Michael Chernuchin and back to Warren Leight)
together amidst the #Metoo conjuncture. Here, I delve into a character analysis of Olivia Benson
and trace her development over the showrunner transitions, examining how each showrunner
developed, changed, or added to her character. I also address how the showrunners’ engagement
with social issues on Law & Order: SVU are reflected in Mariska Hargitay’s real world activism.
With the #Metoo moment bringing her already established advocacy to the forefront, this socio-

35
historical moment exemplifies how different showrunners have unique takes on the same
moment in the way they construct their episodes. Law & Order: SVU director turned executive
producer Norberto Barba (veteran director and producer for shows such as Grimm and The
Walking Dead) details his work with the final three showrunners and his experience in his two
roles on the series. I conclude the chapter with a compelling story from co-star actor, Julia Bray
(“Mask” (2011)) whose work on Law & Order: SVU underpins the tensions between the series’
public stance and the industry’s culture, and how her scene resurfaced as a viral meme in the
wake of #Metoo almost a decade later.
With each chapter I build upon showrunner agency and dig into the nuances of its
manifestation. Using interviews as my guiding methodology, each chapter employs additional
techniques to tease out and highlight the intricacies of the showrunner’s power and impact. The
critical content analysis of Chapter 1 explores representation in terms of context, which
complicates how we view representation in terms of character and role. Here, we see only minor
changes between showrunners, which speaks to the larger structures of the industry superseding
the showrunners’ perception of change. Chapter 2’s in-depth interview with an actual
showrunner allows for a direct testimony about how the showrunner imbeds meaning and
agendas in the television content. With the deep reading of pertinent episodes in Chapter 3
(which are guided by interviews from creative professionals from each of the episodes), I paint
the tonal and messaging change that occurs with the showrunner transition and a developing
socio-historical conjuncture more broadly. Both the television landscape and social movements
advance, and Warren Leight absorbs these moments into his construction of the series. Chapter 4
utilizes a conjunctural analysis and character reading that extrapolates how different
showrunners employ the same conjuncture in distinctive ways, and how their specific narratives

36
matter for real world moments. In the conclusion, I outline how the current showrunner and team
are contending with the newest defund the police and covid conjuncture along with proposed,
future research plans.

These are my stories
January 1993 – It is my first day of shooting for the Missing Persons pilot (1993-
1994, ABC) staring Daniel J. Travanti of Hill Street Blues. I don’t know who he is, but
everyone is excited that he is playing Lieutenant Ray McAuliffe and I am told I will meet
him next week when we film the scene where he rescues me. I am sitting inside a real
Chicago L train that is parked at the platform as the director, Gary Sherman, tells me to
just look around at all the people on the train while I hold my pretend mom’s hand. I am
happy I get to wear mittens that are pink (my favorite color). My character’s name is
Teresa Waleski. It was originally Debra, but then they changed it to Teresa (I secretly
liked Debra better). I see several older boys in big, puffy jackets, a nice older gentleman
who smiles at me (I smile back), and an older woman who looks mean (I am a little
scared of her, and they use this clip of my reaction in the final cut. That wasn’t me acting,
although later I found out she was acting). Gary Sherman (who is not only directing, but
is the creator, writer and what we now know is the showrunner) is setting up the possible
suspects on the train through my viewpoint. The old man starts talking to me in Polish,
and I get to say my lines which are in a combination of Polish and English. The day of
shooting is long, but I am having a lot of fun, and am especially excited to film the scene
where I get separated from my pretend mom on the train. We work on the logistics of the
scene for a long time, how she is holding my hand, how we are separated in a mass of
people, and how everyone crowds around us as she yells for me in the confusion. There is
a nice person from set who holds my other hand so I feel safe. They film my pretend
mom banging on the closing doors and running after the departing train, which sets up
my storyline as the first missing person of Missing Persons. 19 years later, this exact
scene is played out in the opening of Law & Order: SVU’s 300
th
episode, “Manhattan
Vigil,” with a man and his son on the New York subway. I asked the writer, Peter

37
Blauner, if he had ever seen the pilot of Missing Persons. He had not, but I continue with
the interview reflecting privately about my experience portraying a kidnapped child on
train in a crime drama almost two decades prior. I suppose crime drama television has
always been a theme for me.

August 27th, 2006 - it is not only my 19th birthday but move-in day for the
freshman dorms at New York University. My mom is helping me unpack in my tiny East
Village dorm room when she turns to me with, “I don’t care where you go or how late
you stay out, but I just want you to text me where you are going, when you change
locations, and when you get back to your dorm. Okay?” my mom says to me firmly but
warmly and with a not-so-subtle hint of concern. “I just want to be able to tell the police
the last place you were if anything happens to you.”
“I will, I promise,” I respond. And I mean it. As a young woman in a new city,
this plan actually makes me feel safe.
Then she adds, chuckling, “please be careful, I just don’t want to see you as a storyline on
SVU.” We laugh at the comment. But we both know, hidden behind the facetiousness is
an element of truth.

Summer 2011 - I am sitting in a casting director workshop. What has now
acquired a pay-for-play reputation in the auditioning world, casting director workshops
were once regarded as a way for actors to take classes with active casting directors for
TV, movies, and theatre to receive feedback and advice on her craft (with a “getting
discovered” carrot of hope dangling from the camera). The casting director at this
particular workshop, who worked on a popular crime drama, had all the actors sit in a
circle. He then proceeded to label/type each of us stating, “You are a mom, you are
gangster, you are the helpful witness” based on the appearance and essence we seemed to
project. He points to me and without missing a beat says, “Oh! You are clearly a victim.
You are getting attacked in the first few minutes of the episode, no question. You have
victim written all over you. Everyone is just waiting for you to be killed and it’s going to
be great!”

38
Do I get to be the rookie lawyer? The new forensic assistant? No. I am the victim,
and audiences are going to be excited to watch me die on TV. I was the victim in Missing
Persons and casting saw me as the victim again.

Winter 2015 - I am back home in my parents’ house binge watching the latest
Law and Order: SVU episodes recorded on their DVR as we usually do. We’ve devoured
the pizza, opened a second bottle of wine, and we start the 4th or 5th episode of the night
(it is easy to lose track). This one opens with a particularly horrendous and disturbing
rape/ murder scene. I wonder to myself, how do we casually gather as a family, to eat
pizza and drink wine, while watching such abhorrent plotlines? We are not alone; our
friends, family, and people all over the country are participating in the same televisual
ritual - and have been for the last two decades. It has to be the auxiliary story arcs, the
acting, and the Ice -T one-liners that capture our interest, I rationalize.
My dad suddenly interrupted my thoughts, “How do the writers keep coming up
with these crazy plotlines?”
“The real world. Half of these stories are from real life crimes.” I responded. I had
just finished my masters’ thesis on women detectives in crime drama television and was
starting the application process for PhD programs to study how we make meaning from
our television content.
“Do you ever think that this show would give perpetrators ideas?” he asked.
I return with, “is the media responsible for our actions? Are we responsible for the
media? chicken/ egg or egg/ chicken. I think you are asking the classic did-the-
videogame-make-him-do-it question.” I hadn’t studied too much about this yet.
“Oh yeah!” he exclaims, “We saw that episode!”

The reason for sharing these personal moments, my own connection to Law and Order:
SVU, is twofold: I am a feminist, and I am an acafan. McRobbie’s (1980) feminist intervention
addresses the importance of the personal. Rather than working as a removed outsider, she
recognizes, particularly within cultural studies, that no one can objectively stand outside the
conditions of history, society, and culture. For feminists “the personal is political” (McRobbie,

39
1980, p. 113); The location of power is always in question, and therefore, recognizing
positionality, and one’s entrance into the subject, acknowledges this. I am a white, cis-gender
woman who has not experienced sexual assault (but is hyper vigilant of its possibility),
researching media narratives and representations of race, gender, sexuality, and disability
through fictional depictions of hate crimes and sexual battery. I have been active in the
entertainment industry for over three decades, mainly as an actor (SAG-AFTRA and AEA) with
a brief stint as a casting assistant. As a fan, I have been watching and re-watching Law and
Order: SVU since the early 2000s. As an acafan (Jenkins, 1992), I started my research and
analysis of representations of intersectionality in crime drama television (SVU included) during
my Masters program and have continued to develop a passion for bridging multiple disciplines to
discuss culture through the lens of a television show I love to watch.
I think back on my grandfather, Frank Sowa (1917-2004), who left Poland at 17 years-old
to escape the horrors World War II was about to bring when the Nazis invaded their small,
family farm in Dolenga, 40 miles south of Krakow. He immigrated to Chicago, Illinois by
himself and eventually worked his way through the ranks of a woodworking company that
manufactured television cabinets. In the 1950’s this was an innovative piece of furniture
designed to fit the burgeoning new technology that was proliferating the American family room
– the television. Now, over 70 years later, I am writing about television and what it means
socially for our culture and understanding of ourselves within structures of power. He built the
structures that held the television, and I am writing about the structures we build within
television.
This dissertation will address showrunners’ interaction and interpretation with
conjunctures, moments in American culture where certain discourses rose to prominence and

40
were subsequently explored and depicted in television texts through their personal lens.
Therefore, I open this discussion with my personal conjunctures, my own moments where, more
than engaging with the show, I began asking my own questions about how our society constructs
images of culture and society. I am highly aware that my anecdotes are n=1, but I hope these
vignettes, which explain aspects of my entry into this topic, help by not only clarifying my
position, but allow others to consider their positionality as it relates to this project.
As in the words of Stuart Hall (1996), there is “something at stake” (p. 263).

41
Chapter 1

“She’s Majoring in Cultural Studies at Columbia” – Season 1, episode 4, “Hysteria”

Understanding the relationship between television and society is deeply rooted in the
foundations of Cultural Studies; with the establishment of The Media Group at the Centre for
Contemporary Cultural Studies, scholars
9
began using Cultural Studies to explore television.
These accounts of the field, specifically framed by Hall’s (1973) encoding/ decoding model,
allows me to engage with the cultural meanings and assumptions that are intentionally embedded
in media texts by televisions’ showrunners. From this foundation, my exploration of showrunner
agency will also incorporate the field of production cultures, which focuses on “the cultural
values and logics that orient people as industrial workers” (Herbert, Lotz, & Punathambekar,
2020, p.136). The subsequent chapters will explore and articulate how the showrunners
individually adjust to a set of changing events that underpin the shifting emphasis of Law &
Order: SVU. Through my interviews, I detail the ways the showrunners’ function is to filter
between their awareness of the industry, audience trends, political trends, and genre. However,
even with this agency that is reflected through their personal vision for the show, they must still
operate under the structures dictated by the network (NBC) and the series’ creator (Dick Wolf).
Gitlin’s (1983) Inside Prime Time, emphasizes the networks’ authority over top producers, a
structural hierarchy that has not changed since his 1970’s interviews with television industry
personnel. Therefore, the showrunners’ authority is not exclusively individual. As Mayer, Banks,
and Caldwell (2009) articulate:

9
This includes, but is not limited to: Stuart Hall, David Morley, Raymond Williams, Charlotte
Brunsdon, Angela McRobbie.

42
Media producers make culture, and, in the process, make themselves into particular
kinds of workers in modern, mediated societies. [Within] production hierarchies… people
work through professional organizations and informal networks to form communities of
shared practices, languages, and cultural understandings of the world. (p. 2).
Here, I will articulate how the structures of television production function in relation to the
creation of Law & Order: SVU by Dick Wolf and demonstrate through my critical content
analysis of the series that these structures do maintain homogeneity of content over two decades
of social and political shifts. This is to say, that while showrunner influence rejects the notion of
a plug-and-play reflection theory, and the showrunners’ personal identity (as well as their
understanding of culture) is reflected in their storytelling, some production structures (which
affect the representation of characters and content) will prevail. Furthermore, through my
analysis of the cast demographics and narrative content of this two-decade series, I demonstrate
how (spoiler alert) the shift in showrunners only negligibly alters representation. This chapter
emphasizes the significance of production structures, which are established through the genre
and production practices.

The Showrunner and Cyclical Agency
Jason Mittell (2004), in his book Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in
American Culture, looks at the “larger cultural life of television texts” by situating his analysis of
genre within the context of Cultural Studies (p. 124). He explains that through Cultural Studies’
and Television Studies’ concurrent development
10
, some “formal attributes of television texts”

10
It is interesting to note here yet another conjuncture. While Cultural Studies was developing as
a political endeavor closely aligned with the New Left due to shifts in Britain’s post WWII
political parties, the British crime drama television genre concurrently developed in response to

43
such as genre have been pushed by the wayside (Mittell, 2004, p. 121). He attributes this non-
formalist shift as stemming from research focused on the decoding portion of Hall’s (1973)
encoding/ decoding model and Fiske’s (1987) active audience work in Television Culture.
Therefore, a divide was created between structuralist and culturalist approaches, where film texts
(in terms of genre) tended to fall under the structuralist domain and television texts under the
culturalist domain (Mittell, 2004). However, Mittell (2004) maintains that it is possible to
“examine form without being formalists” by way of using Cultural Studies approaches, which
looks for social meanings within texts, to explore “how texts are encoded” with meaning (p.
122). Cue: Enter the showrunner on the “encoding” side of Stuart Hall’s (1975) foundational
model “Encoding/ Decoding.” It is essential to understand Hall’s (1975) model as a foundation
for how I will discuss the agency of the showrunner (and those creatives working under the
showrunner) within the context of cultural conjunctures. The support for this discussion will
explored throughout the interviews in the subsequent chapters; I start with this model first for
clarity and will reference it as I continue to reveal creative agency in relation various
conjunctures that have impacted Law & Order: SVU over the past two decades.
In this seminal text, Hall (1975) extrapolates the intentions that are imbedded in media
texts by content creators that are then interpreted by the viewers on the receiving end. The
following excerpt is Hall’s (1975) description of the encoding process:
The institutional structures of broadcasting, with their institutional structures and
networks of production, their organized routines and technical infrastructures, are

“perceived changes in audience taste as well as changing public perceptions of crime and
policing in different cultural contexts” (Turnbull, 2014, p. 44). So, while the CCCS is writing
about subcultures (Hebdige, 1979), race (Gilroy, 1982; Hall, 1980), crime, policing, and
surveillance (Hall, Critcher, Jefferson, Clarke, & Roberts, 1979) in Great Britain, British
television productions are shifting in tone and narrative to grapple with the same conjunctures.

44
required to produce the programme. Production, here, initiates the message: in one sense,
then the circuit begins here. Of course, the production process is framed throughout by
meanings and ideas: knowledge-in-use concerning the routines of production, technical
skills, professional ideologies, institutional knowledge, definitions and assumptions,
assumptions about the audience, etc. from the passage of the programme through this
production structure. However, though the production structures of television originate
the television message, they do not constitute a closed system. They draw topics,
treatments, agendas, events, personnel, images of the audience, ‘definitions of the
situation’ from the wider socio-cultural and political system of which they are only a
differentiated part. (p. 3).
Below is Hall’s (1975) Encoding/ Decoding model.

Figure 1. Hall’s Encoding/ Decoding Model

45
The arrows that loop from the “decoding” portion back under to inform the “frameworks of
knowledge,” “structures of production,” and “technical infrastructure” under the “encoding”
section demonstrate the cyclicality of his model.
Now, if we look at his model again, and insert the showrunner after “meaning structures
I” (which is informed by “frameworks of knowledge,” “structures of production,” and “technical
infrastructure”) and before “encoding,” this visually articulates how, in scripted television, the
showrunner (and those artists working under the showrunner) are afforded an area to exert
individual agency into the encoding of the meaningful discourse.

Figure 2. The Showrunner at the Site of Encoding

In this model, the showrunner (as well as the other writers, producers, directors, actors,
cinematographer, production designer, casting directors, and hair /makeup artist) is influenced by
the structures of production, technical infrastructure of the entertainment industry, and

46
frameworks of knowledge. Here, they have space within these structures and frameworks to
make choices for how and what to encode. At this site of encoding, “selection and creativity
which allows certain meaning to surface…will render intelligible the nature, history, and culture
particularity of ethnographic objects,” which in this case are those content creators (Lidchi, 2013,
p. 133). This is further explained by Herbert, Lotz, and Punathambekar (2020) in relation to the
agency and power of those heading the production process:
Hundreds of singular actions and choices by individuals account for the media goods
produced and the paths by which they reach audiences. For instance, a director may make
the final decision on the many facets of a film, both those who report to the director
significantly narrow the range of options that are considered across the full range of
production, and this exert agency in narrowing the options suggested. (p. 91).
What Herbert, Lotz, and Punathambekar (2020) describe with directors from a production
cultures’ perspective mimics the process by which the showrunner exerts agency (from a
selection of choices other individuals – with agency - bring to the process).
It is important to dissect the nuances of the production process to fully grapple with the
intricacies of how the showrunners’ authority works. The television industry functions as a
structure of tried-and-true practices, but individuals with prescribed roles (not just acting roles)
utilize their craft/ specialty to aid in the creation of a show. Within this system, these individuals
make choices based on the showrunner’s vision that influence the final production. Therefore,
with the showrunner dictating the overall direction of the text, each person in the television
production process is making their own creative decisions within certain parameters. Then, they
present these decisions/ options to the showrunner, who can then either accept, reject, or choose
from among these options. Herbert, Lotz, and Punathambekar (2020) describe this as

47
“circumscribed agency” in regard to the production process (p. 91), referencing Havens and
Lotz’s (2014) use of the term. However, Herbert, Lotz, and Punathambekar (2020) attribute this
circumscribed agency to the director of a film and Havens and Lotz (2014) attribute it to “those
not primarily defined as creative workers” such as executives (p. 165). In each instance, they are
addressing the agency these individuals have within a set structure. When it comes to the
showrunner, I account for the circumscribed agency the individuals under the showrunners have
as they are working within the showrunner’s vision from the on-set. The options they reflect to
the showrunner are bound within the instruction they receive from those with more creative
authority. Therefore, I suggest that in addition to circumscribed agency, we think of this process
as cyclical agency. The showrunners’ agency is still circumscribed – set within the given
boundaries from those working under their direction, but it is also reflective in a cyclical manner.
It is key to recognize here that the options the various creators present to the showrunner are
already narrowed by the showrunner’s vision. However, these creators exert agency over what
these options are within such parameters. Then, the showrunner exerts agency in the final
decision from the other creators’ options/ suggestions. After final approval from the showrunner,
the showrunner works to with network (and sometimes the creator)
11
to affirm the finals cuts,
edits, and airing of the show. The network (and sometimes the creator) has authority over the
showrunner’s employment. The “frameworks of knowledge,” “structures of production,” and
“technical infrastructure” impact meaning structures I – the structure which the network, creator,
showrunner and everyone else working under the showrunner must operate. Figure 3 is a visual
depiction of the showrunner’s circumscribed and cyclical agency within the power dynamics of

11
I use parenthesis to articulate what happens when the showrunner is not the creator such as for
Law & Order: SVU. When the showrunner is the creator they just work with the network.

48
the production process. The arrows in the figure below represent the hierarchical direction of
authority – the positions that impart instructions to the specialized creatives serving the
showrunner’s concept.

Figure 3. The Showrunner’s Influence at the Site of Encoding

The writers, executive producers, and producers assist with the showrunner’s vision (I support
this through interviews in Chapters 3 & 4). The showrunner has the final say on hiring the
creatives who work on the production. Informed by the showrunner and writers, the casting
director auditions and filters the top choices of actors to play the characters. Final casting

49
decisions are made by the showrunner with occasional input from the network, creator, and
occasionally the episode director
12
. Based on the showrunner and writers’ script, the director of
the episode oversees the cinematography, editing, production design, costume design, hair &
makeup, and actors. The showrunner, writers, director, costume designers, and hair & makeup
artists influence and guide the actors’ agency and creation of the character
13
. All the individuals
who occupy these creative, production positions make choices to serve the episode with the
circumscribed agency they are given by those in more authoritative positions. Yet, this agency
becomes cyclical as it is presented back to the showrunner for official approval. The showrunner
then works with the network (and sometimes the creator) to finalize the episode. Figure 3 depicts
how the network (and sometimes creator) have authority over the showrunner. They can hire or
fire the showrunner as needed. They also have the official say on the final script cuts, edits, and
showings etc, but can take input from the showrunner on these decisions. So, while the Network
(and sometimes creator) have the highest authority in the production process, they are not
crafting and developing the specifics of the series. These details come from the showrunner’s
vision that the rest of the creatives hired for the episode endeavor to realize.
The following chapters will articulate in detail this cyclical agency between the
showrunner and the other creatives working under the showrunner to produce Law & Order:
SVU content. However, in this chapter I focus more broadly on the larger structure of the
television industry. In the next section, I will explore the role of Dick Wolf and the network,
NBC, as the structure the showrunner must operate within. In every interview I conducted for

12
This part of the casting process was confirmed by the casting directors, agents, and actors
interviewed.
13
Interviews with actors support this claim and is explored further in Chapter 2 through Anne
Dowd’s interview.

50
this research project, every person described Law & Order: SVU as, “a well-oiled machine.”
Those exact words, verbatim, were presented to me, unprompted, at various points throughout
each interview. Referring to the process (how the show’s production logistics operate day to
day), the formula and traditions for writing, casting, directing, filming, and editing demonstrates
the routine and efficiency of Law & Order: SVU production and set. Describing the production
culture and process as a well-oiled machine happens to bolster claims that structures are the
primary determinant in entertainment production and therefore the individuality the players and
content creators bring to the table are inconsequential. I am not negating the importance of
structures, as I have said before and as this chapter will articulate, structures matter. However, I
am also arguing that the structures are not the primary determinant and that the cyclical agency
that surrounds the showrunner is a small, but key point for individualized meaning-making and
agenda encoding. Showrunner agency can and does exist within the well-oiled machine. Just
because each creator is proficient in their assigned role within the machine does not mean they
are not exercising creative power; it is their ability to wield creativity and skill within the
machine that ultimately keeps it well-oiled, functioning, and successful.

The Crime Drama Genre as an Adaptable Structure
Genre is a key aspect to studying television. It is a component that broadly categorizes
and contains the showrunner’s agency. Before delving into the specifics of Law & Order: SVU’s
creation and production history, it is important to situate the series (and by default the series’
content creators) within the crime drama genre itself. Genre plays a significant role in Hall’s
(1975) “Encoding/ Decoding” analysis. Using the American Western as example, Hall (1975)
states of genre:

51
[Recognizing]…the Western as a ‘symbolic game means… that a set of extremely
tightly-coded ‘rules’ exist whereby stories of a certain recognizable type, content, and
structure can be easily encoded within the Western Form. What is more, these ‘rules of
encoding’ were so diffused, so symmetrically shared as between producer and audience,
that the ‘message’ was likely to be decoded in a manner highly symmetrical to that in
which it had been encoded. This reciprocity of codes is, indeed, precisely what is entailed
in the notion of stylization or ‘conventionalization,’ and the presence of such reciprocal
codes is, of course, what defines or makes possible the existence of genre. (p. 6)
As I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Mittell (2004) sees genre as a way to understand
Hall’s (1975) encoding in a non-structuralist manner. Genre is a structure of television
production, but it is a bit of a wobbly, rubbery structure. Mittell (2004) identifies genre as a way
“to categorize texts and link them into clusters of cultural assumptions through discourses of
definition, interpretation, and evaluation” (p. xiv). It is through such socially constructed
categories that share similar meanings that genres form. Mittell’s (2004) description of genre
reminds me of the skyscrapers in Los Angeles that are built on wheels; if an earthquake strikes,
they absorb the shocks and roll with movement so the whole building doesn’t crumble down (my
dad is the engineer, not me, but this is my basic understanding of how this works). So, genre has
a frame, but when outside influences come to disrupt it, it rolls with the changes and adapts and
absorbs these moments rather than being immovable or breaking down entirely.
For Mittell (2004), television genre functions as a cultural discourse rather than a fixed
structure; “television genre is best understood as a process of categorization that is not found
within media texts, but operates across the cultural realms of media industries, audiences, policy,
critics, and historical context” (p. xii). Mittell (2004) is identifying the various aspects of

52
television, “media industries, audiences, policy, critics, and historical context” and accounting
for their cultural interactions. How the industry operates, who the audience is, what the policies
dictate, who and what the critics say - all of these components, situated historically, frames and
contextualizes television genre. This notion of understanding genre in terms of historical context
is of crucial importance for Mittell (2004). He contends that genres are historically constructed,
thereby making genre a transient category. The context (time and place of audiences and/ or
creators) is key to understanding the definition of genre at any given moment. Therefore, Mittell
(2004) embraces a poststructural
14
perspective in challenging the concept of genre as naturally
occurring. For Mittell (2004) “genre definitions are no more natural than the texts that they seem
to categorize. Genres are cultural products, constituted by media practices and subject to ongoing
change and redefinition” (p. 1). Even within the crime drama, there exists a series of sub-genres
(some geographically and culturally oriented) that can describe the tone and effect of a particular
show: the thriller, the procedural, the mystery, the British crime drama, the Scandinavian crime
drama, the Eastern European crime drama, the East-Asian crime drama, the American crime
drama, etc. (Turnbull, 2014). Each of these sub-genres designates a feeling, a location, a time.
The television crime drama shifts and adapts to the values of the time and audience (Fiske,
1987).
To contextualize the crime drama genre, Mittell (2004) explores the iconic 1950s/60s
crime show, Dragnet, to “examine how cultural meanings and assumptions were encoded in the
program [and] how these textual elements fit into larger cultural and generic categories” (p. 122).
Mittell (2004) laments Dragnet’s neglect by academic scholarship and intends to highlight the

14
For Mittell (2004), a poststructural approach means questioning everything that appears
naturally existing or assumed.

53
show’s “historical and cultural importance” through his analysis of crime genre with Dragnet as
a case study (p. 125). Mittell’s (2004) “consideration of Dragnet’s genre practices illuminates a
crucial program within media history, explores the changing characteristics of generic categories
over decades, and reflects on the impact of television programs on our understanding of social
phenomena like crime, law, and the police” (p. 125). This is to say, for Mittell (2004), Dragnet
helps demonstrate how genre has played a substantial role in television development, particularly
crime drama television, and how television genres impact cultural understandings of society. For
many audiences, their only conception of police activity and the legal system stem from generic
representations, and this is expressed through some of the existing literature on Law and Order:
SVU.
Dragnet is a story about dedicated Sergeant Joe Friday solving crimes as part of the
LAPD. In every episode, there was a new case for Joe Friday to solve, and the audience would
follow the “hero’s process through solving a crime” (Mittell, 2004, p. 127). Weekly, the cases
would change, but the narrative structure stayed the same, thus establishing crime drama as a
procedural (Mittell, 2004). Law and Order: SVU follows much of the same format, as the
audience observes the Special Victims Unit investigate and solve that episode’s case. The writers
for Dragnet worked with the LAPD and used these real-life cases to create the stories for
Dragnet, but with changed names for the perpetrators and victims (Mittell, 2004). This is not
unlike Law and Order: SVU’s infamous, ripped-from-the-headlines narratives, where audiences
can expect an iteration of the nation’s most sensationalized crimes to appear as an episode.
Regarding style, Mittell (2004) describes Dragnet’s commonalities with film noir in
terms of its “textual conventions such as on-location shooting, urban crime narration, shadowy
black-and-white photography, and a commitment to gritty realism” (p. 129). This description

54
certainly evokes the feeling and visuals associated with Law and Order and Law and Order:
SVU. However, historically, film noir as a constructed genre had not yet been solidified or
understood, and therefore, we can only attribute its generic influences in terms of style but not
category. Mittell (2004) instead, looks to documentary and crime film as the two main “generic
precedents of Dragnet” (Mittell, 2004, p. 129). Situating Dragnet historically, Mittell (2004) is
able to demonstrate how many of the generic constructs developed through 1940s semi-
documentary police procedurals, crime films, and Dragnet’s origins as a radio drama. And
therefore, we can trace the generic construct of Law and Order: SVU, with its documentary-style
handheld cameras and crime film inspired angles as having developed from the influence of
Dragnet. Mittell (2004) contends there are hegemonic meanings in genre, and in this instance
these meanings set a precedent for the future of the crime drama genre that is still prevalent
today.
However, as we will see through interviews and my analysis in following chapters, the
style and tone of Law and Order: SVU changes with each showrunner – showrunners who are
largely invisible to the audience. This strongly supports Mittell’s (2004) assertion that genres are
transient and constructed. Even in what we understand to be the crime drama genre’s hegemonic
meanings, there is room for transition and negotiation, which is where individual showrunners
can exert their agency.
This idea that the crime drama genre is not a rigid stricture is supported by Turnbull
(2014), who opens her book, The TV Crime Drama, pushing back against those who see the
genre operating “within a predictable or narrow set of parameters” (p. 3). She explains, “[the
crime drama] had developed in different times and in different production contexts, not only [in]
the United Kingdom and the United States, but all around the world” (p.3). Turnbull’s book is a

55
compelling analysis because it situates how the genre itself transforms and (as is with popular
culture) our analysis and understandings of it alter as we try to keep pace with it. I am submitting
that the showrunner is responsible for these specific cultural and tonal shifts. For example,
broadly framing the crime drama’s relation to gender construction, Fiske (1987) describes the
genre as the most masculine of television genres, whereas Cuklanz (1999) traces the genre’s
private sphere feminization as “protagonist detectives develop fuller personal lives…[becoming]
more sensitive and nurturing” particularly as they encounter sex-crimes and rape victims (p. 24).
However, the specifics of these genre shifts, how and why crime drama protagonists or story arcs
can be analyzed as a developing text is due to the showrunner’s influence on these specifics.
While Cuklanz was not referring to Law and Order: SVU in this particular article about the
personal lives of the detectives, her analysis is prescient as the series premiered later that year;
Cuklanz did go on to write about the show a decade later. Cuklanz & Moorti (2007) explain the
noteworthy differences that separate Law and Order: SVU from other prime-time dramas:
It fits solidly within the historically masculine detective genre while deliberately
focusing on a subject of primary interest to women. It positions itself as a dramatic
series with feminist sympathies, addressing a subject that was long a focus of feminist
activism. It is uniquely issue-oriented, building its emotional and dramatic appeal
from a political issue rather than focusing on an eponymous protagonist (such as
Cagney and Lacey). SVU highlights power in gender relations, including within the
family, and provides evidence of “rape culture” as a potential factor in the
commission of the crime (p. 320).
This description credits Law & Order: SVU with many specific attributes. Missing from their
analysis (as well as many other analyses of television series) is the force behind these attributes.

56
I noticed in much literature television shows are often discussed as their own entity. “The
show” does this, “the show” exhibits that, etc. I am even guilty of it too. But the showrunner and
the cyclical agency of the creative team reminds us that these series are not autonomous beings.
Law & Order: SVU may be a well-oiled machine, but it is not an AI machine. Television series
have many individuals making decisions and contributing to the produced content that scholars
(and audiences) analyze. This following section will detail how some of these decisions unfolded
(agency) in the development of Law & Order: SVU by Dick Wolf (more agency) within the Law
& Order franchise (structure) under the NBC network (more structure).

Production history and development of Law and Order: SVU
“It may sound pretentious, but I thought of Law & Order and SVU as a huge novel,
like Dickens’ London” – Dick Wolf

Published in 2009 by BenBella Books, “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit Unofficial
Companion” was written by Susan Green and Randee Dawn, two entertainment reporters. The
book, which details the early development and production of Law and Order: SVU and engages
with interviews from the production, cast, and crew, reads as a lengthy, non-salacious, tell-all
magazine article with little to no analysis. In their forward, Green and Dawn (2009) briefly
mention McLuhan’s famous, “the medium is the message” as the only mention of theory and
offer that “perhaps the public perception of crime has been altered by any Law & Order series in
ways that only history will determine” (p.1). It is important to note that Law & Order franchise
creator, Dick Wolf, played a large role in the writing of this book and the access the writers were
granted (Green & Dawn, 2009). This is not a critique of Dick Wolf or the authors, as this work is
an informative and detailed account of the many aspects of the Law and Order: SVU production

57
and process. I applaud Dick Wolf for opening his series’ world to Green and Dawn’s journalism.
However, my hesitation to use this text as fact stems from Dick Wolf’s stake in this book’s
publication and reception. The title might say it is unofficial, but his greenlighting of this process
complicates the way Green and Dawn’s (2009) behind-the-scenes dive is directed. When the
gatekeeper is the one opening the gates, I question which gates were opened, to what degree, and
for what purpose. Therefore, it is my intention to use this text for its direct quotes from their
interviews related to the chronology of the show’s development.
As I begin to talk about some the foundational production and industry
15
structures that
Law & Order: SVU operates within, many uncanny connections that emerge demonstrate just
how small the television industry world truly is. Dick Wolf was practically raised in the NBC
family. In the 1950’s, his parents worked in publicity at NBC and a young Dick Wolf was a
regular member of The Howdy Doody Show’s Peanut Gallery (Television Academy Foundation,
2013). Dick Wolf began his television career at NBC as well, as a staff writer on Hill Street
Blues. Here, he earned his first Emmy nomination for the episode “What are Friends For?” as a
solo writer. Interestingly enough, Newman and Levine (2012) discuss the transition from solo
episode writing to staff-writing specifically in relation to “NBC’s strategy with Hill Street Blues
and other Quality dramas in the 1980s, which helped to establish the writer- producer in a
position of visible creative control (such as Steven Bochco) as a mark of cultural legitimacy” (p.
42). So, while Steven Bochco was seen as an early “showrunner” heading the staff writers on

15
Interesting fact about filming in NYC: “the seeming ubiquity of the Law & Order franchsie is
linked to its subsidization by the New York State Film Tax Credit Program, started in the early
2000s and expanded in 2008 to its current level of $420 million, covering up to 30% of the
production budget. Law & Order: SVU has also drawn funding from the Gates Foundation to
embed social messaging in shows that reach a wide and varied audience” (Harkins, 2020, p.
100).

58
Hill Street Blues, an emerging Dick Wolf gained Emmy recognition for his solo-work
foreshadowing future success in the NBC crime procedural.
When Dick Wolf invented the idea for Law and Order: SVU, his original show, Law &
Order, which is fondly referred to as “The Mothership” by those in the industry (a standard
moniker used in media franchise production to define the original piece
16
) had just won the 1997
Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series
17
. Dick Wolf explains:
I was inspired by the show’s success, and when Exiled: A Law & Order Movie was a
ratings hit in 1998, I realized that the Law & Order brand was ripe for another spin-off,
this time a new series. (as cited in Green & Dawn, 2009, p. 3).
Taking his inspiration from real-life crimes from the onset, Dick Wolf cites the 1986 Robert
Chambers murder case of Jennifer Levin, dubbed “The Preppy Killer” by the media (Lambert
and Baker, 2007), as his entrance into the sexual assault content for the series. The Mothership
had done its own variation of that crime/ case in their inaugural season, and Dick Wolf wanted to
expand on this concept to “get deeper into the psychology of crimes like that, the role of human
sexuality” (as cited in Green & Dawn, 2009, p. 3). His statements touch on two striking
concepts: the notion of the “brand” and his word for these crimes as “sexuality.” To address the
latter, I find this simple phrasing as an interesting, problematic slippage from the creator. This
quote from his forward to the book was written a decade into Law and Order: SVU. Rape is
rarely about sexuality but is implicitly and explicitly tied to power and violence (Chapleau &
Oswald, 2010; Rentschler, 2014). This is a theme regularly addressed on the show. Getting into

16
Often in transmedia the mothership is work to which the spinoffs are subordinate. Within the
Law & Order franchise, SVU would eventually supersede the mothership in terms of popularity
and longevity.
17
Other than its 1997 win, Law & Order has been nominated for Outstanding Drama Series
every year between 1992-2002. Ironically, Law and Order: SVU has never even been nominated.

59
the psychology of sexual violence is certainly explored in the show, especially with the
introduction of forensic psychiatrist, Dr. George Huang (BD Wong) at the end of Season 2.
Additionally, human sexuality is also taken into consideration in various episodes, but it is
separate from sexual violence. Dick Wolf’s conflation of the two is at odds with the series’
message on this.
Secondly, I want to address Dick Wolf’s statement about Law & Order being ripe for a
spin-off. Green and Dawn (2009) state, “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit was conceived as a
responsible mechanism for addressing complex issues through the context of popular culture” (p.
2), but it is clear from Dick Wolf’s statement, he saw room for further developing the success of
the brand and wanted to jump on this moment. Neal Baer says, “[Dick Wolf] has an approach of
branding things and everything is like Campbell Soup. You know what you are going to get.” In
a 2006 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Dick Wolf was straightforward and honest
about his ideas and intent:
You’ve got an actress sitting up here (Mariska Hargitay) who has received two
consecutive Emmy nominations for a show (SVU) that everybody would describe as
mature. I didn’t see that much fuss made about it. You read about who’s hot, who’s
not. These shows are never mentioned. We’re not looking to be the hot show. That’s
not what the Law & Order brand is about. It’s about longevity and about repeatability
and about staying on the air and being a profit center for NBC for years to come (as
cited in Green & Dawn, 2009, p. 25).
Critical points are revealed in this statement. He is not concerned with being quality TV, because
that would essentially have an expiration date. He wants to repeat and stretch the content for as
long as possible because it makes money for the network (and of course for him). He isn’t

60
concerned with accolades or even the accolades for those working on his show. Awards do not
guarantee anyone a renewed season. And as cut-and-dry-business as this statement sounds, he is
not wrong, as is evidenced after over two decades of the series. Therefore, the intentions of the
show are twofold and completely at odds. From the production creatives and artists’ perspective,
this series is about telling important stories, bringing awareness to victims’ / survivors’ rights,
and opening dialogue regarding controversial legal debates. But from the point of view of Dick
Wolf as the creator, it is about making as much money as possible for as long as possible by
exploiting stories of trauma and assault for entertainment. This dichotomy is interesting in
relation to arguments from Derek Johnson (2013). In his book, Media Franchising, he:
develops a more complex picture of franchised cultural production that challenges
assumptions about self-replication to more effectively account for human agency and
social meaning with the industrial institutions that produce culture. (p. 3).
Johnson’s (2013) challenge of simple replication for profit bolsters my claim of showrunner and
creatives’ agency within the Law & Order franchise. But also, much to Johnson’s (2013)
framing, the quote from Dick Wolf demonstrates how the economics of industrial institutions are
still present. For Dick Wolf and NBC, the brand and the franchise serve a different purpose than
it does for those who are involved in its construction and development. As Johnson (2013)
insists, “we have to take seriously the investment of popular audiences and the meaningful labor
of social actors working through franchising” (p. 4); which is what I endeavor to do in the
following chapters.
In terms of Dick Wolf expanding his brand and franchise, Barry Diller, who was head of
production company Studios USA which acquired Law & Order when he formed USA Networks
Inc., signed off on Dick Wolf’s concept and idea for the spin-off. (Green & Dawn, 2009;

61
Hofmeister, 1997). However, Barry Diller and Dick Wolf were in disagreement over the name
of the show. Dick Wolf wanted to title it “Law & Order: Sex Crimes” but Barry Diller didn’t
want the word “sex” in the title (O’Connor, 2009). The naming and content of the show was
being developed just a few years after Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
One provision of the act included the V-chip, which is a technology for television sets that
enabled one to block programs
18
based on their TV ratings (TV Parental Guidelines). Bill
Clinton stated of the V-chip:
If every parent uses this chip wisely, it can become a powerful voice against teen
violence, teen pregnancy, teen drug use, and both for learning and entertainment…We’re
handing the TV remote control back to America’s parents so
that they can pass on their values and protect their children (as cited in Montgomery,
2007).
Dick Wolf explains “at the time, the government was staunchly defending the V-chip. I was very
outspoken against the V-chip, but not as a defender of violence. I was defending the right to free
speech” (as cited in Green & Dawn, 2009, p. 4). A debate regarding media ratings, parental
control, and free speech is beyond the scope of this project (although, many Law & Order: SVU
episodes hash out these issues), but it is interesting to see how such moments, these intersections
of law, entertainment, and media, cause disruptions to naming a Law & Order spinoff series.
Therefore, to compromise with Barry Diller, and to avoid having the show potentially blocked by
the V-chip due to the word “sex” in the title, “Special Victims Unit” was chosen. Ultimately, this
resulted in creating a broader narrative scope for the show, as they would not be confined to
strictly sex crime plots. The crimes investigated by the special victims unit in the show include

18
The V-chip wasn’t legally required to be installed in televisions until 2000.

62
acts that are not always tied to a sexual nature. In fact, there are many episodes where the
detectives ask the first responders, “Why did you call SVU?” The special victims tend to include
the very young, the elderly, the disabled, and other defenseless victims.
The NYPD has a real Special Victims Unit that was created by Linda Fairstein in the late
1970s. She wrote an opinion piece for USA Today (2018), that discusses how the unit developed
and her role in the process. She explains that no such unit existed when she graduated from law
school in 1972, and when she was only the 7
th
woman to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s
office. She became the leader of the newly created sex crimes unit in 1976 and tried to “develop
ways to work shoulder to shoulder with the New York Police Department’s Sex Crimes Unit, to
learn how better to investigate these cases so that any evidence in support of the victim’s case
could be preserved” (Fairstein, 2018, para 4). Fairstein details her role in developing what would
eventually be called the special victims unit at the DA’s office. She and her office were the first
to initiate trial prosecution of date and acquaintance rape, to “address the special needs of child
victim [and] to call out the potential lethality of domestic violence situations” amongst many
other firsts that prioritized the victims of challenging cases, or victims who could not self-
advocate (Fairstein, 2018, para 6).
While Law & Order: SVU is focused on the detectives more than the lawyers in the
special victims unit, it is interesting to see the critical role a real-world ADA played in
developing this unit and who also worked with the police. I find it to be one of the oddly
misleading things about Law & Order: SVU; the opening monologue leads the viewers to focus
on just the NYPD section of the special victims unit. That portion of the opening says: “in New
York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an
elite squad known as the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories,” compared to the original

63
Law & Order opening which says: “In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by
two separate yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime and the district
attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories." The Law & Order opening
clearly states the two groups are equally important, the detective and the lawyers; they are
separate yet work as a team. In Law & Order: SVU the opening only refers to the elite detectives
in the SVU squad, with no mention of the district attorneys’ role. Yet, in the series, there are
specific, designated lawyers working for the district attorney who are exclusively assigned to
special victims. In particular, when a new ADA enters the series, there is always a discussion
with either the DA or the SVU detectives about how challenging these cases are. Yet, unlike Law
& Order, it is the detectives’ stories and lives that are the primary focus.
When Dick Wolf was in pre-production for Law & Order: SVU, he reached out to Linda
Fairstein and asked that she confer with actors Mariska Hargitay who would play Detective
Olivia Benson and Stephanie March who would play Detective Alexandra Cabot. She remarks
that the meetings have led to them becoming life-long friends. Fairstein states:
People often commented that Wolf had ripped my professional life from the
headlines, just as he did with the crimes he showcased. In fact, this series, one of the
most popular in the history of television, brought the issue I have cared most about in
my professional life out of the darkness. It shines a terrifically bright light on subjects
that often were unspeakable before he set them down in our living rooms (Fairstein,
2018).
Dick Wolf also enlisted the consultation of Amanda Green, who was “running a forensic
psychology project that went between the DA’s office and the NYPD…working with the
detectives and the victims of sex crimes, child abuse, domestic violence, homicide” (Green &

64
Dawn, 2009, p.11). His team reached out to her while they were creating the intricacies of the
topic and how the legal and policing aspects of such crimes functioned. She eventually joined the
team as a technical advisor in 2001, writer and producer in 2003, and moved through the various
producing ranks up to co-executive producer from 2006 – 2010.
Even in the foundations of Law & Order: SVU’s beginnings, we can see these numerous
moments where individuals brought their unique perspective or expertise to the show (Johnson,
2013). Or, as in the case of working with the network and production company, Dick Wolf had
to make concessions to the larger structures of the network (Gitlin, 1983). This process reminds
me of Hall’s (2002) description of culture as “a battlefield where no once-for-all victories are
obtained but where there are always strategic positions to be won and lost” (p. 187). This might
describe culture broadly, but it certainly resonates as an accurate metaphor for the television
industry’s production process specifically.

Representation
Media representation has been a central topic within critical television studies (Durham &
Kellner, 2012; and Dines & Humez, 2003). The construction of gender (Modleski, 1984), race
(Gray, 1995), sexuality (Gross, 1989), and disability (Ellcessor & Kirkpatrick, 2017) in
television has been the subject of a vast body of research. It is interesting to track how
showrunners engage with representation, whether it be in terms of character types /
demographics or episode content / theme. As it relates to entertainment media, the notion of
representation has expanded from an area of academic inquiry to a social moment.
Representation “matters” - but what does it mean? What started as a sentiment that signified the
way we use language and images to shape our understanding of ourselves and our surroundings

65
has turned into the phrase “representation matters” that has taken on a culture of its own. It is a
hashtag, it is a Netflix genre category, it is a merchandisable catchphrase, it is marketing
technique, and it is a social justice rallying cry (which some find hollow (Jackson, 2020)).
However, despite the significant amount of publicity “representation matters” has been receiving
of late, studying representation is crucial as it:
examines not only how language and representation produce meaning, but how the
knowledge which is particular to a discourse produces and connects with power,
regulates conduct, make up or constructs identities and subjectivities and defines the way
certain things are represented, thought about, practiced and studied. (Hall, 2013, p. xxii).
Both in terms of narrative content and character identities, representation is a critical component
to television. Over the last decade, these discourses have emerged from the academy and into the
vernacular of the public, as media headlines and social media posts regarding inclusion permeate
society.
From a social science and media effects perspective, studies over the last decade have
endeavored to quantify representation on a macro scale and draw attention to the gender and race
discrepancies and hiring gaps in entertainment media (The Hollywood Diversity Report,
Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, The Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media). Overall, these
studies have served to highlight the degree to which people who occupy categories of difference
are rendered invisible on screen. Since 2014 The UCLA Hollywood Diversity Report has
produced yearly reports that measure the demographics of the entertainment industry in terms of
characters, role size, and cast diversity, for top grossing films as well as scripted and reality
broadcast, cable and streaming television series. Recent seasons have seen a minimal increase in
minority visibility on television. The 2019 Hollywood Diversity Report states that overall, “the

66
number of titles featuring casts that were less than 11 percent minority declined, while titles with
casts that were over 50 percent minority increased” (Hunt, Ramon, Tran, Roychoudhury, Chica,
& Brown 2019, p.20), which means that there are now less shows with minimal diversity and
more shows with more than 50% diversity. However, even with this notable change, “women
and people of color (with the exception of Black men in broadcast and cable) remained
underrepresented among all actors in … 2016-2017 television shows” (Hunt, et al., 2019, p. 20).
Looking at broadcast scripted shows, specifically in the category of television, under which Law
and Order: SVU falls:
casts that were less than 11 percent minority decreased from 23.2 percent during the
2011-12 television season to just 10.3 percent in 2016-17. Meanwhile, the share of
broadcast scripted shows with a majority- minority casts skyrocketed from just 2
percent in 2011-12 to 19.8 percent in 2016-17, and the share of those with casts
between 31 percent and 40 percent minority increased from 15.2 percent to 18.1
percent. (Hunt, et al., 2019, p. 22).
However, in contrast, “women’s share of top broadcast scripted roles remained virtually
unchanged between the 2015-16 and 2016-17 television seasons (44 percent and 43 percent
respectively)” (Hunt, et al., 2019, p. 24). I include these statistics to give an overview of the story
told by the numerical data. In this sense, racial diversity in television is on the increase and
gender inclusion is at a standstill.
To help facilitate inclusion, The Hollywood Diversity Report, Annenberg Inclusion
Initiative, and The Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media provide intervention strategies to
diversify representation in media. The UCLA Hollywood Diversity Report looks at the
demographics of pertinent roles behind the camera: directors, writers, producers, agents, and

67
casting personnel to identify “the best practices for increasing the pipeline of underrepresented
groups into the Hollywood entertainment industry” (https://spark.ucla.edu/project/169). Stacy
Smith, of the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, publishes yearly reports with similar research and
suggests several solutions to diversifying representation: Just Add Five, Inclusion Rider, and the
Rooney Rule. “Just Add Five” is a tool for writers to add 5 female speaking roles to each of their
projects, and Smith projects doing so would lead to gender parity within 4 years. In addition to
this solution, Smith directs writers to “make sure those female characters are from diverse
backgrounds, identify as LGBT, or are performers with disabilities” (Pieper, 2017, para 5). A
Rooney Rule for Hollywood, which is based off the NFL’s Rooney Rule, would require
producers and executives “to interview at least one underrepresented candidate for an open
outside hire…when they create considerations lists…for open directing jobs” (Pieper, 2017, para
8). This allows underrepresented candidates an opportunity to showcase their talent and
diversifies their standard talent pool. Lastly, the implementation of an Inclusion Rider, is a way
for popular talent to leverage their celebrity for change in the industry. Discussed in Smith’s
2016 Ted Talk, the term gained national attention when actor Frances McDormand won her 2017
Oscar for Best Actress and ended her acceptance speech with the words “Inclusion Rider.” Also,
borrowed from the world of sports, an Inclusion Rider for Hollywood is something that talent
can demand to be included in their contract that requires the production to either interview or
hire a certain percentage of people from underrepresented groups to work on a project.
Additionally, The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media presents a “Creator’s Checklist” to
aid in diverse representations in STEM fields. Some questions on the checklist include: “Do I
include an equal number of men and women STEM characters?; Do I prominently feature
women of color in STEM careers?; For women STEM characters, do I actually show them

68
working their profession?” All of these tools and interventions exist to aid content creators in
diversifying the representation of people in entertainment media.
With all this in mind, the recent tools offered to content creators as well as the (gradual)
documented increase in diversity, I was intrigued by what my critical content analysis of Law &
Order: SVU would reveal. This series gives us a 20-year text with which to study representation
– potentially two decades to monitor changes and trends. My hypothesis felt reasonable and
logical; I believed we would not see much diversity in the first half of the series, but diversity
would increase over the last decade with perhaps the most significant increase over the last three
seasons (coinciding with cultural and political movements surrounding representation – because
it is a hashtag now). I also assumed that while the representation would not be very inclusive in
the early years, I expected Law & Order: SVU to be relatively diverse due to its New York City
location and theme. There is precedence for this assumption. In a seminal study of television
casting, Turow’s (1978), interviews with casting directors revealed that credibility and visual
balance were the decisive factors informing casting choices. In terms of visual appearance,
casting directors reference “beautiful people,” “real people,” and “street people” as descriptions
for the types of physical looks they require from the actors they are casting to fit the world of the
show (Turow, 1978). And while “beautiful people,” “real people,” and “street people” do not
specify a specific race/ ethnicity, the concept of credibility for a show filmed and set in
Manhattan should be diverse, if not for inclusion optics, then certainly for realism. To broadly
give an overview of the city’s demographics (census.gov), here are the percentages of people
who inhabited Manhattan in 2000 (the year after the show first aired) and in 2019 (the most
recent data as the 2020 census results are not counted yet):

69
White Black Asian Latina/o/x Biracial
2000 45% 17% 9% 27% 2%
2019 47% 13% 12% 26% 2%
Figure 4. Manhattan Demographics 2000 and 2020 by Race

Thus, I expected results to be reasonably in line with these percentages. Yet, here I bring you
a null hypothesis. After coding 458 episodes of Law & Order: SVU, notating race, gender,
age, sexuality, ability/ disability and occupation of each victim/ survivor, suspect/ perpetrator,
witness, and interviewee, the demographics of the show has stayed largely the same over two
decades and even between and through showrunner changes. Here, I will discuss race and
gender more broadly. Figure 5 displays the cast percentages by gender and race for each
showrunner’s tenure. Because each showrunners’ time with the series varied (Robert Palm 1
season, Neal Baer 11 seasons, Warren Leight 5 seasons, Rick Eid 1 season, and Michael
Chernuchin 2 seasons) and the number of characters per episode and season would vary, the
graph presenting the race and gender demographics were adjusted to account for these
differentials between showrunners as a percentage within each of their season/ seasons.

70

Figure 5. Cast Demographic Percentages by Showrunner
Two notes here: First, these percentages do not account for series regulars or recurring
characters on the series. The detectives, the detectives’ families, tech analysts, medical
examiners, lawyers, judges, background cops, and EMTs are portrayed as series regulars or
recurring characters on the show for continuity. And while their demographics are important
as well, which I will discuss near the end of this chapter, these roles do not compose the
show’s “civilians” as it were. I felt it was important to separate the regular and recurring cast
members from the co-stars and guest-stars: those that portray the witnesses, interviewees,
victims/ survivors/ and suspects/ perpetrators - the characters most likely to show change
between showrunners, as opposed to the recurring and regular characters new showrunners
will inherit with the series. Second, the way I notated race slightly differs from the Manhattan
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Season 1: Robert
Palm
Seasons 2-12: Neal
Baer
Seasons 13-17:
Warren Leight
Season 18: Rick Eid Seasons 19-20:
Michael Chernuchin
Cast Demographic Percentages by Showrunner
White Female White Male Black Female
Black Male Latina Latino
Asian Female Asian Male Middle-Eastern Female
Middle-Eastern Male Biracial Female Biracial Male

71
census in that I created a “Middle-Eastern race
19
” category in congruence with the
entertainment industry’s vocabulary and important demographics within the Law & Order:
SVU narratives. In U.S. media and the real world, Arab and Muslim representation is
complex. Their legal status is White according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which decided “to
omit a separate category for Middle-Eastern communities” (Qutami, 2020, p. 161). However,
in casting breakdowns for roles on television, if the casting director is seeking to cast an Arab
or Muslim character, the breakdown will state “Middle-Eastern” as the specified
demographic. Furthermore, given the complicated and often problematic representations of
Arabs and Muslims in television media following 9/11 (Alsultany, 2013) specifying when
Middle-Eastern characters (as a separate category from White) is important for looking at
Law & Order: SVU representation.
Figure 6 shows what happens if we don’t account for gender and just look at the race
demographics of the series per showrunner next to the Manhattan demographics (arranged by
year to show the shifting demographics of the borough).
White Black Asian Latina/o/x Middle-
Eastern
Biracial
1999-2000
(Season 1)

83% 10% 2% 3% 1% 1%
2000 Census 45% 17% 9% 27% N/A 2%
2000-2011
(Seasons 2-12)

70% 17% 3% 5% 2% 2%
2011-2016
(Seasons 13-17)
65% 21% 3% 8% 2% 2%

19
Hall differentiates between race and ethnicity. For Hall, ethnicity is “constructed historically,
culturally, [and] politically” (p. 446). But ethnicity is different than nationality, as nationality is
tied to the State.

72

2016-2017
(Season 18)

73% 12% 3% 7% 4% 2%
2017-2019
(Seasons 19-20)

76% 14% 2% 6% 2% 2%
2019 Census 47% 13% 12% 26% N/A 2%
Figure 5. Law & Order: SVU Race Demographics by Year(s) of showrunners with Manhattan
Census Demographics

Here, we see that White characters on the show are vastly overrepresented across all 20 seasons.
Black characters begin slightly underrepresented, move toward accurate representation, then are
slightly over-represented, and move back toward relatively accurate representation. Asian and
Latina/o/x characters are significantly under-represented across all 20 seasons. Even with the
Asian population in Manhattan increasing from 9% to 12% over two decades, Law & Order:
SVU’s representation of the Asian
20
community remains between 2-3%. The Middle-Eastern
representation on the series remains steady across the 20 seasons, with a slight uptick during
Rick Eid’s season. Biracial representation remains constant at 2% and is an accurate
representation of Biracial individuals in Manhattan.

20
While the representation of Asian-Americans as Law and Order: SVU civilians is low, their
presence on the show (which is not included in the above data) is most noticeable as recurring
characters occupying STEM occupations who aid in the detectives solving the crimes. Of the
eight recurring Techs, 4 are Asian- American, 2 women and 2 men (Welly Yang as CSU
Technician Georgie 1999-2003, James Chen CSU Tech Adrian Sung 2001-2002, Joel de la
Fuente as TARU Tech Ruben Morales 2002- 2011, and Karen Tsen Lee as DNA Tech Susan
Chung 2004 - 2016). Additionally, 3 are Black men (Daniel Sunjata as CSU Technician Burt
Trevor 2000 – 2004, Jabari Gray as CSU Tech Keegan Timmons 2006-2010, and Cornelius
Jones Jr. as CSU Tech 2007-2012), and only 2 are White (Jordan Gelber as CSU Tech Layton
2001- 2016 and Edelen McWilliams as CSU Tech 2007-2019).

73
These percentages are both surprising and yet could have been expected. As we have
seen from The Hollywood Diversity Report over the years, White people tend to be
overrepresented on television. However, Asian representation on Law & Order: SVU is even
lower than the 2018-2019 season of all broadcast shows which is 6% (Hunt, et. al, 2020).
Latina/o/x is significantly below Manhattan’s Latina/o/x population but is reflective of overall
broadcast television representation which is 5% (Hunt, et. al, 2020).
Regarding gender, women and men tend to fluctuate in terms of their representation
percentages, with Neal Baer’s and Warren Leight’s seasons being most equal (Figure 4). Rick
Eid overrepresented men and Michael Chernuchin overrepresented women. In contrast to the
Hollywood Diversity Report which categorized trans and non-binary characters as “other,” I
categorized trans characters under their trans identity (either male or female). There were no
non-binary characters on the series. In the first season, Law & Order: SVU features several trans
women. However, they are depicted as sex-workers and interviewed by the detectives as
suspects. The language used in the first season is also problematic, with the SVU detectives
demonstrating distain for the community, referring to them as “trannies” and “he-she’s” (more
on this in Chapter 2). As the seasons progress, trans characters are represented as victims /
survivors of crimes and only sometimes portrayed as sex-workers or perpetrators. The SVU team
shows significantly more sensitivity to the trans characters. By the time we get to Season 19,
episode 18, “Service,” the story incorporates a Black, trans man in the military who is not the
victim or perpetrator. Played by trans actor Marquise Vilson, the character helps the prosecution
convict the perpetrator. Briefly tracing the trajectory of the way trans characters portrayed over
the years is a useful segue into my next section on context. If we were strictly accounting for
characters quantitatively, we might see a higher percentage of trans representation in the early

74
2000’s compared to other shows at the time. However, the qualitative aspect to this study is
critical in terms of how these characters are represented. So, while the above figures illustrate
gender and race representation, we also want to account for the way race and gender is being
depicted and discussed.

Context for Representation
In “New Ethnicities” Hall discusses the shift into “a politics of representation” in where
he explains that representation is more than just inclusion. Representation is and should be as
complex as its subjects. Thus, numbers can only account for a portion of the representation
narrative. Furthermore, Herman Grey (2013) poses the following:
what a demand for media visibility by subordinate and marginalized communities can
deliver in terms of social justice when the legal capacities, cultural assumptions, and
social circumstances that produced the necessity for this recognition in the first place
have changed. (p. 772).
Even though I am employing a qualitative analysis that examines the context and content of
representation, I acknowledge that representation in itself is not necessarily the answer. The
purpose of the studying the inclusion of underrepresented identities in media and the ways in
which these categories of difference (gender, race, sexuality, and disability as individual groups
and as intersecting categories) are portrayed matters for actor employment and autonomy. I
explore this in more detail below in the section on “casting” in this chapter. I want to clarify
from the beginning that counting demographic categories by role type is meant to determine how
and if the showrunners represented these identities as particular characters in Law & Order:

75
SVU. This method is used to detail how showrunners, writers, and casting directors participate in
on screen presentation and actor employment over a two-decade period.
I coded the race and gender demographics for the victims, interviewees, suspects, and
perpetrators. I defined the victims/ perpetrators as characters that were the recipient of the crime.
Often on Law & Order: SVU, which is consistent throughout showrunner transitions, the victim/
survivor becomes the perpetrator as an act of revenge or trauma response (a distinction the
lawyers argue during trial) and the perpetrators will become the victims. For these instances, the
characters were counted twice, one in each category. However, if a character started as an
interviewee and then became a victim, I would remove them from the interviewee category and
only code them in the victim / survivor category. I defined interviewees as anyone to which the
detectives directed detail questions. This would include bystander witnesses, doctors, nurses,
family or friends of the victim/ survivor. However, any time the questions asked of these
characters moved beyond facts of the case and into suspicion, I would move the character to the
suspect category. These characters were not coded twice. I defined suspects as anyone the
detectives interrogated, even if it was a routine alibi check. At the slightest hint the character was
on the radar for the detectives, the character was coded as a suspect. Then, when it was made
clear if the suspect did in fact commit the crime, I would add them to the perp (short for
perpetrator) category. This way I could see the demographics of characters under suspicion as
suspects and then account for how many of these characters actually committed the crime. As
Law & Order: SVU is a crime drama and a not a mystery drama (sneaky genres again!) there is
never a question in the plot as to who committed the crime. Sometimes the viewers know who
committed the crime from the beginning and sometimes it is a surprise as we follow the

76
detective’s journey to solve the case with them. However, in each episode, even if the ADA
cannot get a conviction, we know who the perpetrator is with certainty.
Below are the race and gender demographic percentages by showrunner for the victims/
survivors.

Figure 7. Season 1: Race and Gender demographics for Robert Palm’s Victims / Survivors
Season 1: Robert Palm
Victims / Survivors
White Female: 61% White Male: 24%
Black Female: 2% Black Male: 2%
Latina: 4% Latino: 2%
Asian Female: 4% Asian Male: 0%
Middle Eastern Female: 0% Middle Eastern Male: 0%

77

Figure 8. Seasons 2-12: Race and Gender demographics for Neal Baer’s Victims /
Survivors

Figure 9. Seasons 13-17: Race and Gender demographics for Warren Leight’s Victims /
Survivors
Seasons 2-12: Neal Baer
Victims / Survivors
White Female: 41% White Male: 24%
Black Female: 7% Black Male: 4%
Latina: 3% Latino: 4%
Asian Female: 2% Asian Male: 0.4%
Middle Eastern Female: 0.9% Middle Eastern Male: 0.4%
Biracial Female: 0.3% Biracial Male: 0.1%
Seasons 13-17: Warren Leight
Victims / Survivors
White Female: 50% White Male: 14%
Black Female: 12% Black Male: 7%
Latina: 5% Latino: 3%
Asian Female: 2% Asian Male: 1%
Middle Eastern Female: 2% Middle Eastern Male: 1%
Biracial Female: 1% Biracial Male: 0.25%

78

Figure 10. Season 18: Race and Gender demographics for Rick Eid’s Victims / Survivors

Figure 11. Seasons 19-20: Race and Gender demographics for Michael Chernuchin’s Victims
/ Survivors

Season 18: Rick Eid
Victims / Survivors
White Female: 59% White Male: 17%
Black Female: 4% Black Male: 2%
Latina: 9% Latino: 0%
Asian Female: 0% Asian Male: 0%
Middle Eastern Female: 7% Middle Eastern Male: 2%
Seasons 19-20: Michael Chernuchin
Victims / Survivors
White Female: 56% White Male: 12%
Black Female: 7% Black Male: 8%
Latina: 5% Latino: 2%
Asian Female: 1% Asian Male: 0%
Middle Eastern Female: 2% Middle Eastern Male: 1%

79
These charts demonstrate that the majority of the victims / survivors throughout the series are
White and female, with specifically White women making up over 50% of the victims during
every showrunner’s tenure except for Neal Baer’s where White women comprised 41% of the
victims. These numbers are important because while, on the one hand, women are being
represented on television, they are being represented as victims / survivors of heinous crimes.
Their significant representation here is not for gender equality, but to depict gendered violence.
This next section will outline the race and gender counts of suspects and the subsequent
perps.

Figure 12. Season 1: Race and Gender demographics for Robert Palm’s Suspects and Perps

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
White Female
White Male
Black Female
Black Male
Latina
Latino
Asian Female
Asian Male
Middle-Eastern Female
Middle-Eastern Male
Biracial Female
Biracial Male
Season 1: Robert Palm
Perp Suspect

80

Figure 13. Seasons 2- 12: Race and Gender demographics for Neal Baer’s Suspects and Perps

Figure 14. Seasons 13-17: Race and Gender demographics for Warren Leight’s Suspects and
Perps

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
White Female
White Male
Black Female
Black Male
Latina
Latino
Asian Female
Asian Male
Middle-Eastern Female
Middle-Eastern Male
Biracial Female
Biracial Male
Seasons 2-12: Neal Baer
Perp Suspect
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
White Female
White Male
Black Female
Black Male
Latina
Latino
Asian Female
Asian Male
Middle-Eastern Female
Middle-Eastern Male
Biracial Female
Biracial Male
Seasons 13-17: Warren Leight
Perp Suspect

81

Figure 15. Season 18: Race and Gender demographics for Rick Eid’s Suspects and Perps

Figure 16. Seasons 19 -20: Race and Gender demographics for Michael Chernuchin’s
Suspects and Perps

Across all the showrunners, White men are by far the most frequent suspects, followed by White
women. This finding is interesting as it follows other trends where White people are
overrepresented on television, but also challenges problematic stereotypes about people of color
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
White Female
White Male
Black Female
Black Male
Latina
Latino
Asian Female
Asian Male
Middle-Eastern Female
Middle-Eastern Male
Biracial Female
Biracial Male
Season 18: Rick Eid
Perp Suspect
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
White Female
White Male
Black Female
Black Male
Latina
Latino
Asian Female
Asian Male
Middle-Eastern Female
Middle-Eastern Male
Biracial Female
Biracial Male
Seasons 19-20: Michael Chernuchin
Perp Suspect

82
and crime. As Cuklanz & Moorti (2011) state of the show, “the storylines…work to demystify
the black male rapist myth…rarely are people of color depicted as assailants” (p. 315). Another
interesting finding is that across showrunners, when White men are suspected of a crime, they
are roughly only the perp half of the time. For all the other categories, there is a strong
correlation between being a suspect who is then also the perp. Gillian Harkins’ (2020) book,
Virtual Pedophilia: Sex Offender Profiling and U.S. Security Culture, digs into how society
understands and constructs the pedophile from their engagement with entertainment media’s
depictions of such perpetrators. In her chapter, “Informational Image and Procedural Tone”
Harkins (2020) uses Law & Order: SVU to demonstrate “how diverse U.S. audiences have been
conscripted and trained to be lay detectives who should always be on the lookout for the
pedophile as a virtual predator” (p. 2). Harkins (2020) argues that audiences are learning to
recognize or find pedophiles, specifically White men, through visual and psychological profiling
taught through televisual narratives. This is partially supported through the data I gathered, as we
can see that White men are consistently the perp far more than any other demographic. However,
what Harkin’s (2020) does not account for is that White men are also wrongly suspected more
than any other demographic. It is comparable to Meryl Streep and the Oscars. She is one of the
top winners, with three Oscar wins and 21 nominations, but this also means she has lost 18 times,
more than anyone else who has been in contention. Therefore, White men are also wrongly
accused at a higher rate than any other demographic.
This next section presents the graphs that represent the race and gender percentage
demographics of interviewees and witnesses by showrunner.

83

Figure 17. Season 1: Race and Gender Demographics for Robert Palms’s Interviewees

Figure 18. Seasons 2-12: Race and Gender Demographics for Neal Baer’s Interviewees

Season 1: Robert Palm
Interviewees
White Female: 39% White Male: 40%
Black Female: 8% Black Male: 8%
Latina: 1% Latino: 0.5%
Asian Female: 0.5% Asian Male: 1%
Middle Eastern Female: 0.5% Middle Eastern Male: 1%
Biracial Female: 0.5% Biracial Male: 0.5%
Seasons 2-12: Neal Baer
Interviewees
White Female: 32% White Male: 41%
Black Female: 10% Black Male: 7%
Latina: 1% Latino: 3%
Asian Female: 2% Asian Male: 1%
Middle Eastern Female: 0.5% Middle Eastern Male: 1%
Biracial Female: 0.25% Biracial Male: 0.25%

84

Figure 19. Seasons 13- 17: Race and Gender Demographics for Warren Leight’s Interviewees

Figure 20. Season 18: Race and Gender Demographics for Rick Eid’s Interviewees
Seasons 13-17: Warren Leight
Interviewees
White Female: 32% White Male: 31%
Black Female: 10% Black Male: 12%
Latina: 4% Latino: 4%
Asian Female: 2% Asian Male: 1%
Middle Eastern Female: 1.5% Middle Eastern Male : 1%
Biracial Female: 0.5% Biracial Male: 0.5%
Season 18: Rick Eid
Interviewees
White Female: 28% White Male: 44%
Black Female: 6% Black Male: 11%
Latina: 2% Latino: 1%
Asian Female: 2% Asian Male: 2%
Middle Eastern Female: 0% Middle Eastern Male: 1%
Biracial Female: 2% Biracial Male: 0%

85

Figure 21. Seasons 19-20: Race and Gender Demographics for Michael Chernuchin’s
Interviewees

The race and gender demographics for the interviewees follow much of the same pattern for
representation as the overall cast demographics. It is also not surprising that the interviewees are
predominantly White because the victims/ survivors and the suspects / perpetrators are
predominantly White. On the series the detectives interview the families of victims / survivors
and the suspects / perpetrators to help solve the case. Therefore, when the majority of the victims
/ survivors and suspects / perpetrators are mostly White, their parents, siblings and children
would be mostly White as well. This is why demographics in casting are important, because the
race of one character is likely to dictate the race of other characters in the narrative.

Seasons 19-20: Michael Chernuchin
Interviewees
White Female: 39% White Male: 31%
Black Female: 13% Black Male: 8%
Latina: 2% Latino: 1%
Asian Female: 1% Asian Male: 1%
Middle Eastern Female: 1% Middle Eastern Male: 1%
Biracial Female: 2% Biracial Male: 2%

86
Casting
The pervasive lack of diversity on Law and Order: SVU should be examined beyond
simply identifying the pattern. Actors are cast in roles through a complex process involving
varying degrees of input. This is where cyclical agency is useful, as the showrunner has
influence at the site of “encoding” in the production process for television episodes. The
showrunner creates the story and works with their teams of writers to create the episode. Once
the characters in the script have been roughly
21
finalized, the script is sent to Breakdown
Services Ltd for Casting Breakdowns to be written. The Casting Breakdowns are a brief piece of
text that describe the physical and personality traits of the character (this often includes age, race,
gender, occupation, and main plot points). I have written about the Casting Breakdowns in
previous work. Here is a brief excerpt on the process:
Once the Breakdown is written, the casting department makes any needed adjustments
to the Breakdown text, potentially adding their own interpretation, and then posts it on
Breakdown Services for agents’ and managers’ online access. Subsequently, talent
representatives digitally submit their clients, who fit the character Breakdowns, for
consideration through the Breakdown Services’ portal called Breakdown Express.
Casting personnel review these submissions on Breakdown Express via a thumbnail-sized
photo of the actors’ headshot, a link to their reel, and a possible pitch line from the agent/
manager. When the casting directors determine their top actor choices, they notify the
talent representatives and schedule auditions. Lastly, the actor receives their appointment
time and the “sides” (a brief portion of the script for the audition). (Sowa, 2021, p. 3360).

21
My interviews with members of production explain that television scripts are constantly being
rewritten. Even once filming has begun scenes can be changed and characters can be cut.

87
After the initial audition, the casting director will make their top choices regarding which actors
to call back for a “producers’ session.” At the producers’ session, the actor will audition again
for the show’s producers (which of course includes the showrunner), studio executives (who
have full autonomy over series regulars and recurring characters), and possibly some writers and
the director (although the episode director is not always a part of the producers’ session and has
little input on casting choices, unlike with film). There are many perspectives in the mix during
the casting process with a hierarchy of gatekeepers from agents and managers to the producers
and showrunner. Furthermore, how the demographics of the character are written in the character
breakdown are of paramount importance (Sowa, 2021). Sometimes the episode writers will
specifically articulate the gender and race of the character that is to be cast. This is a place where
the showrunner and the other writers can control representational demographics. However,
sometimes race is not written into the script or Character Breakdown. This is expressed in the
Breakdown by stating “open ethnicity” or by simply ignoring any mention of race (Sowa, 2021).
In these instances, the agents and managers have the agency to submit any of their clients for the
role without taking race/ ethnicity into account, and the casting director wields full agency in
terms of who they decide to audition and call-back. Finally, the showrunner has the ultimate
choice in who to cast, and therefore (given the options provided by the casting director) can
make choices that directly impact representation numbers and context.
My interviews revealed that with Law & Order: SVU there tends to be some tension
between the financial side of the business (which the NBC executives and Dick Wolf give their
focus) and the creative side of the art (which stems from the showrunner, writers, and director).
Although Newman and Levine (2012) argue the showrunner must bridge these two gaps, my
research revealed that the showrunners put more weight on the art. In his “The paradoxical

88
politics of media representation” article, Gross (2001) underpins an economic bottom line as the
reasons behind most industry casting decisions. Two decades ago, the entertainment industry and
the advertisers who pulled the strings held the belief, “that the audience wants to see its own face
reflected on the screen, and the audience that matters most is overwhelmingly white, and not
coincidentally, middle class and heterosexual, as well” (Gross, 2001, p. 115). However, as I
stated in the beginning of this section on representation, our cultural discourse surrounding who
is depicted on television is drastically changing. Therefore, it is imperative for the gatekeepers in
the entertainment industry to alter their perspective. This is not necessarily done for reasons of
social justice with pure intent, but because it is what audiences are calling to see, and the
audience is their source of capital. It is my assessment that the recent increase in diverse casting
that we are witnessing from other series (not Law & Order: SVU) is coming from platforms with
business models that are more conducive to risks
22
with their content. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon
Prime, HBO Max, etc. do not need to hold an audience during a timeslot for advertisers. Because
of their extensive content and subscription model, there is more room to diversify content. Data
from the 2019 Hollywood Diversity Report demonstrates that in 2011, cable and digital scripted
shows were significantly more diverse than broadcast scripted shows. Over the last 9 years, cable
and digital scripted shows continued to increase cast diversity at a small but steady rate, where
broadcast scripted shows have significantly increased the diversity of their casts (Hunt, et. al,
2019). It appears that once broadcast networks recognized the audiences’ positive response to
increased diversity on cable and digital platforms, it was economically advantageous, with less
risk, for broadcast to follow suit. Except, oddly enough, NBC’s Law & Order: SVU did not.

22
I address Neal Baer’s discussion of how this transpires through narratives in Chapter 2.
However, he does discuss this in terms of casting diversity.

89
Aside from reaching percentage representational parity of Black men and women on the series,
Law & Order: SVU does not excel in representing other non-white communities.
It is interesting how issues of diversity seem to elude the showrunners of Law & Order:
SVU. Most notably, what I discovered through my interviews (as well as interviews they gave to
the press) is that the showrunners truly believe they are being diverse and inclusive. For them,
having a few, key recurring characters, or an episode focused on a community of color every
season or so feels significant to them. They are exerting agency and believe they are positively
contributing to inclusion.
When I asked Neal Baer about how he felt about the diversity on the series, he responded
with enthusiasm and pride stating:
I brought on the first native American cop, Adam Beach [as] Chester
23
and he had a
backstory! I brought on BD Wong
24
and Tamara Tunie
25
… Ice-T
26
had just come on
[before I joined] and I brought on Ice-T’s son
27
and made him gay. We didn’t say BD
was gay until Season 10. It was obvious but we didn’t say it until it came up in a
story…We had African American writers, queer writers, and directors. We tried to bring
on a lot of women. Michelle Maclaren ended up doing Breaking Bad.
This quote is a strong example of how content creators might feel like they are inclusive but are
actually cherry-picking one-off examples. In general, this is why looking at the entire context
and content of a television series is valuable. Who plays what types of roles and how often are an

23
He appeared in 21 episodes between 2007 – 2008.
24
BD Wong played the recurring FBI forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Haung.
25
Tamara Tunie played series regular, Dr. Melinda Warner the medical examiner, for 15 seasons
(2000- 2015), and then returned as a recurring character for 5 episodes between 2018- 2021.
26
Ice-T has been a series regular as Detective Fin Tutuola since the final episode of Season 1.
27
Ernest Waddell has recurred as Ken Randall for 12 episodes between 2003-2021.

90
important aspect to representation and discourses surrounding casting. Therefore, we must
account for representation critically and systematically to truly understand the broad picture.

Overall Context Matters
Speaking of accounting for the broader picture in representation, I submit that this
sentiment remains true from a research perspective on television in general. Often, one-off
examples from a series are used to make claims about the entire piece. I find it interesting how
this pattern works in both directions, from the content producers (who name examples of
inclusion) to those critiquing the content (research that highlights specific examples to make
broader claims). As an example, Cuklanz & Moorti’s (2007) article on select episodes from the
first decade of Law and Order: SVU praises the show for engaging with the topic of sexual
violence against women “within the tradition of the historically masculine detective genre” (p.
302). However, they critique the show’s “depiction of women criminals and feminine qualities”
(p. 302). In particular, they argue the following:
The vilification of feminine qualities and the association of women with horrific
crimes within the family counterbalances the feminist perspective presented in many
episode narratives in relation to rape and rape reform. We contend that the cumulative
effect of the anti-feminine traits makes the series appear more misogynist rather than
feminist. (p. 320).
This is to say that Cuklanz & Moorti (2007) find the show posing as feminist, by way of
centering feminist issues, but ultimately has a misogynistic slant, relying on “denigrating”
feminine qualities” (p. 315). They point to a recurring theme where depictions of a dysfunctional
family are portrayed as the cause for the perpetrator’s criminality. Cuklanz & Moorti (2007)

91
critique how this framing places more blame on the individual rather than accounting for outside,
societal factors. Additionally, they contend the narratives place blame on bad mothering over bad
fathering for the criminal activity of both adults and juveniles. In particular, Cuklanz & Moorti
(2007) identify the “monstrous maternal” as a frequently recurring archetype, which highlights
how “women perpetrators on SVU frequently fall back on exaggerated forms of gender myths to
legitimate their crimes” (p. 315). While this assessment and critique has strong validity
particularly from a feminist lens, I believe their interpretation is missing some vital context from
the production angle – namely the context for why these choices serve an artistic purpose that
can also be viewed through a feminist lens. Furthermore, I would like to push back on their
selection of episodes that were parsed out for this analysis. While these individual episodes
certainly carry weight and cultural impact, I have and will continue to stress the importance to
look at the context and theme of the series as a whole.
As part of my research, I notated the percentage of crime types committed throughout the
seasons (by showrunner) – depicted in Figure 21. The most interesting finding is that the number
of episodes that center on rape continue to increase with each showrunner. Homicide continues
to drop through each showrunner shift until Michael Chernuchin, and then its depiction increases
slightly, but not as high as under Neal Baer. The other common crimes depicted on the show are:
(rape/homicide, sexual assault, domestic abuse, statutory rape, pedophilia, child pornography,
child neglect/ endangerment, kidnapping, sex trafficking, and other
28
).

28
The “other” category includes unusual, one-off crimes that appear once every several seasons
such as necrophilia, organ stealing, hostage-taking, etc.

92

Figure 22. Crime Type Percentage by Showrunner

Tying this chapter together, this chart demonstrates how even in the structures of a show
centered on sex-crimes within the crime drama genre, the showrunners have agency over the
quantity and type of crimes depicted, it shows why it is critical to look at an entire text – the
whole series. We can see from this chart the significant role rape plays in the series. And while
there are a small handful of episodes that do acknowledge female predators and women who rape
men, Figures 11-15 evidence that men are far more often portrayed as the perpetrators on the
series. To push back against the Cuklanz & Moorti’s (2007) article, which argues that the
frequently used “monstrous maternal” trope of the “women perpetrators on SVU frequently
[falling] back on exaggerated forms of gender myths to legitimate their crimes” is problematic, I
question how often this is truly a concerning narrative when taken into the context of the whole
piece (p. 315). By the publication date for Cuklanz & Moorti’s (2007) article, Law and Order:
SVU was in its 9
th
season. Their article mentions five episodes (across two showrunners) as
examples of this type of narrative. Based on my critical content analysis of the show, these five
0
10
20
30
40
50
Season 1: Robert
Palm
Seasons 2-12: Neal
Baer
Seasons 13-17:
Warren Leight
Season 18: Rick Eid Seasons 19-20:
Michael Chernuchin
Rape Homicide
Rape/ Homicide Sexual Assault
Domestic Abuse Statutory Rape
Pedophylia Child Pornagraphy
Child Neglect/ Endagerment Kidnap

93
are the only episodes, out of 207 where the “monstrous maternal” appears. Over 200 episodes
center on the gendered violence of men against women and children.
I am stressing the necessity to take the entire context of a piece into consideration, which
is what the following chapters will continue to explore. As I further examine the showrunners’
agency in the subsequent chapters, we will see how their role in informing the television texts we
study is powerful, and we can hold the showrunner up as a locus for intervention when
addressing qualitative and quantitative changes in television representations.

94
Chapter 2
“DNA is like God. It’s everywhere”- Season 3, episode 6 “Redemption”

SVU’s Premiere Season with Robert Palm
It is not much of a secret that the first season of Law & Order: SVU had a rather rocky
start. Uncoincidentally, the show quickly moved through three showrunners in the first year and
a quarter, further emphasizing the showrunner’s influence and responsibility regarding the
show’s content and success. Robert Palm was the showrunner for Season 1 and David Burke was
showrunner for a handful
29
of episodes for Season 2 before Neal Baer entered the scene and
guided the show to success through the next 11 years. However, leading up to Neal Baer’s
distinctive voice as the series’ longest, consecutively reigning showrunner, Law & Order: SVU’s
premiere season with Robert Palm lacked direction.
The interviews with the production and cast in the Green & Dawn (2009) book reveal
that the series was not living up to the expectations set forth by the original Law & Order sereis.
Dick Wolf intended for Law & Order: SVU to have a slightly different angle through focusing
more on the personal lives of the detectives. In the Mothership, the personal lives of the victims
and perpetrators were portrayed, and the detectives’ and lawyers’ lives were largely left out of it.
However, because the content of Law & Order: SVU was darker, Dick Wolf wanted to explore
how these crimes affected the detectives (and as it turns out, the darker crimes affected the
showrunner, Robert Palm).

29
David Burke’s involvement on the series was so minimal that he was not included in the
critical content analysis in the previous chapter. Especially because when Neal Baer joined the
production, he had to rework some of the episodes David Burke already had in the pipeline. For
this reason, David Burke’s involvement is minimally absorbed into Neal Baer’s tenure for data
purposes.

95
As the show’s creator, Dick Wolf developed the central theme, primary characters, and
pilot. He created Olivia Benson to be the detective who, as a product of her mother’s rape, has a
personal sense of justice for doing this work. Detective Elliot Stabler has a young family and
feels the need to protect them from the evil he encounters on the job (Green & Dawn, 2009).
However, aside from these larger brush strokes and penning the pilot, as a creator who is not the
showrunner, Dick Wolf relinquished controlling the specific trajectory of the episodes and
character development to the showrunner, Robert Palm.
The premiere season of Law & Order: SVU, when viewed in conjunction with subsequent
seasons, feels like watching an alternate reality of the show. The characters names and faces look
familiar, the setting is the same, but the tone is slightly disquieting. This unsettling feeling has
less do to with crimes depicted and more to do with how the SVU squad behaves. Aside from
Benson (and mostly Stabler) the squad seemingly lacks empathy and tact. As I mentioned in the
previous chapter, verbiage surrounding the trans community is not indicative of a squad created
specifically to help find legal justice for vulnerable communities. The squad calls trans
interviewees “he-shes,” and Detective Monique Jeffries references a “he-she turf war” (Season 1,
episode 4, “Hysteria”). Even Benson uses the term “disco-queen” (Season 1, episode 1,
“Payback”). Captain of the squad, Cragen says “the girls aren’t really girls, but boys being girls”
(Season 1, episode 4, “Hysteria”). The squad refers to sex workers as “hookers” and Detective
Munch straight up calls a sex worker victim/ survivor a “whore” (Season 1, episode 4,
“Hysteria”). Detective Munch’s character is almost unrecognizable in the first season, as he is
skeptical of believing the victims/ survivors, and most of his interactions and banter with his

96
partner, Jeffries, would qualify as sexual harassment
30
. Additionally, the squad’s racial
insensitivity is incredibly problematic. Detective Cassidy mocks a Black suspect by speaking in
an affected and stereotypical ghetto dialect to him and then is taken by surprise when the suspect
goes on to speak intelligently about French literature (Season 1, episode 6 “Sophomore Jinx”).
Jeffries, who is played by Black actor, Michelle Hurd, says to a Black suspect, “broke the
boredom of sitting on a porch, eating watermelon and having babies you mean?” (Season 1,
episode 9 “Stock and Bondage”). These are just a few of the myriad of examples that are
incongruent with not only what the show would become, but with the intended goal of the
Special Victim’s Unit. This ironically contextualizes Mariska Hargitay’s tweet from the
introduction: “I’m profoundly proud of how far we've come” (@therealmariskahargitay, 2019).
As evidenced by the inaugural season’s content compared to the following seasons explored in
these subsequent chapters Law & Order: SVU came a long way. Broadly, episodes from Season
1 focus on perceived sexual deviance from the gay community or Eastern Europeans. General
cultural themes over the season centered on the Russian mob, mentions of the Yugoslavian War,
Monica and Clinton, Giuliani as mayor, and anxieties over the internet, email, and chatrooms of
the Y2K era.
The series lacked direction and a voice, and the executive producers, Dick Wolf, and
NBC knew it. Dawn DeNoon
31
, veteran Law & Order: SVU writer and eventual producer
describes the environment:
I remember Dick Wolf reminding us how high the bar was, and if any scripts weren’t

30
Although toward the end of the season this aspect of his character is clearly recalled, and the
final few episodes depict an entirely different Munch – one who is invested in befriending and
supporting the victims/ survivors
31
Fun fact: Season 2 episode 6 “Noncompliance” defense attorney was named Dawn DeNoon as
a nod to the writer/ producer. The character was played by Michelle Daimer.

97
as good as a Law & Order [the mothership], you were fired…He pulled no punches
and we left the room shaking. And they pretty much fired every single person by the
end of the first season (Green & Dawn, 2009, p. 13).
Robert Palm exited after this first season stating, “the subject matter was really getting to me.
You dream of that shit. You wake up in the middle of the night. I didn’t want that in my head
anymore” (Green & Dawn, 2009, p. 13).
Ted Kotcheff, co-executive producer for the first season and executive producer from
seasons 2-12 explains, “we lost Robert Palm, our chief writer. He quit. David Burke- that just
wasn’t working for us. We had no writers” (Green & Dawn, 2009, p. 15). As evidenced by the
series’ rough beginnings, and some of the vague language used in the Green & Dawn (2009)
book to avoid mention of David Burke, the showrunner was the primary issue. The actors were
strong, the brand was strong, but the writers lacked guidance. Dick Wolf’s creation and the NBC
network were not enough to sustain the series without a strong showrunner with clear
perspective. The showrunner’s influence on a series is significant enough that it could derail the
entire production, even if all the other pieces are in place. At this moment, the first big shift for
occurred for Law & Order: SVU as Neal Baer as the third (it’s the charm!) showrunner led the
series for the next full decade of success.

Neal Baer, M.D.
As a writer, producer, and showrunner, Neal Baer bridges two seemingly disparate fields
– the arts and the sciences. Prior to attending medical school, he was a TV writer and producer.
Baer wrote and directed an episode about sexually transmitted infections titled “Private Affairs”
(1989) for an ABC Afterschool Special, and he wrote the episode “Warriors” (1990) for ABC’s

98
China Beach
32
. As a result of this experience, he entered Harvard’s graduate school to learn
documentary filmmaking. Then, in a complete change of path, Neal Baer went to Harvard’s
graduate school again, but this time to study medicine. While in his fourth year as a pediatric
resident, Baer read a script for ER that Michael Crichton had written back in 1969 when he was a
medical student at Harvard. Neal Baer says of the script:
It was outdated but it really captured what it was like to be a medical student, resident,
attending, from the doctor’s perspective, rather than from the patient’s perspective. I
worked on it for what was supposed to be two months and stayed for eight years.
Neal Baer rose through the ranks from ER staff writer to ER showrunner and executive producer.
Neal Baer had worked previously with Mariska Hargitay; she had a recurring role as Cynthia
Hooper, Mark Greene’s (Anthony Edwards) girlfriend. Thus, he found it rather serendipitous
when he learned that Law & Order: SVU was looking for a new showrunner for their already
airing second season, which was starring Mariska Hargitay.
Neal Baer recalls that he had his meeting with Dick Wolf on an October, Friday the 13
th

2000, which he fondly remembers as a “lucky Friday the thirteenth.” He explains:
Dick Wolf told me that they needed a script by Monday and that they were way behind.
He said, ‘we’ll see if you sink or swim.’ I guess I swam because I was there for 11 years.
280 episodes.
Neal Baer had one stipulation before joining as the new showrunner for Law & Order: SVU; he
wanted to change the role of a Dick Wolf showrunner. This moment demonstrates his agency
within an established production structure. In the structure of a tried-and-true system under Dick

32
John Wells, who preceded Neal Baer as showrunner of ER discussed in the Introduction, was
also an executive produce on China Beach.

99
Wolf, the Neal Baer as showrunner disrupted the traditional process and extended his
showrunner agency. Neal Baer explains that typically writers are not a part of the editing on Dick
Wolf shows as Dick Wolf ran a very departmentalized approach: “the writers write, the
producers produce, the editors edit.” But having spent the last eight years at ER, where Neal Bear
was involved in every aspect of the production, from conceptualizing the episode to
postproduction and playback, he felt it was important to be just as involved on Law & Order:
SVU. He states that, “as a showrunner, you learn a lot from the editing process, and the writers
do as well.” It was important for him, as the head writer who would be creating the Law &
Order: SVU storylines, to absorb as much from the show as possible. To be present during the
editing would serve Neal Baer in his storytelling. Therefore, Neal Baer made a deal with Dick
Wolf that he and the writers would be allowed in the editing room. Since the production was in
urgent need of a new showrunner, Baer felt he had the leverage to make this a deal-breaking
condition for him; Dick Wolf conceded. This set a precedent for future showrunners on Law &
Order: SVU and dictated the path that would allow the showrunner’s role greater power and
significance. Now, from conception through editing, Neal Baer as showrunner extended the
breadth of cyclical agency with the other show contributors.

Neal Baer’s Public Forum
This degree of agency from the showrunner is significant and is reflected in Neal Baer’s
unique influence on Law & Order: SVU. The personality and individual impact from the
showrunner “is often manifested through the identification of autobiographical elements in
television storytelling. It helps us understand television authors’ creative functions when we
learn that their own lives become fodder for storytelling” (Newman & Levine, 2012, p. 49). Neal

100
Baer’s background in medicine was critical in his approach and intention for the show. This
perspective was a direct choice from the beginning of his tenure (which ultimately set the tone
for subsequent showrunners to follow over the next two decades). Neal Baer actively insisted on
taking a culturally relevant, social justice stance with the series. He contends:
The ER storylines were driven by my own interest as a pediatrician. SVU’s episodes
about access to abortion
33
or gun control,
34
the vaccination
35
episode, they are all
motivated by my personal experiences as a pediatrician and social issues. Dick Wolf
will say the show is not political, but that is completely not true. It was the most
political show at its time. It was the first show that really gave voice to the victims.
Television shows have traditionally functioned as a public forum for debate and discourse. For
Williams, (1975) “television especially, has markedly broadened the forms of public argument
and discussion” (p. 45). Newcomb & Hirsh contend that, “almost any version of the television
text functions as a forum in which important cultural topics may be considered” (Newcomb &
Hirsch, 2000, p. 565). Whether a show is scripted, nonfiction, or fiction, television theorists have
debated the functionality of television as a site of struggle between imposed, hegemonic
ideologies (Gitlin, 2000) and a public forum for unpacking and reconciling controversial topics
(Hendershot, 2013). However, this is not to say crime dramas or Law and Order: SVU are
written as a means to control or to give a definitive perspective. As Newcomb and Hirsch (2000)
suggest, “in popular culture generally, in television specifically, the raising of questions is as
important as the answering of them” (p. 565). Furthermore, “television does not present
ideological conclusions… it comments on ideological problems” (Newcomb & Hirsh, 2000, p.

33
Season 7, episode 9 “Rockabye”
34
Season 7, episode 12 “Infected”
35
Season 10, episode 19 “Selfish”

101
566). Neal Baer’s influence and personal feelings on his Law and Order: SVU’s content supports
these views of television’s function as a public forum, but also furthers it by situating the
showrunner as a critical thinker and social critic. As my interview with Neal Baer demonstrates,
his critical thinking as a physician, with an acute sense for noteworthy narratives, drove his voice
through Law & Order: SVU. His views on society and culture are evidenced by how his seasons
unfold and the specific plotlines that he emphasizes.
Neal Baer identifies Season 4, episode 14, “Mercy” as a prime example of his public
forum approach. In this episode, the detectives’ discovery of a dead baby in a cooler lead them to
find that the child wasn’t abused or unwanted, but the infanticide was carried out by her
devastated mother because the baby suffered from Tay-Sachs disease
36
. The parents did not want
their baby to suffer and endure pain that could never be cured, so they worked with a doctor to
euthanize her. As this is still against the law, the ADA moved to prosecute the mother. Every
detective working on the case had their own thoughts on the situation which built tension
amongst the squad. Neal Baer states:
There is always the moral, ethical issue and it’s viewed through the four
perspectives of Benson, Stabler, Fin, and Munch. And they all have different
perspectives because they come from different places. Some issues play in
different ways depending on your background, which is why Dick [Wolf] says
[Mercy] is his favorite episode.
Neal Baer had a penchant for presenting unique issues that challenged divisions between the
legal system and ethics. He highlights several episodes that exemplify this strategy. Season 6,

36
Dr. Haung: “Tay-Sachs is common in certain ethnic groups, particularly the Jewish
community." Detective Munch: "Same old story, when all else fails, round up the Jews." Dr.
Haung: "It is also common among French Canadians and Cajun’s"

102
episode 6, “Conscience” stars Kyle MacLachlan as Dr. Brett Morton, a psychiatrist whose 5-
year-old son is killed by a 12-year-old neighbor. As a psychiatrist, he recognizes the
neighborhood kid is a burgeoning psychopath and shoots him in the courthouse because he is
convinced there is not a cure for him, and he is certain he will kill again. Dr. Morton’s defense is
that he was saving future victims from this boy’s pathology. Neal Baer says this episode poses
the question: “what do you do with kid as a psychopath?” Certainly, the answer isn’t murder –
but the episode brings up a discussion about Dr. Brett Morton’s motives. Was he avenging his
son or trying to save others in a warped way? Having his character also be a psychiatrist adds
another layer to his perspective. Such elements of the episode were deliberately placed by Neal
Baer with the intention to highlight the nuances of this debate.
Neal Baer’s opinion on how he embraced diversity does not center on character
representation (as discussed in the previous chapter), but on diversity of thought. Neal Baer
states, “it was always about the issues, it was always a way into these ethical issues and trying to
be as diverse because the world is diverse,” referencing Season 11, episode 3 “Solitary” as an
example. This episode poses the question about solitary confinement in prisons; is it a form of
protection or torture? Through the episode, the audience sees Detective Stabler change his mind
on the topic after deciding to experience solitary confinement himself. Stabler believed he was
locked-up for a full week and not just a weekend. Neal Baer wrote Stabler’s experience to
demonstrate these differing perspectives and arguments for the audience.

SVU and a Medical Perspective
Neal Baer states he was always reading medical journals in search of unusual topics to
address on the show. He would then bring these ideas into the writers’ room for them all to work

103
through. Exemplifying the cyclical agency, Neal Baer would present ideas to the writers, who
would then brainstorm and create a plotline with the given scenario. Then, Neal Baer would
finalize their ideas into the produced script. Neal Baer explains:
As a physician I was always looking for things. [Season 5, episode 25 “Head”] is
about a man with a brain tumor that causes [him] to be a pedophile and was inspired by
an article I read in The Journal of Neurology. [This episode] posed the greater question
of, could we screen people for pedophilic tendencies? Is there something impinging on
that part of the brain and could one day in the future be something we could figure out
about pedophilia being innate? That was controversial because what do we do with these
people? You don’t want them around kids, but they have this phycological disorder.
This is just one of many topics that are specific to Neal Baer as a showrunner. Not too many in
the entertainment industry are reading The Journal of Neurology (except maybe Ken Jeong and
Mayim Bialik). Neal Baer’s episodes that centered on medicine range from stories about
corruption within the medical system, to rare diseases playing a role in the crime, to characters
suffering from mental illness
37
.

Neal Baer and Ripped-from-the-headlines
Aside from finding obscure medical articles from which to draw (a practice unique to a
medical professional that would dissipate after Neal Baer left the show), he also would gain

37
In a content analysis of 65 U.S. television shows between 2010 and 2013, of which Law &
Order: SVU was included, Parrott and Parrott (2015) looked at depictions of mental illness. The
results demonstrated that characters with mental illness were more likely to either be victims of a
violent crime or the perpetrators of a violent crime, both of which are stereotypes. However, they
did note that a counter-stereotype emerged relating “to social standing” which included “the
presence of family and friends” (Parrott & Parrott, 2015, p. 640).

104
inspiration from popular media and real-world events, contributing to the “ripped-from-the-
headlines” rhetoric that follows the show. Even when many episodes of Law and Order: SVU
begin with the disclaimer that, “the following story is fictional and does not depict any actual
person or event,” it is usually a strong indication that a real crime or event inspired the narrative
for that episode.
Neal Baer agrees to a partial ripped-from-the-headlines approach. As an example he
states that “[they] were the first series to do an episode about HIV deniers.” Neal Baer’s writing
of “Retro,” (Season 10, episode 5) was inspired by his knowledge of Dr. Berkeley Duceberg who
claimed HIV was a nutritional deficit
38
. However, it was important for Neal Baer not to ever
directly depict a real-world story, “otherwise it’s by the book and you know what’s going to
happen. And we like exploring in a deeper way - dive off and go further and do some twists.”
These twists, for Neal Baer, always tended to be grounded in medicine. Neal Baer says he “was
always on the lookout for inspiration but always from a social perspective.” However, I would
argue that far more than a social perspective, Neal Baer employed a medical perspective. Even
when he truly believed he was creating a social discourse with his content, his medical influence
was ever present. As an example, Season 5, episode 19, “Sick,” which was directly inspired by
Michael Jackson’s sleepovers with kids, Neal Baer worked in a medical undertone. He excitedly
shares how the story starts from a Michael Jackson inspired character, but the victim/ survivor
was falsely accusing the Michael Jackson character, and we learn that in actuality she is the
recipient of her mother’s Munchausen by proxy syndrome. The rest of the episode deviates from

38
Dr. Haung: “Pseudoscience like this insults my intelligence as a psychiatrist and my humanity
as a gay man.” (Season 10, episode 5, “Retro”).

105
the pop-star hosting sleepovers with children and delves into the phycology of Munchausen by
proxy
39
.
However, some of the non-medical episodes Neal Baer ripped from the headlines were
“truly bizarre.” After reading that the smuggling of exotic animals was the third most smuggled
item (this significantly pre-dates the Tiger King moment of 2020), he brought the idea to writer
Mick Bentacourt for Season 10, episode 7 “Wildlife.” In the episode, the SVU squad discovers
the brutal murder they were investigating was committed by an illegally smuggled tiger being
kept in a Manhattan apartment; the crime scene unit discovers feline DNA. Consequently, Neal
Baer had Stabler go undercover into the animal smuggling world which involves him rescuing a
rare monkey. Neal Baer chuckles, “people loved the monkey and the ball that Cragen finds! But
that was a real story – truth is stranger than fiction.”
Interestingly, Neal Baer turns the tables with the ripped-from-the-headlines concept and
believes that the headlines were also ripping from Law & Order: SVU. He gives the example of
when Benson tries to find her biological father (who raped her mother) by illegally running her
DNA in the police system to see if she could locate a match. Neal Baer came up with this
plotline after he “read about lowering the threshold of DNA matches from 99% to 50% that
could locate relatives rather than exact matches.” He describes, “that there are now debates about
privacy issues, but we were the first to do this because I had read about it. So that is an example
of the headlines drawing from us.” In this statement, he shares his belief that this episode was the
first to publicize the notion that one could run their own DNA at a lower match threshold and

39
(a phycological topic that is brought back in future episodes by Warren Light and Michael
Chernunchin)

106
locate family. However, debates surrounding the ethics of this practice also surfaced around this
time (ACLU, Illinois, 2011).

Neal Baer and Policy
Neal Baer’s premise for Season 4, episode 9, “Juvenile,” centered on the discrepancy
between trying young teens as either children or adults. In the episode, a 14-year-old boy hands a
knife to a 12-year-old, who then proceeds to rape and murder their elderly neighbor. The 12-
year-old is portrayed as a psychopath, and the 14-year-old was horrified and confused because he
didn’t know what his friend was going to do. However, the 12-year-old was tried in family court
as a juvenile, and the 14-year-old (because he was technically an accessory to rape and murder
for handing his friend the knife) was tried and sentenced as an adult. Neal Baer is proud of this
episode, explaining:
This was before the Supreme Court ruled against doing that, and I sent the episode to the
people who were arguing the case. There were cases where there were kids who were
accessories who gave their boyfriend a gun, but weren’t even there when their boyfriend
killed somebody and then they were in prison for life.
Neal Baer was aware of this seemingly unfair technicality in the law, and therefore created an
entire episode to address the issue. His work on this had real world implications when he sent the
episode to the lawyers who were arguing to change this law to the Supreme Court.
In the most compelling quote to support showrunner influence and agency Neal Baer says
simply, “the stories are from my perspective, it is not an objective show.” He does not say it is
From Dick Wolf’s perspective or NBC’s perspective. While aware of their power in the
production process, Neal Baer rejects Dick Wolf’s claim that the show is not political and argues

107
that his point of view is imbedded in the series. For Neal Baer, this also means sometimes taking
a stance and pushing an agenda instead of opening the topic for a public forum debate. This is
how the showrunner explicitly makes their mark and a critical thinker and social critic. By
choosing when and how to relay a message to the audience through characters and plot, the
showrunner can promote a social or political argument.
Season 7, episode 8, “Rockabye” is Neal Baer’s example for such an intervention. Neal
Baer states, “we take a stand on the teen access to abortion one.” In the episode (which Neal
Baer said was inspired by a real story) a 16-year-old pregnant girl made her boyfriend beat her
stomach with a lamp because they couldn’t access an abortion. The couple were duped by a false
abortion clinic that continued to put-off her abortion for fabricated reasons, telling her she had a
fever until they could not perform the procedure until it became too late by the State of New
York standards for legally obtaining an abortion. Thus, she was unable to legally obtain an
abortion at any other clinic in the city. As the episode progresses, the D.A. pivots from
prosecuting the boyfriend and holds the fake abortion clinic responsible. SVU reveals that the
boyfriend beat his pregnant girlfriend as her behest because she was trying to end her pregnancy.
Neal Baer had D.A. Arthur Branch from Law & Order participate in trying the case for the
episode. The Arthur Branch character is played by Fred Thompson who was a Republican
politician as well as an actor. In the interview, Neal Baer references a line from the episode
where Arthur Branch must say, “I’m pro-life but I’m more pro-constitution. Arrest the son-of-a-
bitch.” Neal Baer said that Fred Thompson was resistant to saying the line, protesting, “I don’t
want to say this, what If I run for President?” To which Neal Baer responded, “Are you pro
constitution? It is the law…” and so he got Fred Thompson to agree to the line. Neal Baer revels
in this moment stating, “So I got this Republican dufus to say this and it was great!” In what

108
seems to be a personal triumph for Neal Baer, he is also demonstrating how his power as
showrunner made this moment possible. Fred Thompson certainly had the agency to not say the
line or not be in the episode; he did protest. However, this instance demonstrates the
showrunner’s authority (and skills of persuasion) over the actor’s input. However, conceding to
the power the network and Dick Wolf have over the show
40
, Neal Baer describes how the
showrunners agency is still limited. He doesn’t think the “Rockabye” episode would be allowed
today:
I don’t think NBC would let them do that now. Because I think the show is more
targeted for many eyes when it was a huge hit. We could do a lot of things, but now in
this competition with streamers - [they] can do very different kind of shows like I did
with Designated Survivor. It’s not about sending it out to the biggest number. They have
algorithms and they can target viewers. The networks are still on this old model that you
just have to throw it out there and hope to catch the widest net.
This is an interesting perspective that he raises. Neal Baer contends that broadcast was able to
take more risks before streaming because there were no other options. Now that streaming
platforms exist, and they operate under a different business model (which I discussed in the
previous chapter) he feels broadcast has less room for variability in their content because they
are reliant on viewers tuning in to their shows. This would support the results of the series’
demographics not incorporating more inclusivity over the years. It speaks to the fear of losing
viewers that streaming platforms are not. However, this still does not explain Neal Baer’s lack of
inclusivity or that of the subsequent showrunners, particularly as they express their intent and
pride at being inclusive.

40
This dynamic will also be addressed in Chapter 3.

109

The SVU Guest-Star
At this point, I have focused rather exclusively on the showrunners and their power
(within the production structure) in making decisions at the site of encoding television messages.
However, in my model (Figure 2) from Chapter 1, I list other content creators who participate in
cyclical agency with the showrunner. Interviews with these other positions, such as the casting
directors, directors, writers, producers, and actors will continue to be introduced throughout the
subsequent chapters. I will discuss where and how their agency operates cyclically with the
showrunner. Having been an actor myself, I am certainly partial to the role of an actor in creating
a character and making choices under the guidance of the writers and directors. Here, I will
explore an actor’s perspective and experience during the Neal Baer showrunner tenure.
Many of the Casting directors and actors I interviewed shared that to appear as a guest-
star or co-star
41
in the Law & Order franchise it is known within the entertainment industry,
especially for New York based actors, as a rite of passage. According to several casting directors
from my interviews, it is common for certain actors to be cast as “a name” (someone who is
famous and well known to audiences) guest-star on the show. Neal Baer explains, that being a
huge fan of old movies, he saw this Law & Order guest-star tradition as his opportunity to work
with all the actors he had admired over the years. He states:
I wanted to work with Leslie Caron and Ann-Margret. And I thought if we can have Ann-
Margret, let’s have Jacqueline Smith and Ellen Burnstyn. And I wrote the episode for

41
Guest-star and co-star are role size (and therefore contract and pay rate) distinctions for actors
on television. Co-stars have between 1-5 lines and guest-stars have more than 5 lines. Large
guest-star roles may have more than 1 scene.

110
Cynthia Nixon and she won the Emmy. Amanda Plummer won one year. We won 6 years
in a row with Mariska winning the Golden Globe and the Emmy
42
.
Having a certain caliber of actors, both in name and talent, elevated the series to Emmy
recognition in the acting categories.
43
Casting directors and agents both discuss the notion of
“name talent.” Sometimes a casting breakdown will specifically state “names only.” This means
they are looking for an actor who has a recognizable name to the audience and will draw in
viewers. Other times, “name talent” will seek out a role on Law & Order: SVU and their agent
will pitch them to casting or production. Other times, a role and episode for Law & Order: SVU
will be written for a particular name actor
44
.
A typical episode has anywhere between 3-7 guest-star roles and 5-15 co-star roles. If
you multiply this by 21 to 24 episodes a season for over two decades, it becomes clear that the
series has been a copious employment source for actors. Because of the large number of actors to
appear on the show over the years, it is not surprising that some of them, who were unknown at
the time of their Law & Order: SVU debuts went on to become famous “names
45
.” In particular,

42
Chapter 4 will detail the specifics behind Neal Baer’s role in Mariska Hargitay’s Emmy win.
43
Other already famous actors from stage and screen to appear on Law & Order: SVU during
Neal Baer’s reign as showrunner include: Bebe Neuwirth, Kelly Bishop, Dianne Wiest, John
Ritter, Judith Light, Henry Winkler, Estelle Parsons, Fred Savage, George Segal, Serena
Williams, Anne Meara, Martin Short, Angela Lansbury, Marcia Gay Harden, Jerry Lewis, Bob
Saget, Ludacris, Melissa Joan Hart, Priscilla Lopez, Rhea Perlman, Robin Williams, Betty
Buckley, Wallace Shawn, Carol Burnett, Kathy Griffin, Mischa Barton, Jennifer Love Hewitt,
Hillary Duff, Jeremy Irons, Debra Messing, John Stamos, and Rita Wilson.
44
I will explore an example of this with actor Billy Porter in Chapter 3.
45
Neal Baer cast the following other actors on Law & Order: SVU before they were famously
known for other career defining roles: Chadwick Boseman, Viola Davis, John Krasinki, Adam
Driver, Sarah Hyland, Sarah Paulson, Kate Mara, Rooney Mara, Abigail Breslin, Elle Fanning,
Hayden Panettiere, Amanda Seyfried, Michael Shannon, Mahershala Ali, Bradley Cooper, Ty
Burrell, and Elizabeth Banks.

111
Law & Order: SVU has been especially welcoming to stage actors,
46
which should not be
surprising given its filming location is Broadway’s
47
backyard. One of these stage actors, who
later became famous, appeared as a Law & Order: SVU guest-star on three separate occasions –
Ann Dowd. Neal Baer explains that when looking for talent he spoke with his own manager: “I
asked her ‘who is the best actor you have who no one knows about?’ She said ‘Ann Dowd.’ And
we loved her so much that we brought her back. We had her first.” Neal Baer asked his manager
for her recommendation; in exerting her agency and specialized expertise, she introduced Ann
Dowd to Law & Order: SVU.
When Neal Baer first cast Ann Dowd in Law & Order: SVU she had already appeared in
three distinct episodes of Law & Order: “Sonata for Solo Organ” (1991), “Breeder” (1994), and
“Pro Se” (1996). Her first role on Law & Order: SVU was as Louise Durning in Season 2,
episode 3, “Victims” (2001). Ann Dowd played the unassuming social worker who, at the end of
the episode, confesses to murdering multiple men who were HIV positive and knowingly
infected women who were ignorant of the men’s status. As Louise Durning was also infected by
a partner who withheld his HIV status from her, she was motivated to right wrongs and protect
other women from these men. Because her condition had progressed to full blown AIDS, she
was not concerned her actions’ legal consequences.
Ann Dowd describes working on Law & Order: SVU for the first time as a warm
environment. She credits the two leads (Mariska Hargitay and Christopher Meloni) with setting a
positive tone for all incoming guest-stars and co-stars:
Mariska and wonderful Chris are very welcoming. They don’t in any way have the

46
Due to Broadway’s Covid-19 closures, Law & Order: SVU committed to specifically hiring
out-of-work Broadway actors (Evans, 2021).
47
IMDB lists over 350 Broadway actors who have appeared on Law & Order: SVU.

112
attitude of ‘we are the regulars, and you are a guest. We’re all in this together.’ I admire
them tremendously - their work and who they are as human beings. They were
fantastic. Every time. Crazy about them. Class acts.
This quote speaks to the mood and environment of the cast. The showrunner might set the tone
of the episodes in the season, but the cast can greatly influence the tone on the set.
As Neal Baer had stated, Ann Dowd was such an extraordinary talent that they looked
forward to bringing her back again. According to casting director interviews, one of the main
differences between television shows that are based in New York and television shows that are
based in Los Angeles (even if they shoot on other locations) is that New York shows will have
actors return to play multiple characters throughout various seasons. As several casting directors
explained, in Los Angeles, once you are cast on a show, that show is essentially “off-limits” for
actors. The consensus from Los Angeles agents is that when they pitch their clients for television
guest-star and co-star roles, they can only pitch those who have not been on the show previously.
Therefore, there is some strategy (and agency – no pun intended) involved; if they want their
client to be a guest-star on a show, they will not pitch them as a co-star. Even if a character has
one line on an episode, they are not likely to ever be considered for a larger role on that show at a
later date. The Los Angeles casting directors are more concerned about the continuity of the
series. However, in New York, particularly within the Law & Order franchise, the series is
viewed more like a theatre company, where actors can come back and play different parts. Ann
Dowd says of the culture of bringing actors back to play different roles over the years:
I’m not sure why that is, but I was always very grateful for it. It speaks to…look this
is make believe. We can do this. We can keep working together, people will adjust, I
love their openness in that regard. The crew was fantastic. Hair and make-up.

113
Everyone. You look forward to going there. When you’ve been there once, they know
you. So, it is not beginning again, it is moving forward in the relationship, if you will.
Ann Dowd explains that they always wait several years before bringing an actor back for a
different role so that it is not too obvious for the audience. The hair and makeup department will
pay attention to this and might change actors’ hairstyle or use wigs. As several casting directors
noted, the audience might have a moment where they remember, especially the super fans, but it
all speaks to the suspension of disbelief that is so common in theatre; the New York theatre
community and the Law & Order franchise share an overlapping culture in the acting
community. Ann Dowd expressed sincere gratitude to the franchise for giving her “[her] sea-
legs” and helping her become accustomed to the camera, a medium with which she was less
familiar. It is an experience she wishes many actors to have.
From the actors’ perspective, there is a clearly articulated style and flow to the artistry of
Law & Order: SVU. Ann Dowd reveals:
The thing about Law & Order is it is textually very clear. They follow a certain way of
telling a story. And so …it’s not difficult to see what direction you are going to go in. Of
course, there is always choice, and there was always respect for an actor’s point of view.
This quote is a clear example of the cyclical agency that exists within the overall structure
formed by the show, genre, and industry. The actor is limited within the given circumstances,
but, as Ann Dowd contends, there is room for actors’ agency and choices about line deliveries.
Other actors share in this sentiment. There is space for some interpretation, but they also
understand the “world of the play” as they call it. Even though it is not theatre, but television,
many of the same concepts and techniques apply such as: “creating a moment before,” “having
an intention,” and “serving the story.” These are standard acting techniques the actors discussed

114
through our interviews. Such recurring jargon points to a common understanding of their
profession, and where they are given room and agency to create within that space. These
components are open for the actor to create – a skill that serves the overall presentation of the
television text.
The second role Ann Dowd played was Sally in “Souless,” Season 3, episode 12 (2003).
This time, Ann Dowd played the overprotective mother of a serial rapist and killer. She has
always known the truth about her son even though she has tried to deny it. Sally is eventually
compelled to testify against her son and begs the jury to convict him to save future women from
his behavior. Ann Dowd’s final Law & Order: SVU was Season 10, episode 15 “Lead.” Her
character, Lillian, a nurse, felt pressured to protect the pediatrician she worked for, even though
she suspected he was molesting patients. She eventually shares the truth about her suspicions to
the detectives. All three of the women that Ann Dowd has played, Louise the social worker,
Sally the mother, and Lillian the nurse, while occupying different positions and roles (suspect/
perpetrator, mother of the perpetrator, nurse to the perpetrator), all had similar motivations. Each
character tried to protect those they loved at extreme costs, and yet in the end, they all confessed
to their roles and/ or involvement in the crimes. In describing this process, Ann Dowd states:
It was extraordinary to play characters that will go to those lengths because clearly they
know the risk to themselves and what could happen. But the desire to protect another that
matters so much is worth it. And to remember those stakes because we don’t face them in
life generally, I hope. These people are in desperate straits, and how in the heck are they
going to live their lives after this? When you think of how hard it is to live with the
decisions we make … the severe choices that will throw the life of another off
completely, if not end it, and also their own selves. How are you to live every day? In the

115
playing of these roles, people do things for reasons that are very important to them. And
it was wonderful to go those lengths and live in there for a little while.

Chapter 2 Conclusion
In terms of how Ann Dowd thinks Neal Baer engaged with social issues and cultural
debates, she responds, “I don’t think there was a lot of pointing to the obvious. I think it was
always clear that these are significant issues that are clear and present.” However, it is important
to note that any “significant issues” were chosen and addressed from Neal Baer’s perspective. He
intentionally highlighted concerns from the medical community and placed them into the public
eye through his take on Law & Order: SVU content. His commentary shines through the
characters and narratives of the series, which underpins the showrunner’s agency. This chapter’s
focus on Neal Baer demonstrates why the showrunner’s personal experiences are consequential.
As we will see in the following chapter, the shift in showrunner shifts perspective, tone, and
rhythm. A new critical thinker will have an alternative view of society and its prominent
discourses. Further, the dynamic and cyclical agency between showrunner and creative team is
altered as different discourses are brought to the forefront of the series’ narrative.

116
Chapter 3
“You ask me, the only difference between a football team and a gang is that gangs don't
wear helmets and knee-pads.” – “Gridiron Soldier” Season 15, episode 16

Law & Order: SVU’s Season 13 (Fall 2011), marked the beginning of several,
monumental changes and transitions for the series. Neal Baer ended his decade long run as
showrunner. Series star, Christopher Meloni stepped down as Detective Elliot Stabler after the
Season 12 finale ended with him fatally shooting a teenage girl, Jenna (Hayley McFarland), who
opened fire in the SVU squad room killing multiple people
48
. In attempting to halt her shooting
spree, after yelling at her several times to stop, Stabler takes a shot at Jenna. As she dies in his
arms, she says of obtaining the gun, “I just…I just bought it off the street. It was easy” (Season
12, episode 24, “Smoked”). These final lines of the episode, which wrapped this era of Law &
Order: SVU’s, marks a transition in content. The audience is left with a hanging debate regarding
gun violence and accessibility, a theme that will continue to carry through the next decade of
seasons. As Neal Baer states about the show being “prescient,” this season finale unknowingly
foreshadowed the upcoming discourse about police shootings. As Stabler shot a White girl, the
racial component is not addressed. However, in leaving race out of the equation, the drastic
difference in the show’s discourse is amplified when representations of racialized violence and
detective bias become more regular over the next decade.
From a production logistics standpoint, the exit of Baer and Meloni was simple – their
contracts had expired, and negotiations were not reached (Goldberg, 2011). Mariska Hargitay
and the other series regulars continued with the show; Meloni decided to end his Law & Order:

48
She was there to seek revenge on the man who killed her mother, but because he became an
FBI informant, he would not be prosecuted for her mother’s murder.

117
SVU tenure,
49
and Neal Baer secured a 3-year deal with CBS TV studios (Andreeva, 2011).
Stepping into the showrunner role would be Law & Order: Criminal Intent veteran, Warren
Leight. Warren Leight had worked in the writing room of Law & Order: Criminal Intent starting
in the 2
nd
season and rose to executive producer and showrunner status on that series for Seasons
6 and 7. Upon his arrival, Warren Leight brought on two new series regular characters in the
wake of Detective Elliot Stabler’s exit (a significant and influential move as showrunner);
Detective Nick Amaro (Danny Pino) and Detective Amanda Rollins (Kelli Giddish) joined the
squad. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter Warren Leight describes his experience in
stepping in as showrunner for an already well-established series:
The show was running fine without me for 12 years and yet I felt things have to
change because 12 years in, you get a rejuvenator or you start losing ground …Neal and I
write very differently and I’m inheriting his characters and squad room and
a really interesting show to write for. It was made clear to me when I came in that if
the show kept going the way it was, it only had a year, maybe two years, left in it.
When the head of the network tells you that, that will be a good thing to listen to (as
cited in Goldberg, 2011, para 3 - 16).
This quote from Warren Leight clearly articulates the degree of the showrunner’s influence, as
well as their position in the production hierarchy. The characters and concept of the show already
exist, and there is an established viewership. But upon the exit of Neal Baer, “the head of the
network” told the new showrunner that changes needed to be made for the show to continue
running beyond the next few years. This is noteworthy as it demonstrates how the network has

49
Christopher Meloni returns to Law & Order: SVU in a cross over with his new show, Law &
Order: Organized Crime throughout 2020 and 2021

118
power over the showrunner, and yet the network is not providing the creative content for the
series. Warren Leight was hired as showrunner to take the series in a new direction. His task is to
develop new plots and characters, while maintaining the established characters, and write
episodes that are still Law & Order: SVU. The genre, even as it absorbs new meanings over time,
broadly holds the series in place (Mittel, 2004). Law & Order: SVU is still a crime drama
procedural. But now it must be guided (by the showrunner) in a new direction in order to keep
going. Warren Leight acknowledges that his writing style and background differs from Neal
Baer’s and therefore his work will clearly offer a change in perspective. The shift in perspective
that occurs between Neal Baer and Warren Leight undermines the structures of production as
determinant. NBC and Dick Wolf hire the showrunner, and it is the showrunner who is tasked
with creating the episodes’ content. The distinction in critical thinking and social commentary
from Neal Baer and Warren Leight were significant enough to make a difference in the show’s
trajectory. The continued viewership, and the network’s renewal of the series for another decade
plus, validates the effect of this shift in perspective.
Warren Leight began his transformation of the series at a unique time for television; 2010
is when Internet streaming networks significantly disrupted both traditional broadcast and cable
platforms (Lotz, 2018). Lotz (2018) describes this moment metaphorically as “a rainstorm on a
flooded plain, internet-distributed television then arrived to a television industry already
beginning to drown in a surplus of content” (p. 105). At the onset of digital distribution services,
there was fear that television would cease to exist. The phrase “the death of television” was the
popular prediction (Lotz, 2018). In contrast, Lotz (2018) sees this technology as improving
viewing practices. Because digital distribution through the Internet provides capabilities beyond
that of cable and broadcast, we would now experience “a reinvention of television businesses

119
that were built on scheduling programs. Changes in the business of television change what shows
are made and what audiences can watch” (Lotz, 2018, p.5). Through these changes came the
disruptive, innovative content produced on streaming networks whose business model allowed
them to take greater risks in programming.
This chapter identifies and contextualizes how Law & Order: SVU (with Warren Leight
at the helm) transformed and responded to competition from streaming platforms in conjunction
with the nation’s social, political, and cultural movements. Within the first few years of Warren
Leight as showrunner, Barack Obama ended his first term and won re-election. Advocacy for
more inclusive representation in media started gaining widespread attention (as I have discussed
in Chapter 1). Streaming networks lead the way featuring BIPOC, LGBTQ, and intersectional
characters and storylines. Social media introduced a new avenue for engagement and interaction
with television content in real time. All these broad-stroke factors set the conditions for Warren
Leight’s (and his co-executive producer and writer, Julie Martin’s) next direction with Law &
Order: SVU episodes. As one Law & Order: SVU writer shared in their interview with me:
The showrunner is the true author of the television series. Everything is going to run
through his word processor. Leight and Martin (who is also intricately involved as a
writer with Leight) are clear that it is their show.
This sentiment of showrunner ownership over the series surfaces again with this quote. Neal
Baer said the show is from his perspective, and a writer under Warren Leight and Julia Martin
emphasizes the showrunners’ claim on the series. The idea that “everything is going to run
through [the showrunner’s] word processor” significantly supports the showrunner’s creative
agency.

120
One of the simplest, yet possibly most subtle change that occurs between the Neal Baer
and Warren Leight baton pass is the style of the episode names. Neal Baer’s episodes are all one
word: “Trials,” “Confession,” “Swing,” “Lunacy,” “Babes,” “Persona,” “Smut,” and so on for all
11 seasons. As soon as Warren Leight joins the show, the episode names switch to two words:
“Scorched Earth,” “Personal Fouls,” “Blood Brothers,” “Double Standards,” “Missing Pieces”
and so on for his 5 seasons. When Rick Eid and then Michael Chernuchin enter as showrunners,
the episode titles employ both one, two, and/ or three or more words without pattern. However,
the distinction from Neal Baer’s episode titles to Warren Leight’s demonstrates how (even on a
seemingly minute level) the showrunner leaves their mark – or as the SVU detectives might say,
an MO or signature.
The previous chapter started to address the famous “ripped-from-the-headlines”
reputation that follows Law & Order: SVU and the way showrunner Neal Baer simultaneously
engaged with and rejected this sentiment. However, through this next era of the series, the way
the real-world headlines impacted the narratives became more immediate. The seasons under
Warren Leight significantly deviate from the medical angle of Neal Baer’s influence and
employs more socially conscious narratives. Ironically, this shift in the content did not greatly
alter the demographic representation of characters (as we saw in Chapter 1). During Warren
Leight’s tenure, Black characters were represented at their highest percentage (21%) and
exceeded their Manhattan and U.S. population percentages. However, all other non-white
characters remain significantly underrepresented, with Latina/o/x representation minimally
increasing from 5% under Neal Baer to 8%.
In this chapter I employ a deep reading of selected, critical episodes and support them
with interviews from key contributors from the production of each to further explore cyclical

121
agency and showrunner influence in practice. This chapter expands on the previous chapter
where I began to allude to the other creators who work under the showrunner to create the
produced, televised content. Here, I underpin how these other creators make choices and exert
agency under and within the showrunner’s agency. I interview writer, Peter Blauner; director,
Sharut Raju; and actor, Billy Porter. Warren Leight’s interpretations of changing cultural
moments transpire through Law & Order: SVU episodes and these other creatives (who are also
influenced by cultural discourses) participate and have agency over their sections of the work.

“Manhattan Vigil”
“Manhattan Vigil,” which aired on October 24, 2012 as the 300
th
episode, bridges the
older seasons of Law & Order: SVU to a new era of Law & Order: SVU. “Manhattan Vigil” is an
episode that serves as a moment of reflection for the original detectives and the audience as two
crimes, separated by 13 years, are connected. While “Manhattan Vigil” implicitly deals with one
of the larger concepts of Law & Order: SVU: children as special victims, the episode’s more
immediate focus comments on the gentrification of traditionally minority inhabited Manhattan
neighborhoods. The episode chronicles the inequalities brought on by race and class. It is about
memory and justice. It characterizes family and New York.
For the 300
th
episode of Law & Order: SVU, Warren Leight brought in American author
and journalist, Peter Blauner, to write the episode. Warren Leight and Peter Blauner wanted it to
be a story with scale and scope, and they wanted the 300
th
episode to be different from the
traditional Law & Order: SVU episodic structure. Here is an example of the showrunner and
guest writer pushing the bounds of the series’ standard form. Peter Blauner and Warren Leight
opted for a story that would span the 13 years since Law & Order: SVU’s pilot, using flashbacks

122
to show the passage of time. Choosing this approach to the story was determined through guest
writer and head writer collaboration; it did not come from Dick Wolf or NBC. This distinction
needs to be highlighted because it emphasizes Warren Leight and Peter Blauner’s creative role
and impact on an episode that diverged from tradition. Peter Blauner’s reasoning for this choice
stemmed from the need he felt to write an episode that would have “a strong emotional impact”
for the viewers.
Peter Blauner, who states “the story of New York is one I have been trying to tell for 40
years,” turned to the real-life case of Etan Patz for inspiration. Six-year-old Etan Patz went
missing between the two blocks of his family’s apartment and the school bus-stop at West
Broadway and Prince Street on May 25, 1979. Etan’s picture was the first picture to appear on
the side of milk cartons as a strategy for circulating the news and image of missing children to
the public (Simoncini, 2017). Etan’s body was never found, and he was legally declared dead in
2001 (Cohen, 2009). The case remained unsolved for 33 years. Peter Blauner had a friend
involved in the investigation and understood how heart-wrenching it was for not only Etan’s
family, but for those working to solve the case. Peter Blauner was impacted most by the fact that
Etan’s family never moved from the apartment where they lived, because they wanted to be there
for him if he ever came back. Peter Blauner recognized Etan’s case as having the “strong
emotional core” needed for an impactful, 300
th
episode that had the ability to reference a case
from the first season
50
. Therefore, Peter Blauner used Etan’s disappearance as the premise for
creating a 13-year arc for the characters in this episode.

50
In actuality, they did not have any guest stars return, but instead, used various clips from the
pilot to manufacture flashbacks of Benson, Munch, and Cragen working Hector’s case. The
Hector abduction was not an early season (or any season) episode, but was referenced as a case
Benson, Munch, and Cragen worked on together and never solved. It was painted as a case that
continued to haunt Benson.

123
The second source of inspiration for the plot came from a short story Peter Blauner had
written and published in 2007. Going, Going, Gone is about a divorced man who has custody of
his son one day a week. In the story, the man takes his son on the NYC subway and they are
separated in the crowd. His son gets shuffled onto the train by himself, and as the doors close,
the father is stuck on the platform. The man sees his son on the train as it pulls away, his face
looking at him through the window. Peter Blauner states, “If people aren’t engaged by that, then
I am in the wrong business.” Etan Patz’s case develops into Hector Rodriguez’s unsolved
disappearance, and the opening of Going, Going, Gone serves as the propellent into the
kidnapping investigation of Wyatt Moris. When Peter Blauner pitched this to Warren Leight and
Julie Martin they were on board; they worked with Peter Blauner to expand and develop the
story from these initial constructs. As a demonstration of cyclical agency within the creative
process and showrunner influence, Warren Leight (as showrunner) elected to hired Peter Blauner
to write the 300
th
episode. Together they decided to break from traditional form. Given
instruction on Law & Order: SVU from Warren Leight, Peter Blauner presented a concept
inspired by two separate ideas. Warren Leight approved the direction for Peter Blauner to write
the story and continued with his contributions to more facets of the episode’s development.
Warren Leight chose to bring back director Jean de Segonzac, who also directed the pilot,
“Payback,” to direct “Manhattan Vigil.” de Segonzac starts the episode, “Manhattan Vigil,” with
a montage sequence set to Norah Jones’ song “Waiting,” which shows the passage of time as the
case of missing-child, Hector Rodriguez, continues to go unsolved. The montage begins with the
date 1999 and Hector’s mother, Delores Rodriguez (Liza Colón-Zayas) hanging “Have you seen
this child?” (also written in Spanish) flyers of her son on the side of a building that is covered
with ads and graffiti. On the street sits a homeless man of color on weathered couch cushions,

124
and to his right a group of three middle-aged Latinas gather, chatting together while seated on
folding chairs. It is a traditional, late 90’s Morningside Heights street. Moving to the year 2000,
the same location now has a beautifully painted mural of Hector on the building with the text,
“we will never forget Hector Rodriguez.” His mother stands in front of the mural praying the
rosary while two of her friends add flowers and candles to the makeshift, sidewalk altar. Two of
the three middle-aged Latinas sit on their folding chairs in the same place as the year before.
Now the montage flashes to the year 2006, and Hector’s mural has some graffiti across it; his
altar is gone. A homeless man of color sits on piece of cardboard on the sidewalk as many White
people in their 20’s to mid 40’s walk and jog by. We see a young couple pushing a stroller, and
later we learn this is the White family on which this episode will focus. The next vignette is in
the year 2009, and we see the couple’s son riding a scooter ahead of them while they are in tense
conversation with each other. More graffiti is added to Hector’s mural. The final vignette is the
year 2012; we are in current day, and the dad rushes past the mural saying to someone on the
phone, “I can’t talk right now, I am late to pick up my son.” The Nora Jones song and montage
fades out and the episode’s action unfolds.
Peter Blauner explains that this sequence, which does not follow the traditional Law &
Order: SVU teaser, was Warren Leight’s idea. Warren Leight suggested the concept for a mural
of Hector painted on the street of a Morningside Heights neighborhood, evoking the various
kinds of in memoriam street art. Warren Leight saw the aging mural montage as a powerful
device to represent memory, depicting the years going by as the mural fades, the paint chips, new
graffiti is added, and the neighborhood changes. Not only does it demonstrate the years since
Hector’s disappearance, but sets up the family dynamics of the immediate SVU case and the
transformation of the city since Law & Order: SVU’s premiere - the block’s gentrification

125
(Pearsall, 2012). Even though the story was written by Peter Blauner, the way the episode is
presented comes from showrunner, Warren Leight. Choosing an interpretive montage for the
opening teaser sequence is just one example of Warren Leight’s influence on the many aspects of
episode production and content. Peter Blauner credits Warren Leight for this filmic device, and
therefore it was up to the director, de Segonzac to realize the vision. It was not a directorial
choice from de Segonzac. This example emphasizes the differentiation from film directors and
television directors. While in my interview with Sharut Raju later in this chapter, I discuss more
about directors for episodic television, for this episode it is key to point out where and how the
showrunner’s vision is preferential.
The episode’s contemporary case begins when David Moris (Hamish Linklater), the son
of a successful real-estate developer, picks up his son, Wyatt (Luke Fava), from his ex-wife
(Madison McKinley). In the crowded subway, a man bumps into David, and he is separated from
his son. Per Peter Blauner’s short story, Going, Going Gone, David’s son is ushered onto the D
train without him, and he frantically beats on the train doors and windows as it speeds away.
When the SVU team arrives on the scene to investigate Wyatt’s kidnapping, Benson is flooded
with the memories from the unsolved Hector Rodriguez case, even though the neighborhood’s
gentrification has transformed the space. The teaser ends with Benson looking up at an apartment
building window and the shot fades into a clip of Benson from 13 years ago, looking up at the
same apartment, watching Dolores Rodriguez tape a missing persons flyer of her son in her
window. Cragen calls Benson back from her past reverie, and present-day Benson tells Cragen,
“This neighborhood. Hector Rodriguez, the Domincan kid…he was the exact same age.”
She is redirected by Amaro who insists, “This kid is missing now.”

126
Through the detectives’ investigation, several dichotomies between the two missing boys
cases are evident. Wyatt comes from a family of wealthy, White real-estate moguls whose
developments pushed most of the Latino population from their apartments in order to build
trendy, new lofts. On their way to speak with Dolores Rodriguez, Amaro asks Benson about
Hector’s case. Benson tells him she “was a newbie back then” and she had let herself get
“stampeded.”
Amaro asks, “And Hector’s mother – she never moved?”
Benson responds, “She couldn’t. She still thinks that Hector might come home.”
Peter Blauner wrote these lines as a specific reference to his friend’s involvement in the Etan
Patz case, where he was impacted by the anecdote that Etan’s family never moved apartments.
Mrs. Rodriguez upbraids Benson for showing up to ask questions now, stating, “This is
about this missing rich boy that been all over the news. He was the same age as Hector.” She is
pained and indignant that SVU stopped working Hector’s case. Now that a wealthy, White boy
goes missing 13 years later, the squad is showing interest in Hector’s case once more.
However, even if it is Dolores Rodriguez’s impression that her son’s case was not given
the same level of attention, the flashbacks throughout the episode demonstrate how invested
Benson and Munch were in his case. Its haunting effect on Benson is exceedingly present, as she
continues to struggle through the current case. Midway through the episode, we see Munch at his
desk shuffling through an old evidence box labeled “Hector Rodriguez 1999.” There is a
flashback to him sitting at his desk late at night going over evidence again and again. In the
flashback, Cragen interrupts Munch, “You’re still here?”
“Yeah,” he responds.
Cragen asks, “Can’t you sleep?”

127
Munch has a news report on Hector’s disappearance on in the background. He tells
Cragen, “I close my eyes, I see Hector’s face.”
“Go home, John.”
Munch sighs and says, “I’ve got two more tapes to watch.”
The camera now flips back to modern-day Munch lost in this memory. Mimicking the flashback
scene, Cragen interrupts Munch again with, “John, you’re still here?”
“Never left,” Munch replies.
In the process of writing the flashback scenes, Peter Blauner spent time piecing through
old episodes to find clips that he thought would fit coherently and cohesively in the new episode.
The director, de Segonzac, did not want to use hair and make-up to recreate the younger Benson,
Cragen, and Munch (Farmer, 2013). Rather, he opted to use old footage from the first season,
and Peter Blauner found clips that could serve the current narrative. This signals cyclical agency
of the director and writer. It was the director’s choice to use footage from the first season, a
season on which he also worked as director. Peter Blauner used some of the original dialogue
from these clips and wrote in additional lines for the actors to record. The new lines are played as
a voiceover when the camera is focused on the other actor listening. For example, in the scene
above between Munch and Cragen, Munch’s lines about going through the tapes were from an
old episode. However, the line about seeing Hector’s face when he tried to sleep was recorded
and then edited into the scene while the camera shot was focused on Cragen. This technique
masks the fact that Munch’s lips do not match with the phrasing of the line because we never see
him actually saying the line. Also, the editors superimposed the news report about Hector on
Munch’s background TV. Peter Blauner relates how fans of the show were upset by this,
recognizing that these edited clips inserted into the episode were not from the Hector Rodriguez

128
case, because that case was newly created for this episode. Avid audience members identified
these clips from Season 1 where Munch had to sift through hundreds of kiddie-porn tapes for a
different investigation. Despite some minor backlash from fans noticing the lack of continuity,
Peter Blauner says, “the fans are very committed to the show, obsessed with the intricate pieces
of the show. And the show wouldn’t be on the air for 22 years without that kind of dedication.”
Peter Blauner attributes their devotion to these minor details as one of the reasons for the show’s
longevity.
With this 300
th
episode, Peter Blauner, Warren Leight, and Julie Martin take a critical
look at several broader, cultural tensions. Implicitly, “Manhattan Vigil” comments on how New
York City has changed over the 13 years since the pilot and how that has impacted its residents,
the people of the city. For Peter Blauner, “race and class are inextricable threats to” the story of
New York. The parallel of the two kidnappings shows that crimes may remain consistent, the
emotions are universal, but the characters change, and the detectives evolve. The opening
montage is a visual expression of how some things are forgotten and others are regarded.
Hector’s mother, like the Patz family, never moved from the apartment in case he came back.
And while she attends to Hector’s memorial, others have forgotten his story as the mural
gradually ages, and families like Wyatt’s re-develop the neighborhood. According to Peter
Blauner, Warren Leight and Julie Martin see Manhattan as a character in Law & Order: SVU;
Peter Blauner wanted the Morningside Heights neighborhood, to be a character in this episode.
Peter Blauner was a reporter in New York City, and he spent much of his career “engaging with
the mechanics of reality,” studying and understanding subways, police, family separation within
the city, and the general “human drama” that is New York City. This was the background and
sensibility with which he wanted to imbue the episode.

129
For Peter Blauner, this broadly ties together the essence and character of Law & Order:
SVU itself while simultaneously departing from the central, sexual assault theme of the show.
Sex abuse was not the main focus of this plot for a reason; Peter Blauner was making a statement
about time’s influence on culture and memory. Peter Blauner saw how “child-abduction is within
the purview of Special Victims Unit.” He credits Warren Leight as showrunner and Julie Martin
as an executive producer for approving this departure in narrative to create an episode that
looked at the characters’ journeys. Peter Blauner says he intentionally wrote the episode for
Mariska Hargitay to show a strong range of Benson’s dedication, empathy, and sincerity to the
victims; this allows her creative agency as an actor to shine. His impression of Mariska Hargitay
is that, “Mariska, is the real deal. She walks it like she talks it
51
.”
Peter Blauner explains that creating episodes for Law & Order: SVU is “a collaborative
process.” Such collaboration exemplifies cyclical agency. Peter Blauner explains that he was
allowed on set during the episode’s filming. Blauner states that writers are not traditionally
included in shooting the episode. He recalls the talent of de Segonzac as a director; he allowed
the actors to take their time, breath, and truly express the extreme emotions required of the
characters in these unfathomable circumstances. For Peter Blauner, the emotional pinnacle of
the episode occurs after Benson and Amaro do discover Hector Rodriguez’s body as a result of
Wyatt’s investigation. They go to his mother’s Morningside Heights apartment to have her
identify his backpack. Delores Rodriguez can sense what is coming and stops them, saying “Let
me have one more minute, to pretend he is still alive.” This line and moment was important for
Peter Blauner. He said that Warren Leight floated around a concept for this scene where the
dialogue would be completely cut, marking it as a moment where they would just look at Delores

51
This is a point that will discussed further in the next chapter.

130
Rodriguez; she would know what it meant and why they were there. However, this idea was not
developed, and Peter Blauner was glad they kept the dialogue as he wrote it. Ultimately this was
Warren Leight’s call as showrunner, but Peter Blauner did have a preference and was pleased
with the outcome. Peter Blauner praises Liza Colón-Zayas’ acting and her moment to deliver the
heart-wrenching line. He also discusses the talent of Tom Sizemore who plays the perpetrator,
Lewis Hodda. Through the episode’s development, the SVU detectives discover that Benson’s
instinct was correct and that the two kidnappings are connected. They identify Lewis Hodda,
hired arsonist for Wyatt’s family to clear buildings, as the perpetrator for both crimes. Peter
Blauner compares Sizemore’s interrogation room scene to a “wildlife documentary,” stating that
Sizemore’s performance was different with every take. Benson and Amaro eventually get Hodda
to admit to hiding Hector’s body and sharing where Wyatt (who might still be alive) is hidden.
He vehemently denies any sexual assault of the two boys, and Peter Blauner says, “I am into
ambiguity as a storyteller.” While he did have Hodda yell, “I never touched those boys” and only
admit to hiding the bodies, Peter Blauner says, “Anyone who yells ‘look I’m not a chickenhawk.
I’m no chickenhawk! I’m not’ is most certainly guilty of the crime.” Peter Blauner intentionally
imbeds Hodda’s guilt through writing these lines.
There is an interesting parallel between Patz’s case and the “Manhattan Vigil”
perpetrator, Lewis Hodda. Several months before this episode aired in 2012, new information led
to the arrest of Pedro Hernandez for the kidnapping and murder of Eton Patz. The cast from
“Manhattan Vigil” were brought back three years later for Season 17, episode 9, “Depravity
Standard,” which aired in November 2015. In this episode, Hodda’s attorney mounts a defense
that results in a mistrial. Again, paralleling the real-world influence for the plot, Pedro
Hernandez’s trial for the kidnap and murder of Eton Patz was declared a mistrial in May 2015.

131
While Peter Blauner was not involved in the writing of this episode, he credits Sizemore’s
portrayal of Lewis Hodda as a character worth bringing back. However, the timeline
demonstrates how Eton Patz’s case directly influenced when and how the Law & Order: SVU
episodes are impelled by real world development. Eton’s case inspired Peter Blauner, and
Warren Leight absorbed the development of Eton’s case by bringing Hodda back for a mistrial in
the season directly following Pedro Hernandez’s real-life mistrial. Regardless of the influence
from current events, Peter Blauner states, “We are not doing documentary. We are not doing
transcription of reality.” He stresses the necessity for the characters and narrative to work, even
if one is not familiar with the original crime or case. However, for the Law & Order: SVU
audiences who do not follow these real-world cases, the Law & Order: SVU episodes are the
version of the events to which they are exposed (Shniderman, 2014).
In addressing how television, and specifically Law & Order: SVU, plays a role in
viewers’ construction of pedophiles, Harkins (2020) identifies “Manhattan Vigil” as a key
episode for explorations in her chapter, “Informational Image and Procedural Tone.” While I had
identified this episode and interviewed Peter Blauner ahead of Harkins’ (2020) Virtual
Pedophilia: Sex Offender Profiling and U.S. Security Culture being published, her analysis is
one of the few texts that engage in a deep reading of a Law & Order: SVU episode; and it just so
happened to be “Manhattan Vigil” further validating this 300
th
episode’s importance. Harkins
(2020) criticizes this episode for being ironic and addressing issues of race too late in the series.
Harkins (2020) states:
This episode offers a metacommentary on the series by confronting its mimetic
complicity – its actual failure to produce any episodes such as the one retroactively
referenced as Hector’s case – with this diegetic complaint of racial erasure through the

132
pedophilic function… Because SVU never produced an episode on Hector’s case, the
show reproduces images to refer to the virtual episode that marks the racial limits of its
mimetic reproduction. This is the show at its most ironic. The three-hundredth episode
diegetically performs a critique of police and media lack of interest in the sexual abuse
and abduction of individual nonwhite children (p.123).
Here, Harkins (2020), contrary to her own scholarly framing which identifies Mittell’s (2004)
exploration of constructed genres, neglects the industry practice component to this episode. Her
interpretation and analysis are based on the finished, produced content; but, it does not explore
the various factors which influenced this episode’s perspective. Most significantly, this episode
aired at the beginning of Warren Leight’s tenure as showrunner. Therefore, the episodes that she
alleges do not address racial inequality and/ or media erasure were guided by different
showrunners. This timeline is important because the series cannot be held responsible for itself
when multiple showrunners are in charge at different points. Dick Wolf created the show and has
some overall say in the content, along with head NBC executives, but they are not involved or
responsible for the intricacies of the series. Therefore, to blame one episode for being too little
too late does not account for who was in charge at various moments in a series’ timeline. This is
why in the critical content analysis in Chapter 1, I take into account the context of the era and
who the showrunner is at various points. The difference between representation from Neal Baer
and Warren Leight demonstrates the evolution of the show, but this is intrinsically tied to the
perspective of the showrunner, not the series itself.
Another important point to push back against Harkins’ (2020) is that there actually are
several episodes that do address race and do comment on the media erasure of marginalized
groups. As just two examples, Season 3, episode 4 “Rooftop” and Season 7, episode 7 “Name,”

133
both comment on how the media focuses its attention on White victims more regularly and
criticizes the police for not doing more to help victims of color. Harkins’ (2020) point that the
show does not address the issues of marginalized groups being neglected by media and police
interest until the 300
th
episode is inaccurate. Again, the reason for creating the flashback for this
episode, rather than using an old case from a previously aired episode relies more on the
creativity of the current writer rather than the lack of appropriate content from past episodes.
Peter Blauner opened with the current crime as his starting-off point and wrote the cold case as a
way to haunt Benson. Because of the episodic nature of the show, few episodes are written with
cold case endings. Therefore, it was necessary to create the Hector cold case for the cold case
device, not because there weren’t any victims of color in the previous seasons.
Harkins’ (2020) analysis is important and addresses real critical issues about Law &
Order: SVU. In pushing back against some of her specific points, I am demonstrating why full
context and understanding of the production process as a whole is important, a point I also stress
in Chapter 1. Harkins (2020) sees the show as formulaic and predictable; “the programs produce
a series of recognizable and repeated attitudes as set pieces against which the particularities of
detection will play out” (p. 101). She cites the litany of White men
52
who portray the pedophiles.
She argues that the audience must learn, through their understanding of the genre, to spot who is
a sincere and honest White man who is merely suspected of being the pedophile versus who is an
insincere White man, posing to be honest but is actually the pedophile. Beyond this argument,
which is the basis for her book, Harkins (2020) has harsh words to describe Law & Order: SVU’s
role in constructing the virtual pedophile. She ridicules the plot, dialogue, and tone as campy and

52
This assertion is accurate as detailed in Chapter 1.

134
references an Entertainment Tonight article that coined the word “ridiculosity” to describe the
show (p. 103). Harkins (2020) states:
For every ridiculous actualization of a pedophilic predator on-screen, for all of
the vile sovereignty disqualifying each and every show as ridiculous sex panic or
ridiculous genre, the tone of virtual pedophilia resonates more deeply (p. 114).
I find this interpretation reductive in that it does not account for the production process or creator
agency. While I acknowledge such an angle regarding the show’s style, format, and theme is
being emphasized for contributing to anxieties of a constructed virtual pedophile, this description
contributes to stigmatizing a series which is more intricate and nuanced, as I have been arguing.
Harkins (2020) mentions sex panic, which is a central theme in Barnard’s (2017) rhetorical
analysis of “part of a cluster of episodes [including ‘Manhattan Vigil’] that conveniently brings
together the specters of child molestation and queerness, a conjunction whose associative
slippage [he excavates]” (p. 9). Barnard (2017) explores the nuance of the episode, and while
“the story is not a straightforward case of homophobic prejudice” he finds places to problematize
vague conflation between homosexuality and pedophilia, while tying this theme to other media
artifacts (p. 11). However, I question both outlooks, as it does not take into account the
showrunner’s ability to progress critical discussion on these specific issues – a point that is
directly addressed in a later section of this chapter through my interview with Billy Porter.
Assessing Harkins’ (2020) critique, the produced content matters and is significant in
how it affects viewers who are also unaware of how a single narrative was created, why it was
told in a certain way, and what it means in the context of the series at large. However, from the
point of critiquing the series, a single episode should not speak for the entirety of the series or
hold more weight than any other episode. Without giving attention to the season arc, the other

135
seasons, and the industry, its practices, and those creating the content (the showrunner and other
creatives) we cannot understand the full story of …well, the story.

“Spousal Privilege.”

The next episode for discussion, Season 16, episode 8, “Spousal Privilege,” aired
November 19
th
2014. This was the first episode of television that director Sharat Raju had ever
directed. Up until this episode of Law & Order: SVU, Raju had been an “independent film maker
for years and wanted to break into television for a long time.” Sharat Raju started his television
journey as an NBC Directing Fellow. This program was designed to find and help directors who
wanted to get their start in directing for television by having the fellows shadow on a television
show for multiple episodes. In doing so the production becomes familiar with the fellows and
their work, giving them an “in” and a potential opportunity to work for the production in the
future. Sharat Raju had shadowed for Law & Order: SVU in 2013, and he was assigned an
episode to direct for Fall 2014. Sharat Raju describes directing for television and being given
“Spousal Privilege” as his first episode to direct:
For television directors, you don’t know the stories. You don’t get to pick the scripts.
You just show up and get the script. I was supposed to book later in the year, and they
had a schedule change so they moved me up and I got lucky, because I truly thought it
was a great script. It got me a really great guest cast and that made a really huge
difference.
Sharat Raju’s quote speaks to the unpredictability of being a television director and articulates
how their agency, while present, is far more limited than film directors. His statement gives
context to how the directors work with the story provided by the showrunner. Not only does the

136
director not have a say in which episode they are brought on to direct, the director rarely knows
what the episode will be until they start filming. However, my interview with Sharat Raju
clarifies how television directors can exerts agency within the given circumstances, offering
circumscribed agency to the showrunner (and network).
“Spousal Privilege” centers on the SVU squad investigating a case of domestic violence
that was leaked from security camera footage. The episode’s story is a direct comment on the
assault of Janay Palmer by her then fiancé (later husband), NFL player for the Baltimore Ravens,
Ray Rice. Fictitious football star A.J. Martin (Chad L. Coleman) represents the Ray Rice based
character and Paula Bryant (Meagan Good) is meant to portray Janay Palmer. In February of
2014, Ray Rice and Janay Palmer had an altercation at a casino in Atlantic City which later
surfaced in security video footage. The tape shows:
Rice dragging Palmer’s limp body from the elevator, hovering over her. At no point does
he appear to attend to her, appear shocked at what he has done to her or appear to have
much concern for her at all. He doesn’t even pull down her skirt. The next month a grand
jury indicted Rice on a charge of third-degree aggravated assault. (Blow, 2014, para 2-4)
The Law & Order: SVU episode, “Spousal Privilege” begins with Detective Fin reviewing
celebrity nude selfies that are leaked on “Redchantit” for possible underage photos that would
qualify as child pornography. “Redchantit” is a clear allusion to the site Reddit, where social
media users post news, links, videos, and photos for discussion threads. In a style that is typical
of Warren Leight’s Law & Order: SVU era, the references to real world, pop culture platforms
are obvious, intentional, and make comments about their role in society. As an example,
Detective Fin casually slides in, “Redchantit is like a failed state, they’ll post anything now,”
between story exposition and the crime set-up. Later in the episode a reference is made to

137
celebrity news source, “LMZ” a nod to real-world TMZ. The Ray Rice assault footage was
released by TMZ (Maske, 2014). Director Sharat Raju confirms, “that’s totally an SVU thing,”
adding with a sarcastic tone and a laugh, “it is completely fictional and not based on any
reality.”
53
Through these references to Reddit and TMZ, Warren Leight and his writers briefly
insert an opinion of these platforms. In what Sharat Raju calls a “totally SVU thing,” the style of
the show allows the showrunner to make cultural comments through the characters’ dialogue.
The dialogue of the intro continues as the detectives gather to watch the video footage
while establishing the main players for the audience:
Detective Amaro, “That’s A.J. Martin.”
Detective Fin, “From the Sports Wrap Pregame Show?”
Detective Rollins enters the scene with, “Now, but before that he’s a Heisman trophy
winner and an eight-time pro bowler. That’s his baby mama, Paula Bryant.” Within these few
lines, the characters are described, their history is established, and we know they are celebrities
of the sports world. Then the parallel is made to the Ray Rice case explicitly.
Detective Fin says, “this guy’s a sports hero, you know how this goes.”
Benson chimes in with the directive, “Well, I know how it used to go… After Ray Rice
and the others, if it looks like domestic violence, we follow up – before this becomes the news.”
The teaser ends with this line and fades to black. The phrasing Benson uses here is poignant:
“before this becomes the news.” This is the type of media event Fiske (1996) discusses, where
the sharing and reporting of the event becomes the news more than what actually transpired.

53
Hoda Kotb, who has worked for NBC news since 1998, makes a cameo on this episode as an
LMZ anchor interviewing A.J. Martin and Paula Bryant. Sharut Raju says this will often happen
when celebrities are close to either Warren Leight or Mariska Hargitay – small cameos will be
written for them. In this case, the fact that she worked for NBC, the same network which airs
Law & Order: SVU, also played a large role in her cameo.

138
The way this teaser is shot to set-up the story is an important task for the director. In the
previous section, I looked at the montage teaser that Warren Leight conceived and de Segonzac
filmed. This opening for “Spousal Privilege” is more in line with a standard Law & Order: SVU
teaser. The dialogue tells the story, and the showrunner tasks the director to make the pertinent
information visually clear. Sharut Raju describes filming this and the other squad room scenes in
the show that fill in the blanks through exposition:
With SVU it is not about the cinema of it as it is about the story. The scenes in the
squad room, they give a lot of information. Just give us the information and get out of
the scene because we want to get to the investigation and the trial. We don’t want to
make the exposition fancy.
In this regard, and specific to Law & Order: SVU, the directing of these scenes may not be
extremely creative, but they require a director who is skilled in clearly presenting the
information. In this Law & Order: SVU episode, Sharut Raju also filmed and directed the
security footage leaked on “Redchantit” that is used throughout the episode. He describes the
process of filming this clip:
I would ask questions to the writers – does this seem like a security camera or cell
phone camera – they wanted it to be based on the Ray Rice case, so I looked at the
video of that, which took place in an elevator. We wanted it to feel like that.
This quote supports how Warren Leight and his writers intended to closely depict the Ray Rice
scenario. Sharut Raju took a handheld camera and went to the SVU offices with a production
assistant and practiced filming the angles in their stairwells. He showed Warren Leight and the
writers different ideas from the test run to make sure his vision lined-up with what they had in
mind for the footage. Sharut Raju said that as a director for this genre of television you need to

139
be “thinking about how [you tell the story] is cueing someone to the real story.” This statement is
central to how scripted television intentionally evokes what actually transpired and the director’s
personalized style and skill to make those connections clear. The director intentionally recreates
enough visual cues to draw the necessary parallels for the audience, discriminately choosing the
cues and deciding how to present them.
Aside from filming the security footage, which needed to mimic the Ray Rice footage,
directing for Law & Order: SVU follows an established pattern and tone (genre and structures
again!). Sharut Raju explains how the guest directors work closely with other, previous directors
from the show, engaging in discussions with producers and the main director who usually will
direct a bulk of the episodes for the season. These directors will help back-up and guide the guest
director toward the showrunners vision that has already been established. Sharut Raju contends:
With SVU you don’t do anything big that takes you out of the realism of the show. You
have to bring that show’s vision to life. You are not inventing SVU. It has existed for 15
seasons, you aren’t making a Bourne Identity, you are making an SVU. So, what you have
to do on these shows when you come in as a guest director, is you have to play within the
framework they set up. As an example, in The Walking Dead world it is considered a
‘directors’ show,’ where you just need to tell the story of the episode and use the tools of
film-making to tell the story.
Law & Order: SVU is not known as a “directors’ show’ because rather than visually telling the
story of the episode from the director’s vision, the director is charged with guiding the
showrunner’s, “vision of the whole.” Because so much has been established, the main
conversation the director is having is about the episode’s story, tone, and the specific aspects
lining up with the bigger vision. Sharut Raju, explains of the showrunner and writers’ room:

140
They have been sitting with this story longer than I have, so part of my job is to help
improve the vision. They have thought of it in the way the writer would, and then I
come in and have to bridge the creative and practical divides. Sometimes you have
conversations and the logic breaks down so they have to re-picture how it is.
By this, Sharut Raju is referring to the difference between the writers’ imagination and the
practicalities of filming a television episode. Due to timing constraints (8 days per episode on
Law & Order: SVU) and budget realities, some of the ideas from the writers do not come to
fruition in the filming process. This is a place where the structures of production bind the
director’s agency and it is the director’s job to act as reality check against the showrunner’s
initial vision. Returning to the idea of cyclical agency (that is also circumscribed) the following
takes place: the showrunner provides the vision, the production process potentially limits that
vision, the director interprets the showrunners vision within the constraints of the production,
then returns to the showrunner with options for negotiating the vision within these constraints.
Then, the showrunner makes their choice based on the director’s vision, and within those
additional bounds, the director has agency to film the scene. This process shows how the
creatives’ agency inform each other (cyclical) within various constraints (circumscribed).
It is the television director’s job to discuss these logistics to determine what can be filmed
and what might need to be re-written. However, Sharut Raju says:
This can be a challenge because often when a director is hired for a television episode,
they might not even have an outline of the story since so much is being re-written the
week of filming. The process relies on spontaneity and flexibility.
In terms of the creative process for an individual episode, Sharat Raju contends that beyond
working with the showrunner, often the strongest relationships are between the episode director

141
and the guest actors because they are the ones who are the focus of the episode; on Law &
Order: SVU they are the ones committing the crime, or have the crime committed to them.
Several of the writers I interviewed explain that if you are a well-known actor coming on for an
episode, they will have discussions with the showrunner ahead of working with the director.
In “Spousal Privilege,” Sharut Raju worked closely with Meagan Good to tell her
character’s story. As the SVU squad investigates the assault, the story depicts A. J. Martin as
being volatile and controlling. When Ray Rice assaulted Janay Palmer, she was his fiancé and
they married in the midst of the investigation and subsequent fallout (Blow, 2014). In “Spousal
Privilege,” A. J. Martin proposes and marries Paula Bryant while the trial is underway. Because
they are husband and wife, Paula Bryant cannot be compelled to testify against him. To the
detectives and the press, Paula Bryant places blame on herself for instigating the assault. This
parallels Janay Palmer’s statement in a press conference, “I do deeply regret the role I played in
the incident that night,” (as cited in Blow, 2014). In the episode, Benson is actively trying to
support Paula Bryant, giving her a myriad of options to speak out against A. J., but Paula is
steadfast in her commitment to him. She blames herself for provoking his temper. Sharut Raju
describes working with Meagan Good through this process:
In this case there was the whole idea of ‘why are the police interceding when I don’t
want them to?’ versus ‘is the safety of the victim (or alleged victim) more important
than what happens behind closed doors?’ With Megan [Good], it was more about
what was her tone, did she feel this way or that way trying to protect her husband.
This quote explores how the director is also tasked with guiding the actors’ emotional
interpretation of the story. Anne Dowd discusses this in Chapter 2 from the actors perspective.
Here, we explore the point of view of the director in this process. In addition to realizing the

142
showrunner’s vision through filming, the director works in tandem with the actors’ interpretation
and their agency. Much like the previous example of cyclical agency within circumscribed
agency, the process repeats with the actors’ agency and interpretation. Sharut Raju helped
Meagan Good express the complexity of the situation from the character’s perspective. From the
point of view of the detectives and the audience, it is meant to read as a clear depiction of right
and wrong, of abuse and abuser. However, from the Paula Bryant character’s perspective, the
issue should have been dealt with privately and away from the police and media. This brings up a
complicated issue regarding an alleged victim’s autonomy. As Sharut Raju posed, “what should
be given more value – the alleged victim’s right to privacy which could lead to continued abuse,
or force them to forfeit that right for their overall well-being?” This is the central issue Warren
Leight aims to address in the episode. However, the added layer of race and celebrity is also an
element that further complicates the narrative
54
. An important scene in the episode occurs in the
bathroom of the courthouse after A.J. Martin’s arraignment, where he is given a low bail amount
and Paula Bryant gives an outward appearance of gratitude at this outcome. Olivia Benson,
breaking the rules of the court, approaches Paula Bryant to discuss the case without her attorney
present. Paula Bryant accuses Benson of interfering and ruining her family. Benson counters
with, “Okay, Paula, I’ve been doing this a long time, and I’ve seen a lot of men like A.J.”
Paula says, “there is only one A.J. Best believe.”
Benson continues, “and he’s your soulmate, and I’m sure that there are times that he
makes you feel incredibly special. But, that doesn’t make up for the times when he lays hands on
you.”

54
“American Disgrace” where a Black, pro-basketball player is charged as a serial rapist aired 6
weeks prior to “Spousal Privilege.”

143
Paula defends, “he slipped! Do you know what it’s like to have the whole world watching
us at our worst moment? To be judging us by a split second…”
Benson interrupts with sincerity, “If you can look me in the eye right now, and tell me
this has only happened once… I’ll believe you.” Paula deflects Benson’s gaze with tears in her
eyes and remains silent. Benson continues, “It’s gonna happen again.”
With strength and conviction, Paula rounds with, “Why is that? Because a strong, Black
man can’t control himself? He has to be taken down a notch, right? By the legal system, by the
public, by you?”
Benson states gently, “I’m concerned about your safety, I’m concerned about your son’s
safety. I am not concerned about the public perception of Black men.”
This scene is a prime example of a layered, complex, multi-issued, Warren Leight Law &
Order: SVU moment. Benson is representing the side of the alleged victim and is advocating for
her safety. The alleged victim is evading that discussion, while also addressing the very real
problem and stereotype of abusive Black men (Bogle, 2001). Warren Leight does not shy away
from this issue. In the New York Times article, “Ray Rice and His Rage,” Blow (2014) addresses
the prevalence of assault from an intimate partner, stating “30.3 percent of women in the United
States have been ‘slapped, pushed, or shoved by an intimate partner’ in their lifetime” (para. 15).
But the article does not address the element of race in this discussion, which according to
Christensen, Gill, and Pérez (2016) is an issue of colorblindness in this discourse. Their study
uses the Ray Rice domestic violence case to demonstrate how the media and public “situates
Black male athletes accused of committing crimes within a series of controlling images depicted
by the media that serve to maintain White supremacist patriarchal understandings of Black
masculinity” (Christensen, Gill, & Pérez, 2016, p. 363). Paula Bryant’s statement to Benson is

144
underpinning this point surrounding Black sports stars and the discourse surrounding domestic
violence. The data from Blow’s (2014) piece demonstrates the universality of such violence, it
becomes an issue of toxic masculinity. However, when the celebrity of the sports star coincides
with the race of the perpetrator, the narrative shifts to focus on Black men rather than all men. It
is important to note that Warren Leight amplifies this angle through Paula Bryant’s dialogue.
Benson’s delivery of her line: “I’m concerned about your safety, I’m concerned about your son’s
safety. I am not concerned about the public perception of Black men” is critical in this moment.
She is not acknowledging the racial implications of this story but solely focusing on the victim.
This is in line with Benson’s character; she disregards the crime’s broader, social impact
55
, and is
solely focused on the individual victim. For Benson (which is a character Mariska Hargitay has
developed for over 15 years by this point), politics and society come second to the person for
whom she is advocating. Hence, it is important to discuss the tone and delivery of her line to
Paula and highlight the agency of actor choices and director guidance. If one was simply
analyzing the script, a statement such as “I am not concerned about the public perception of
Black men,” could be understood as flippant at best and racist at worst. However, within the
context of the plot, Benson’s character and the tone of the scene (guided by Sharut Raju), this
line lands as a lifeline to the victim and not a disregard for race. The way that Mariska Hargitay
says the line, with kindness, empathy, and concern, she is expressing that her care for Paula is
valued higher than the gravely important issue of race and public perception. Interestingly, this
scene almost did not make it through the editor’s room, another place where individual decisions
impact the produced content. Sharut Raju explains:

55
This is a theme Warren Leight will bring back when he returns for Season 21 which I address
in the conclusion.

145
They were considering cutting that bathroom scene out completely and then you
wouldn’t’ know about how Meagan [Paula Bryant] was feeling. It would be interesting to
see that she is publicly saying one thing and the audience thinks she needs to be helped
until the final moments. The showrunner wanted it that way [the scene cut], but Dick
Wolf and the network executives wanted to keep the bathroom scene in. There is always
a back and forth between them.
This quote is a crucial as it amplifies when the showrunner’s power can be limited. Warren
Leight and the writers wrote the scene and Warren Leight approved the various choices that were
made to film it. However, in seeing the episode in its entirety, Warren Leight decided the scene
should be cut in order to create some ambiguity with Paula Bryant’s perspective. However, once
the scene was filmed, Dick Wolf and the network had the final word on its inclusion. It is
interesting because even though Warren Leight later wanted the scene cut, it was a scene that
was once within his vision for the episode. Even though this changed for Warren Leight later on,
the scene was not conceived by Dick Wolf or the network. They did not create it, but they did
ultimately demand it not be cut. As to the “back and forth” between the showrunner and the
creator and network, the dynamics of the relationship point to the complexity of the
showrunner’s power. They have the agency to create the stories and are the ones designing the
narratives. Yet, the creator and/ or network can make broad stroke choices about a finished
episode, even though they did not create the episode.
Regarding the bathroom scene, Sharut Raju said that he could see the episode working either
way. On the one hand, he thought it could be an interesting twist if the audience truly thought
Paula Bryant was putting on a brave public appearance, but actually was wanting help. Then, at
the very end, she berates the detectives for interceding. However, with this scene included, the

146
audience is fully aware of her feelings throughout the episode and her resistance to the SVU
squad’s involvement. Also, with the inclusion of this scene, the audience is cued into the critical
component of race. Without that exchange of dialogue between Paula Bryant and Detective
Benson, race would have been visually apparent in the episode but unaddressed. From Sharut
Raju’s perspective, the reason for keeping the scene in, however, did not have anything to do
with this moment of addressing race, but rather, it was about giving more context to the
character’s perspective. That in itself is an interesting example of how produced texts, which are
available for public consumption (or academic critique) are created; a vital line such as “I am not
concerned about the public perception of Black men” may or may not be included in a scene for
reasons that have nothing to do with the line itself. Dick Wolf and the network executives
wanted the scene’s presence to give nuance to the Paula Bryant character, yet Warren Leight
(who initially included the scene) thought it could be cut to hide the character’s perspective until
the very end. The back-and-forth debate of this scene focused on the single purpose of its
presence; because it was included, this moment exists for all to discuss and debate. If it had not
been included, this section might, instead, be discussing how this episode obfuscated race in a
racially significant episode (similar to Harkins’ (2020) critique of “Manhattan Vigil.”)
In the same vein, understanding the nuance of split-second decisions, whether it be from
the director, actor, or editor is critical. Sharut Raju describes filming the final scene of the
episode and the exchange between Benson and Paula Bryant. The jury finds A.J. Martin guilty of
reckless endangerment and he is remanded to Rikers pending sentencing. Paula Bryant confronts
Benson in the hall outside the courtroom, and Benson tells her, “you deserve better than that”
referring to A.J.

147
Paula, through tears, hurt, and anger, exclaims, “What the Hell do you know about it? I
was happy. I was fine. Me and my son, we were just making it work. It was my choice! And you
took that away. You think A.J. was beating me up? What do you think you did?” The episode
closes with ADA Barba telling Detective Benson that they “did the right thing.” Detective
Benson reluctantly agrees, “I know,” but she struggles. Sharut Raju describes his thoughts on
filming this final scene and working with Mariska Hargitay. At this point, Hargitay had directed
one previous Law & Order: SVU episode
56
, and took an active role in the filming process. Sharut
Raju states:
The biggest thing Mariska wanted was for Meagan to be more incensed at the end –
‘you did this to our family etc…’ and I remember feeling like, I will ask Meagan to do
that… and I think she was wrong. I feel like…it wasn’t as much rage, but helplessness
and pain. I think we struck a balance and we produced one that spelled both.
This explanation demonstrates the intricacies that go into crafting and delivering a produced
scene and the complexity of cyclical agency and power. There are multiple perspectives and
ways to tell the same story. In those moments, it is up to the actors and the director to create their
vision or offer several options, and then the final story is pieced together by the editors
57
under
the direction of the showrunner (with overall approval from the network and creator).
Sharut Raju describes the final shot of the episode, “Benson at the end thinks maybe she
was wrong. It’s one of those great Law and Order unclear, ambiguous conclusions.” The

56
She will go on to direct six more.
57
Sharut Raju echoes several other directors who describe their experience with editing; they
create their final “director’s cut” and then it goes through the network before it makes it to air.
The directors do not get to see the final cut after they deliver their version to the network.

148
audience is left possibly unsure of what to feel, and this perplexity allows for discussion and
debate of the issues addressed in the episode.

“Dissonant Voices”
Season 15, episode 7, “Dissonant Voices,” written by John P. Roche and directed by Alex
Chapple, aired November 6
th
2013. “Dissonant Voices” guest stars Billy Porter and was written
specifically for him after he won the Tony Award for Best Leading Actor in the Broadway
production of Kinky Boots earlier that year. Like much of Law & Order: SVU, this complicated
and critical episode, while grappling with the politics of race and sexual orientation, is prescient
in that the episode’s other central themes are pre #Metoo
58
and pre cancel culture.
“Dissonant Voices” begins with the “live,” televised, singing competition, “American
Diva.” Warren Leight’s direct parallel to “American Idol” is obvious and purposeful, particularly
as the celebrity judges on “American Diva” are cameos from singer-songwriter, Ashanti, and
American Idol’s own Taylor Hicks and Clay Akin. Even the name, “American Diva” uses the
same adjective, American, and diva is intended to replace the superstar noun, idol. This
reference, “a totally SVU thing” as Sharat Raju described it in the previous section, is even more
prevalent than the one-off comment to TMZ and Reddit in “Spousal Privilege”
The opening teaser for “Dissonant Voices” flips between the singing competition and a
series of vignettes depicting audiences watching the show on their TVs; the Law & Order: SVU
audience is given the impression that this reality show is popular and widespread. When the
reality show begins, we are introduced to Jackie Walker (Billy Porter) who is the vocal coach for
14-year-old Grace Belsey (Carly Rose Sonenclar). Pre-recorded, “American Diva” clips of

58
A theme I will discuss in more detail in Chapter 4.

149
Jackie, dressed in a loud-patterned blouse, scarf, and maroon pants, show him prepping his
mentee. He puts his hands on her abdomen, a standard technique of vocal teachers to signal
diaphragmatic breathing, but given the context of Law & Order: SVU, this cues the audience that
something might be inappropriate about Jackie’s relationship to his student. Grace Belsey is shy
and unsure of herself on stage as she announces that she will be singing “For Once in My Life,”
a fictional song for the show, but should signal to the viewers that it is incredibly challenging by
Clay Akin’s eyebrow raised expression. As she starts to sing, a blurb flashes in the corner of the
TV screen: @AmericanDivaTV Don’t forget to tweet who you want to win for the next round
with the familiar blue Twitter logo to the side. After several unsure lines, Grace eventually gains
her footing and her powerful voice ignites the “American Diva” audience and judges. The twitter
blurb then flashes a tweet from @DivaAdict_1: OMG!! She’s so amazing!!! I <3 Grace,
followed by one from @DancingQueen149: I’m so going to vote for Grace. She’s so good
#GoGraceGo, and several other “tweets.” The camera cuts to Benson relaxing on her couch at
home, talking on her phone, with “American Diva” playing on her TV in the background. We
then see Amaro, who is watching with his daughter, Zara, while at a diner as the program plays
on a television behind the counter. Then, we cut to Rollins singing along while Fin bops to the
music as they share Chinese take-out in the squad breakroom. The final vignettes flash to two
preteen girls watching the episode in their respective houses. The “American Diva” audience
gives her a standing ovation, and in response to Clay Akin asking, “Where does that voice even
come from?” she calls her vocal coach, Jackie Walker, to join her on stage and take credit. The
mother of Brooke Allen (Hana Hayes), one of the girls watching the show in the last vignette,
points out to her son, Jonah Allen (Jake Katzman), that it is his pre-school music teacher on the
stage. Jonah instantly becomes agitated and insists that Jackie Walker “makes me play doctor. I

150
don’t like him.” Jonah runs out of the room as a look of panic and horror flashes across his
mother’s face. The camera zooms in on Brooke as she stares at Jackie giving Grace a hug on the
“American Diva” stage. This ends the teaser as we cut to the Law & Order: SVU intro theme.
Similar to the “Spousal Privilege” teaser from the previous section, the “Dissonant
Voices” teaser sets up the episode and is packed with current, cultural references. In 2013, when
the episode aired, American Idol was on ABC, America’s Got Talent and The Voice on NBC,
and CBS’ The X-Factor was in its 3
rd
and final season. The teaser plays into all the tropes of the
mid two thousand-teens’ reality singing competitions while establishing a metaphor for the rest
of the episode: the power of public opinion. Small details, such as the unassuming, unlikely
talent suddenly surprises the judges and audience with her star-power voice, evoke the classic
tale of the reality talent competitor. Remarks from Rollins and Fin about Grace’s mom’s cancer
diagnosis demonstrates their recognition of this trend and its over-use. In this moment, Warren
Leight is making a distinct comment on these shows frequently featuring performers sharing an
emotional, sob story. Reality talent shows use this device to gain sympathy from the viewership
and create a narrative arc for their talent and success. More broadly, the clips of Grace gaining
the support from the audience and the flashing of tweets on the screen from viewers, establishes
the power of the audience as a driving force for the rise and fall of talent in the reality show
sphere (Meizel, 2016).
Jackie Walker’s appearance in the teaser establishes his character as a Black, gay
musician who will be under investigation for child molestation. Billy Porter was Warren Leight’s
inspiration for this episode. Billy Porter explains that he and Christopher Miloni (Detective
Stabler) had the same manager. Billy Porter’s manager leveraged his relationship with Law &
Order: SVU to pitch the idea of creating an episode for Porter. Billy Porter said the Law &

151
Order: SVU team embraced the idea and were excited to, “write something specific for Billy
because he is specific.” Porter laments that his specificity as Black and queer has been an issue
for his castability saying:
Fans of my talent didn’t know what to do with it… my entrance into this industry is
embracing the totality of who I am. Waiting for the moment when the world is ready
for that archetype.
His agency and creativity as an actor had limited his castability, but then it ultimately became the
reason he would be cast. In the case of this episode, his agency as an actor would inspire a
critical narrative about intersectional identity, law enforcement, and public opinion. Billy Porter
states he felt an obligation to speak his truth “without shame, without concern if that would be
limiting to [him] or not.” Billy Porter challenges how “it was always a question of - if I’m gay is
that limiting?” by countering with:
There are a lot of gay stories to tell. So, to have the SVU team step up in the way that
they did and create a space for me was amazing. I read that script for the first time and
I said, right, these are exactly the kind of stories that need to be told that I want to be a
part of.
In particular, this episode is a story of the suspect being the actual victim. It is a cautionary tale
about how precarious celebrity reputations are and the devastating consequences when the
investigators, and consequently the media, believe fake stories from those pretending to be
victims. More so, the episode comments on how these consequences are compounded when the
falsely accused is a gay man of color. Billy Porter shares his struggle in the industry in terms of
how his perspective was rarely amplified in the industry. He struggled to find work that would
reflect his story:

152
I had been told my queerness would be a liability for a very long time, and it
was. I leaned into the stereotype of the black queen. What I wanted to do was
change the narrative. What I wanted to do was take the negativity away from
that stereotype - the myopic, less than human, magical fairy negro clown - and turn it
into a human being who is substantial and who matters. That is what Lola is in Kinky
Boots and what Believe is in Angels in America… it was intentional for me to find
these places where I could exist and tell my story. The story I have not seen being told.
Therefore, for Billy Porter, when Law & Order: SVU gave him this script, he felt it embraced the
totality of a narrative and character that needed to be explored and highlighted for television
audiences. His role, as Jackie Walker, told a Black, queer, story, without that identity being the
sole focus of the narrative. This episode is an example of how characters, and the actors who
represent them, can render intersectional identities visible without their identity being the focus
or driving action of the plot. In “Dissonant Voices,” Warren Leight underpins a racialized, queer
experience in the context of a Law & Order: SVU story. Rather than the plot being about Jackie
Walker coming out, or his romantic life, or experiencing racialized homophobia, Warren Leight
shows the audience how a Black, queer character navigates the circumstances of being falsely
accused.
The investigation begins with Benson interviewing Jonah who discloses to Benson that
Mr. Jackie touches him in the bathroom at school. Brooke, who also had Jackie as a music
teacher, shares with Rollins that she feels guilty because Jonah told her Mr. Jackie touched him,
but she thought he was just making it up. Rollins is less convinced and warns the squad that
Jackie is, “an openly gay, male teacher, he’s a celebrity. He gets accused of pedophilia? I mean,
the charges may go away, but the stain won’t.” This line from Rollins is key as it sets up the tone

153
and theme of the episode. Rollins makes several critical points that will come into play as the
story develops. Jackie is openly gay and teaches young children. Accusing him of pedophilia will
ignite false assumptions that male homosexuality is synonymous with pedophilia. The fact that
Jackie is famous will amplify the criminal investigation to a national level. The concern here is
that not only will the immediate community be exposed to a narrative that pedophilia and
homosexuality are linked, but the country will. Furthermore, if they are wrong, his celebrity
status means the accusation will always publicly haunt him even if he is legally cleared of all
suspicion. Of this plot point, Billy Porter expresses his disgust at “the conflation we, as a society,
have with being homosexual and being a pedophile. I am sick of having that conversation.” For
Billy Porter, this episode is a way to address this false conflation.
Benson and Amaro question Jackie in the interrogation room. He maintains his
innocence, expressing that touching a child is “horrible.” Rollins argues with the rest of the
squad that Jackie might very well be innocent. He has taught at Margret Fuller for 12 years with
no complaints against him and was already popular from Broadway and Off-Broadway work
even before his role as an “American Diva” coach propelled him to greater fame. In response to
her defense of his character and how well-liked he is, Fin retorts, “that’s going to change.
Everyone loved Elmo, too.” Everyone seems to ignore Fin’s quip, but it is a significant, cultural
reference. Fin is referring to Sesame Street’s Elmo puppeteer, Kevin Clash, who had been
accused of sexual assault in 2012. Several months before this episode aired, a judge dismissed
the lawsuits against Clash due to plaintiffs’ accusations exceeding the statute of limitations
(Blake, 2013). Clash, like Jackie Walker, is a gay, Black man whose work, as a celebrity,
involved close interactions with young children.

154
Jackie is adamant about his innocence and pleads with Amaro and Benson that they
“have to believe [him].” Amora dismissively states, “No we don’t,” then says to Jackie’s
attorney, “Tell your client what’s coming down, what happens to guys who let this go to a public
trial.” The media frenzy ensues, and The American Diva judges hold a press conference, typical
of the damage control interviews studios and companies present to spare themselves from any
blame or negative PR. Taylor Hicks announces on TV, “All of us at American Diva are deeply
troubled by these allegations and are taking them very seriously. While the investigation is
ongoing, Jackie Walker has agreed to take a leave of absence so he can focus on his defense.
Thank you. No questions at this time.” Without explicitly blaming Jackie, this statement from
American Diva creates a wedge between Jackie and the reality show. This is not unlike American
Idol’s frontrunner contestant from season 2, Frenchie Davis, who was unceremoniously
disqualified because topless photos she posed for years earlier had surfaced, and American Idol
had a family image to protect (Paulsen, 2003).
The case takes an unusual turn as suddenly an onslaught of allegations against Jackie
come from 9 additional preschoolers at Margret Fuller School. ADA Barba is slightly baffled by
the victims being both boys and girls, as this is not common for pedophiles. However, he and
Benson do mention UK’s Jimmy Savile who molested hundreds of boys and girls across a range
of ages. Cox also brings up the Savile assaults to justify why older students have not come
forward about Jackie yet, explaining that those assaults went unreported for decades. Jimmy
Saville, knighted Top of the Pops host and DJ for BBC, sexually assaulted hundreds of victims at
NHS hospitals over several decades. His death in 2011 lead to further investigation and Scotland
Yard declaring him a prolific sex-offender in early 2013 (Halliday, 2014). This episode aired 9
months later.

155
When Rollins discusses Cooper’s assault story with him again, he changes some
specifics. The prosecution determines the other complaints from the preschoolers were the result
of the parents feeding into the hysteria of the assault allegations. This aspect of the story, where
the preschoolers were prompted by over-zealous parents to report false claims of abuse, is
reminiscent to the 1980s’ daycare sex-abuse hysteria, most notably the McMartin Preschool case
in Manhattan Beach, California (Casey, 2015).
Rollins and Benson interview Jackie at Rikers to piece together where they went wrong
with the investigation. Jackie tells Rollins and Benson that he dropped Rachel and Brooke as
voice students to focus solely on Grace for American Diva. It is in that moment that he, Rollins,
and Benson exchange looks as they realize what happened. Jackie breaks down in disgust and
disbelief as Benson and Rollins are bewildered at the revenge ruse the girls pulled over all of
them.
Back in the courtroom, the judge drops the charges against Jackie. Rollins attempts to
apologize to Jackie. He rounds on her and Benson with the following, impassioned speech:
You’re sorry? Is that supposed to make it right?... Haven’t you done enough? You all
dragged me into this. I told you from the beginning that I had nothing to do with it, that I
was innocent. And you didn’t believe me. You wouldn’t even listen to my side! Those
two girls, when do they get charged?
Barba tentatively explains that the DA has agreed to let them take a plea for misdemeanor
obstruction. They will only do one year’s probation because they don’t have a strong case against
them.
In summary, Jackie Walker is an openly gay, Black, preschool music teacher whose
reputation is purposely destroyed by two White girls, from wealthy families, seeking revenge on

156
him for dropping them as voice students. Brooke’s jealousy and anger drives her to recruit her
other friend and their little brothers into a calculated assault on Jackie by accusing him of child
molestation. While the episode does not explicitly address the gravity of race and sexual
orientation in the script, these themes are implicit. It is also not made clear in the script if Brooke
and Rachel understand the history of White women falsely accusing black men of assault
(Freedman, 2013) or of the misguided association of homosexuality and pedophilia (Stocker,
2001). Despite their awareness of these dangerous tropes, Warren Leight constructed a script
where their actions play right into this harmful stereotype and show the audience how such
accusations impact Jackie Walker’s character. Billy Porter explains what this episode meant not
only for the character he portrayed but for him as an actor:
It’s all about opportunity and access. I will work for it, but to not have opportunity and
access was a position I was in for a very long time. This episode was opportunity and
access combined; And allowed for me to take my moment into this other space - film and
television space - in a way that I had not been given the opportunity before
59
.
Another component to address from this episode ties back to Neal Baer’s comments in Chapter
2; Law & Order: SVU has a way of being prescient. “Dissonant Voices” aired pre #MeToo and
pre mainstream “cancel culture.” In this episode the accusation against Jackie Walker was
enough for him to lose his career and reputation. Billy Porter says of the episode, “It was
predicting that which came later. I don’t know that was conscious. It was a foretelling of cancel
culture and the lack of balance in everything.” Cancel culture has its roots in Black Twitter

59
Since “Dissonant Voices” Billy Porter has been a series regular on FX’s American Horror
Story (2018) and Pose (2018 -2021) for which he received an Emmy. He will also appear as The
Fairy Godmother in Amazon Prime’s Cinderella (2021) and the voice of Audrey II in the
upcoming movie remake of Little Shop of Horrors.

157
where “the practice of the social media callout from its root in Black vernacular tradition [has
been misappropriated] in the digital age by social elites” (Clark, 2020, p. 88). The history of
cancel culture started as “the application of useful anger by minoritized people and groups,” to
express themselves and hold others accountable (p. 88). Ironically, this episode demonstrates
what cancel culture becomes (before it even really starts) by showing how the two White girls
weaponize their lies to cancel Jackie Walker. In Billy Porter’s comment addressing “the lack of
balance in everything,” he alludes to the absence of nuance in the court of public opinion. Law &
Order: SVU regularly walks that fine line as it explores the stories of victims and those who are
also pretending to be victims. As several writers expressed, the stories about fake victims (such
as in this episode) are not meant to discredit the real victims in the real world. These stories’
purpose is twofold: to challenge the traditional victim/ perpetrator narrative by diversifying the
expected plot, and to demonstrate the damage false accusations cause real victims as discussed
within the series. Billy Porter weighs in on this episode’s use of untrue victims and the
subsequent #MeToo movement that was about to take place. He says, “metoo, metoo, but it is
not black and white. You can believe the victim; I believe the victim. But simultaneously there
has to be space for context.” His statement comes from the complex place of this episode. Olivia
Benson unequivocally believes the victim, and in this instance, harms the true victim – Jackie
Walker. The context of these situations rest case by case, and Warren Leight telling stories that
embody complexity help audiences think about issues from multiple perspectives. Billy Porter
speaks to why these types of stories told through Law & Order: SVU are critical:
Art has always been at the forefront of change. We have always been the arbiters. We
have always been the one who have spoken out truth to power since the beginning of
time. Art requires free thinking. It teaches you how to ask questions.

158

Chapter 3 Conclusion
This chapter exemplifies the intricacies of cyclical agency within Law & Order: SVU’s
production process. It details the many points where creative artistry is exerted within the
logistics of the production structures and practitioners. Through writer, Peter Blaumer; director,
Sharat Raju; and actor, Billy Porter the myriad of moments, perspectives, and influences that
work together with the showrunner under the structure of genre, Dick Wolf and NBC are made
visible. Each has a point of view that dictates their engagement with and impact on the project.
The overriding vision as well as minor elements are within the showrunner’s purview. From that
produced content, the network and Dick Wolf weigh in for final approval.
Through the deep reading of episodes and the stories shared in this chapter, we can see
Warren Leight’s perspective emerge. His seasons, like Neal Baer’s, focus on social discourses,
but he does so from a different angle. As a critical thinker and social critic, Warren Leight as
showrunner leaned-in to more progressive interventions that directly addressed issues of race,
status, and sexuality. In an interview with Slate, Warren Leight states of the Law & Order: SVU
early years:
Even trusted police [officers] would use the threat of male rape to get guys to
confess—as if that was acceptable—was disturbing to me. That was always the
macho cop move in the first several years of the show. Imagine saying that in any
other context!” (as cited in Thomas, 2014, para 9).
This quote demonstrates Warren Leight’s rejection of writing such interrogation tactics into the
script; it was a change he made when he became showrunner. What is interesting here is that the
inclusion of lines like this (written/ approved by Robert Palm and Near Baer) as well as the

159
omittance of such lines (from Warren Leight) were approved by Dick Wolf and NBC. This
exemplifies where the showrunner is responsible for making choices that influence how scenes
and characters are depicted. The difference between the showrunners are underpinned by such
moments and they exist beyond the input of the network or the confines of the genre. However,
as a showrunner, Warren Leight must still negotiate his intentions with audience reception and
public relations at it relates to network approval. He explains:
If a show is purely educational, it ceases to be entertaining; it feels didactic or
preachy. You may have an episode that everyone in a special-interest group approves
of, but nobody watches…Episodes that I would call more politically correct, in the sense
that we were more sensitive to not offending anyone. Those don’t hold the audience’s
interest quest as much it seems” (as cited in Thomas, 2014, para 4 -5).
Warren Leight ran into some issues with “Spousal Privilege,” because of its close ties to the
NFL. Warren Leight contends, “there is no bigger moneymaker for all network television, and
we went there twice since I’ve been here…Nobody’s asked me to do a lot more of those,
though.” (as cited in Thomas, 2014, para 10). This is a prime example of the network and the
financial structures and politics of the network taking prescience over the showrunner’s
autonomy. Echoing sentiments from Neal Baer, the network continues to loom in background,
watching the showrunner’s choices for content. That said, Warren Leight did still produce two
episodes critical of the NFL. This move is key, as it demonstrates how the showrunner can take
risks and their voice as a critical thinker and social critic, even when in opposition to the
network, can is still come through. He wasn’t asked to do any more episodes critical of the NFL,
but he did write two of them that were aired. It truly speaks to the intent and boldness of a given

160
showrunner as well as their negotiation to tell the stories they want while still toeing whatever
line the network draws.

161
Chapter 4:

“I’m a cop and mother, Fin. That’s all I am.” – Season 20, episode 1 “Man Up”

Through tracing the many transitions of Law & Order: SVU’s progression via the
showrunner, there has remained a single constant from the pilot to today – Mariska Hargitay as
Olivia Benson. In my interview with director and executive producer, Norberto Barba, he stated,
“the common denominator is Mariska. She is the glue.”
Now, when we think about the structures that ground Law & Order: SVU, we think about
Dick Wolf and NBC. But, Mariska Hargitay is a critical component to thinking about the cyclical
agency that occurs in the production process. As the previous few chapters discussed, Mariska
Hargitay has a key position in the continuing evolution of Law & Order: SVU. Both Mariska
Hargitay, the actor, and Olivia Benson, the character she plays, have advanced in their roles in
the series. This chapter uses Mariska Hargitay’s Olivia Benson as the focal point for discussing
the final two showrunners, Rick Eid and Michael Chernuchin (as well as revisiting relevant
moments from Robert Palm, Neal Baer, and Warren Leight), during the #MeToo moment. From
meanings of television’s female detective and Olivia Benson’s role and development in this
tradition, through the agency employed by Mariska Hargitay in her off-show activism to her rise
as an executive producer (where in conjunction to her work as an actor, she can now employ
producer and director agency in relation to the showrunner), I will address the socio-political
shifts leading to and through the #MeToo era of Law & Order: SVU.

162
Me Too and #MeToo
What has been commonly referred to as #MeToo can be understood in two ways. In
Karen Boyle’s (2019) book, #Me Too, Weinstein and Feminism, she teases out the differences
between the #MeToo moment and “Me Too” as a movement that had been developing over
many years. “Me Too,” as a movement, started with activist Tarana Burke in 2006 as a “feminist
rally cry… [and] an intersectional demand for support and recognition for young women of
colour who had experienced sexual abuse” (Boyle, 2019, p. 5). #MeToo, the hashtag, started
when actress, Alyssa Milano, took to Twitter in the wake of The New York Times and The New
Yorker publishing articles in early October 2017 about Hollywood producer, Harvey Weinstein
as a serial, sexual predator. Her tweet read:
Me Too. Suggested by a friend: “If all the women who have been sexually harassed or
assaulted wrote “Me Too” as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of
the problem (@AlyssaMilano, 15 October, 2017).
In response, millions took to social media platforms to share their stories, as the universality of
this experience proliferated online networks. This is the moment when #MeToo became
mainstream and mediated. Banet-Weiser (2018) cautions that this type of “popular-feminism,”
while visible, often stops at the performative level; furthermore, due to such visibility, it
privileges certain stories and obfuscates a full representation of “contemporary feminism”
(Boyle, 2019, p. 4). This is to say, the proliferation of women speaking their stories cannot be
separated from the media platforms on which they are shared, and their amplification is
intrinsically tied to their networks.
While it is critical to understand the nuances of #MeToo, and its critiques for being
exclusionary and/ or limiting (Gill & Orgad, 2018), I am choosing to operationalize the

163
popularity and media of the moment to examine its impact on Law & Order: SVU’s
showrunners. Boyle’s (2019) work extrapolates the history and driving feminist forces (the
history of activists and intersectional feminism) that influenced the #MeToo moment (the social
media posts, the celebrity activism, and media narrative), which culminated in an onslaught of
publicly calling out high-profile, male abusers. The Law & Order: SVU stories we have been
watching for over 17 years, began playing out regularly in real-life. Subsequently, how did Law
& Order: SVU’s showrunner, which had been centering sexual assault storylines, promoting
victim/ survivor credibility and rights, and aggressively prosecuting as many perps as possible,
engage with this conjuncture? Furthermore, when celebrities started sharing their #MeToo
stories, the prevalence of sexual assault and trauma within the entertainment industry (amongst
many other industries) turned palpable. The irony of Law & Order: SVU production as part of/
operating within this very system that was finally being exposed for its toxic culture is plain.
After the articles about Harvey Weinstein were published, and two days before Alyssa Milano’s
#MeToo tweet, Mariska Hargitay posted the following statement on her Instagram:
To all brave survivors who used their voices this week to shine a light on sexual
harassment and violence in the entertainment industry – and to those who feel they
have no voice: I stand with you, now and always. #SupportSurvivors
(@therealmarsikahargitay, 2017).
For years, Mariska Hargitay has taken on her character’s burden into the real world as an activist
for victims and survivors. This chapter will detail the development of this work and its interplay
with Olivia Benson leading into the series’ #MeToo conjuncture. I interviewed Norberto Barba,
Law & Order: SVU guest director of three consecutive season finales – “Rhodium Nights”
(2012), “Her Negotiation” (2013), and “Spring Awakening” (2014), and executive producer for

164
Season 20 (and counting). In this next section I discuss Olivia Benson’s two-decade character arc
through D’Acci’s (1996) scholarship, showrunner quotes about the character, and my interview
with Norberto Barba.
For the sake of chronology, I want to highlight the showrunner changes leading into the
Law & Order: SVU #MeToo moment. I will explore these in more detail later in the chapter, but
I address these showrunners as they relate to Benson in the next section. At the end of Season 17,
Warren Leight left as showrunner and Rick Eid, who had been co-executive producer of the
mothership from 2005 – 2007 and supervising producer for the short-lived Law & Order: Trial
by Jury (2005-2006), succeeded him for Season 18. When Rick Eid left for Chicago P.D.,
Michael S. Chernuchin (Law & Order producer 1992-1994, executive producer 1994- 2004; Law
& Order: Criminal Intent consulting producer 2002, co-executive producer 2009, and executive
producer 2009), became showrunner for Seasons 19-20. Warren Leight returned as showrunner
for Season 21 to present.

Benson’s Story
The representation of women protagonists in crime dramas have evolved over the years.
Dramatizations of the female sleuths from Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple
60
to Murder She
Wrote’s (1984-1996) Jessica Fletcher depicted these female protagonists solving crimes through
gentle observations and passive suggestions to the male detectives. In terms of women solving
crimes as the cop or detective, Decoy (1957-1958) starring Beverly Garland as policewoman
Casey Jones is one of the earliest examples. Through the 1970’s more female protagonist cops

60
The Miss Marple character has appeared in numerous television movies and series, most
notably portrayed by Helen Hayes (1983 and 1985), Joan Hickson (1984 -1992), Geraldine
McEwan (2004 – 2008) and Julia McKenzie (2009 – 2013).

165
began to appear in television crime dramas: Police Woman (1974-1978), Get Christie Love
(1974-1975) and Charlie’s Angels (1976-1981). However, these women were brought into these
roles to help decrease violence on TV and to be used as sex symbols – their “bodies as TV
titillation” (D’Acci, 1996, p. 117). This device is occasionally used with Olivia Benson as well,
but not as overtly as the female cops from these earlier series. In terms of a transition into
stronger, exacting women in the crime drama genre, the characters Cagney and Lacey of Cagney
& Lacey (1982-1988) paved the way for a new type of female protagonist within the genre,
foregrounding a space for Olivia Benson, and her own two-decade journey. However, again, it is
important to keep the power of the showrunner in mind as we discuss Olivia Benson. While the
depictions of Cagney and Lacey contributed to a television landscape that would be open to an
Olivia Benson character (which Dick Wolf created), it is still the showrunner who determines
how her journey develops – a distinction that this chapter will unpack.
D’Acci, in her book, Defining Women: Television and the Case of Cagney & Lacey
(1994) explores issues surrounding the construction of gender, femininity, and masculinity in the
series. She traces how concepts of women and femininity were informed by development and
production decisions as well as through the text and genre. Cagney & Lacey (1982-1988) was a
police procedural drama that starred two women as NYPD cops. Developed within the era of the
liberal women’s movement, this portrayal of women in this show demonstrates, over time, the
changing attitudes toward women who occupy a male space. This was a momentous disruption
in terms of genre. D’Acci (1994) explains how “conventional meanings produced by the police
program could not continue to be generated with two feminist women in the roles of police-
protagonists. The genre, quite simply, could not hold” as it was previously conceived (p. 107).
Therefore, in accordance with Mittell’s (2004) argument that genres are transient and socio-

166
historically constructed, we can see the genre continuing to develop with Cagney & Lacey.
D’Acci (1994) addresses this by exploring the “negotiations that surrounded the production of a
‘women’s program,’ and especially on how the police genre was transmuted as it incorporated
two female protagonists and new definitions of femininity into a traditionally male oriented
form” (p. 9).
D’Acci (1994) opens her section on women as protagonist cops stating, “Obviously,
putting women into the traditional police genre role of cop and the Law demands a number of
problematic and sometimes impossible negotiations” (p. 117). This sentiment remains true for
Law & Order: SVU’s Olivia Benson in regard to her appearance, personal life, professional life,
and actions and reactions throughout the series. As discussed in Chapter 1, Dick Wolf built into
Benson’s background that she was born as a result of her mother being raped. This is the burden
she carries from day one and is her motivation for becoming a cop and the work that she does
with the Special Victims Unit. This piece of character background is essentially Dick Wolf’s
most significant contribution to Olivia Benson’s character. As the creator of the series and the
initial series regulars, Dick Wolf crafted the foundation from which the characters would be
further developed by the various showrunners. As Olivia Benson remains the only series regular
from the first season, she represents one of the last remnants of Dick Wolf’s initial influence of a
charater. New characters that were introduced in subsequent seasons were conceived by the
various showrunners
61
.
Before the showrunners’ later development of Olivia Benson, her introduction was
established by Dick Wolf in the Pilot episode, “Payback.” Here, Benson is framed as the
sensitive detective whose empathy will cloud her work. Questioning her objectivity, Captain

61
Chapter 2 discusses this process with Neal Baer and Chapter 3 with Warren Leight.

167
Cragen is concerned about her emotionality. In “Payback,” after a heart-wrenching interview
with a victim, the scene cuts to Olivia subsequently vomiting from the trauma and wiping tears
away. As she recovers to move forward with the case, her partner, Stabler, tells her point blank,
“remember the Tom Hanks movie where he manages the girls team? ‘There’s no crying in
baseball.’ Maybe I should talk to Cragen.” He is referencing A League of Their Own (1992), the
movie about the first female professional baseball team, when their coach, played by Tom
Hanks, yells at one of the women who breaks down in tears. This moment is critical, because it
defines what Benson’s character will be up against for the rest of the series – the dual layered,
unintentional patriarchy from the characters/ plot, and the show’s creatives/ showrunners. Stabler
delivers this line with kindness and sincerity. He is not trying to shame Benson, but to bolster her
resolve. Dick Wolf wrote this pilot with influence from executive story editor John Chambers,
story editor Wendy West, and showrunner, Robert Palm. Therefore, this specific line was signed-
off on by all these parties. Despite Chris Meloni’s delicate delivery (actor agency!) and Jean de
Segonzac’s direction (director agency!), this line is problematic for several reasons. He is
referencing a movie about women breaking into a sport that was/is exclusive to men. The
implication here is that being a detective on the SVU squad is a “man’s sport,” and Benson, as a
woman, has to toughen up to play. Her visceral reaction from empathizing with the victim is
framed as a liability rather than an asset. Furthermore, Stabler refers to the film as “the Tom
Hank’s movie” – not the Geena Davis movie with Tom Hanks (or the Penny Marshall movie, or
Lori Petty, Rosie O’Donnell, and Madonna movie, etc.) which privileges the one starring man in
the film over all the other women in a film about strong women. This single moment, written by
the series’ creatives and delivered by a character, speaks to a double-layer of patriarchy that
Benson will have to wade through – some of it intentional, to tell a story, and some of it

168
unintentional, the subconscious influence from the showrunners. I am not singling out this line
within this first episode to make any broad claims about the series. This moment is important to
highlight as it is an initial introduction to the show and this character while also signaling the
content creators’ responsibility for this line.
Benson, as a woman detective, moves between being an agent (pun not intended) and a
subject of her gender. D’Acci (1994) argues that “categories of gender and identity gain meaning
from their relations to other constructed categories and other human subjects, and that both
‘woman’ and ‘women’ are products of history and culture rather than of nature” (p. 182). How
we understand these representations not only change according to socio-historical conditions, but
also in relation to other constructs and their transient definitions, such as “masculine and
“masculinity.” As an example, while the characters of “Cagney and Lacey could be presented as
active agents, [it was] only on the condition that they also appear as a host other things” (D’Acci,
1994, p. 198). For D’Acci (1994), this means they also needed to be presented as “mothers,
nonthreatening-comediennes, victims of rape, and harassment, ‘victims’ of their own bodies
(breast cancer), and prey to ‘weakness’ (alcoholism)” (p. 198). This is not to say that to be a
progressive representation of a woman, these conflicts cannot be present in the plot. However,
there is a difference between these traits existing because they are human experiences and
existing because they serve to balance their agency.
Benson’s agency, like that of Cagney and Lacey, is mitigated through female subjectivity
of her character’s experience. Through her appearance, relationships, trauma, promotions, and
motherhood, Benson’s character, informed by her gender, is under constant scrutiny from
plotlines and story arcs that are created by the male showrunners who operate within social
constructs that give meaning to “masculine,” “masculinity,” “feminine,” and “femininity.” If

169
“‘woman’ and ‘women’ are products of history and culture,” then the showrunners’
understandings of these concepts are also a product of history and culture (p. 182). This is not to
say that the showrunners lose their validity as a critical thinkers and social critics; it just means
they are informed by the same structures and discourses as everyone else. How they maintain or
challenge these structures is more indicative of the showrunner’s personal experiences and
positionality which we can trace through their depiction of Olivia Benson.

Politics of Benson’s Representation
A quip about knowing the Law & Order: SVU season by Benson’s hairstyle recurred
through several of my interviews with industry agents and actors. Beyond Benson’s hair
development, her overall visual representation is an interesting site for analysis. D’Acci (1994)
notes that throughout most television shows up until the point of Cagney & Lacey, “male actors
and characters had starred in and been the active protagonists of dramas and action-adventure
programs involving public-sphere stories and setting” (p. 106). Changing this legacy was not
easy, and therefore the representation of Cagney and Lacey as characters was in constant tension.
This account from D’Acci (1994) demonstrates the agency and intention from those working on
that series.
The creators and actors wanted to show strong, independent, working women. The
network was concerned that the characters weren’t feminine enough and were afraid they would
read as lesbian (D’Acci, 1994). Lesbian fans supported the portrayal of Cagney and Lacey and
developed their own meaning and interpretations from the script. Some critics of the show
thought the characters embodied too much “dykeness” (D’Acci, 1994, p. 32). Second wave
feminists were upset that Cagney and Lacey exhibited their power through such masculine

170
standards. It seemed that no matter one’s position, as a fan, critic, or feminist, “[we] naturally
and unconsciously equate woman with the body and how common it is to evaluate women’s
bodies and the stock behaviors of particular women’s roles with impunity” (D’Acci, 1994, p. 43).
Throughout the first decade of the series, Benson exemplified stereotypically butch
characteristics expressed “with short hair, a leather jacket, and a gun at her hip…[sitting] with
legs apart, commanding the space around her” (Russo, 2009, para 3.4). She regularly donned
wide legged pants, loose fitting shirts, and sensible crime-fighting shoes. Conversely, when
orchestrating the optimal episode for Mariska Hargitay to gain Emmy recognition, showrunner,
Neal Baer, recalls his strategy as showrunner for ER:
I said we have to get Mariska an Emmy. I did well with Clooney when I put him in a
tuxedo and had him save the kid in the tunnel (I wrote that episode “Come Hell or High
Water”) … people saw George in this tuxedo, as the action hero, so I said let’s put
Mariska in this beautiful cocktail dress, and Dick [Wolf] is like ‘what’s she doing in
that?’ and I said ‘she’s going on a fancy date.’
Taking a moment here to tease out this anecdote from Neal Baer, we can once again see a
demonstration of the relational, cyclical agency that is at play, and the power of the showrunner.
Dick Wolf created Olivia Benson, but it is up to the showrunner, Neal Baer, to give her a
direction, an image, a story. Dick Wolf is still present; he asks what Olivia Benson is doing in a
cocktail dress. This is not something he would have done or even understands at this point. Neal
Bael telling him, “she’s going on a fancy date,” is his way of informing Dick Wolf that he is
taking this character and trying something new, something he came up with that was informed by
previous work. He had success in getting George Clooney an Emmy when Neal Baer had him
wear a tuxedo – and now he decided to go this same direction with Mariska Hargitay.

171
In this episode, Benson, in stiletto heels and a formfitting, lowcut, black cocktail dress, a
radical departure from her usual appearance, is called into the precinct by the captain just as she
is stepping into a car with a handsome man. She makes her apologies to him and follows the
captain into the squad room to speak on the phone for hours with a captive, unidentified, child-
victim who had called 911. She remains in her cocktail dress for the entirety of the episode, her
dangly earrings sparkling while she works to identify the victim’s location. Ultimately, Baer’s
strategy to notably feminize Benson’s look was successful. This visual depiction of femininity
overpowering her standard, masculine appearance propelled her acting (which had been
established for the previous 7 existing seasons) to critical recognition and prompted her 2006
Emmy win for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series for that very episode (“911”). This
moment is significant as it outlines how her role was not given award-level credit until her
aesthetic was altered. Her acting and role remained the same; simply switching her detective
attire with a feminine, sexy dress gained Hargitay noteworthy, Emmy winning praise. Significant
here are the similarities and differences between Neal Baer’s strategy with Mariska Hargitay and
George Clooney. Neal Baer’s intentions were the same – to dress the actors in formalwear to
construct a performance that would grab the attention of The Television Academy. However,
because of the way traditional formalwear is constructed differently for men and women, the
contrast between George Clooney in scrubs versus a tuxedo does not alter his masculinity in the
same way as the contrast between Mariska Hargitay in detective clothes versus a cocktail dress
alters her female masculinity (Halberstam, 2018). The femineity and sexuality that is imbued in
the cocktail dress offers a different reading than the tuxedo. Where the tuxedo is elevated
apparel, the cocktail dress has the additional layer of femineity, and in this instance, sexuality
(Sowa, 2022).

172
Apart from this episode, considerable fan discourse surrounding Detective Benson’s
visual traits prompted some viewers to perceive and interpret her character as queer (Russo,
2009), just as lesbian fans of Cagney & Lacey enjoyed a queer reading of the two leads (D’Acci,
1996). Reading Benson as a lesbian was casually contradicted by the show’s text, as her
narrative occasionally would depict dates and on/ off romances
62
with the men in her industry
(detectives, journalists, lawyers). However, Neal Baer admits to playing with this queer reading
when it came to his attention. He stated, “I would see that the lesbian contingent loved Cabot
63

and Benson so I would have Benson put her overnight bag on the bed and stuff like that.”
However, Neal Baer didn’t want to leave out the fans who hoped for a romance between Benson
and her partner, Stabler. He explains, “then I wanted to give the audience, their kind of vicarious
Benson and Stabler [romance], and so [when Stabler was undercover and Benson checked in on
him] I had them pretend they were lovers.” For as Green & Dawn (2009) quotes Neal Baer, “We
like a little touch of sexuality every so often” (p. 30). But aside from such fan service flirtations,
Neal Baer never had any intention of having Benson and Stabler romantically involved
64
. Stabler
had domestic issues with his wife because he was always at work, and Benson understood the
toll SVU took on him. However, Neal Baer steered the script away from any actual affair
between the two partners. Benson and Stabler would risk their lives for each other, and they have
in several episodes, but the partnership was always strictly platonic.
The Benson and Stabler partnership (which in the early seasons reads more as a Stabler
and Benson partnership) is reminiscent of the traditional male/ female cop partnerships of earlier

62
Oliva Benson’s romantic relationships would gain significantly more attention in later seasons
under showrunners Rick Eid, Michael S. Chernuchin, and Warren Leight’s return.
63
Assistant District Attorney, Elizabeth Cabot (Stephanie March).
64
This would eventually change in Season 22 with the return of Stabler in Law & Order:
Organized Crime and its crossover with Law & Order: SVU.

173
crime dramas. D’Acci (1996) states of these older series, “the female cop was usually allied with
a male mentor, a father figure or ‘brother’ cop” (p. 117). This is why the politics of
representation in Cagney & Lacey was so ground-breaking. Two women could be shown not just
as co-workers and partners, but as friends, who did not engage in competitive practices between
each other. This was a representation of female collaboration rather than the typically expected
female rivalry or “frenemy” tropes. Conversely, Law & Order: SVU is not as progressive in this
manner. In the first two seasons, Detective Monique Jeffries (Michelle Hurd) was a member of
the squad, but was always paired with Munch or Cassidy. When Jeffries left the show at the end
of Season 2, Benson remained the only woman on the squad until Season 13, with the exit of
Stabler (and Neal Baer) and the entrance of Rollins (and Amaro)
65
. This transition is when
Benson became the primary lead rather than co-lead with Stabler with the rest of the squad as her
supporting characters. However, whenever investigating a crime, the detectives were always
paired as two men or a woman and man. Benson worked primarily with Amaro, while Rollins
partnered with Fin or Munch. It has only been since season 16, after Olivia Benson had been
promoted to Captain, that there would be investigation scenes with Benson and Rollins together.
But even then, Benson was there as her superior and not as an equal partner like Cagney and
Lacey. In this regard, the traditions of the genre continue to hold. However, in an interview with
E! about the upcoming 19
th
season (with Michael Chernuchin entering as showrunner), Kelli
Giddish (Detective Rollins) shares:
I'm so looking forward to developing a friendship with Benson, the Rollins and
Benson relationship, because they have so much in common… They have been at
odds, it's just nice to come into that office and know that we're not going to fight and

65
Characters created by showrunner, Warren Leight.

174
kind of support each other as I think these two characters would in real life (as cited
in Harnick, 2017, para 2-3).
In this interview, Kelli Giddish insinuates that she has not agreed with the previous showrunners’
portrayal of their characters’ confrontations and differences. She believes they would get along,
as the only two women on the squad, as mothers, as passionate detectives, there is no reason they
could not share in a Cagney and Lacey style bond, except that it had not been written for them by
Warren Leight or Rick Eid.

Benson’s Trauma
Benson’s backstory and series narrative experiences significant, gendered violence. In
addition to Benson being a product of her mother’s rape, her mother was also an alcoholic who
physically and emotionally abused her as a child. She discusses this trauma throughout the series
when it is pertinent to various cases. In Season 3, her mother dies when she drunkenly falls
downs the subway stairs. Subsequently, Benson has no family. As discussed in Neal Baer’s
interview in Chapter 2, Benson sends a swab of her DNA to the crime lab to see if she could
locate her father’s identity. Instead, she finds her half-brother, Simon Marsden (Michael Weston)
who is a suspected rapist. He makes appearances throughout the series, asking her to break the
law to help him and causing her moral dilemmas until Season 21 when he is found dead from a
heroin overdose. She is uncertain if her final voicemail to him to stay out of her life was the
impetus.
In Season 9, episode 15 “Undercover,” while Olivia is undercover in a women’s prison
investigating a serial rapist corrections officer, she is sexually assaulted and is rescued by Fin
just before the corrections officer forces her to perform oral sex on him. The effects of this

175
experience on her are drawn out through Season 10 and impacts her abilities as a detective. In
Season 10, episode 9 “PTSD,” Benson prematurely pulls a gun on a marine suspect, who tells
Fin in the interrogation room, “She had PTSD, I would recognize that glassy-eyed look
anywhere.” In response, Cragen insists Benson take personal time off due to this incident. Before
leaving, she apologizes to the cleared marine and explains to him that her actions were informed
by her sexual assault from 6 months prior. In Season 11, episode 9 “Perverted,” she was framed
for mutilating and killing a biker-gang member. While under investigation as the prime suspect,
IAB officer Ed Tucker (Robert John Burke) suggests she might have committed the crime as a
result of a flashback from her sexual assault. He holds what another man did to her over her as a
possible reason for her to commit a brutal crime. Across three seasons, her character’s theme is
centered on her inherent capacity or lack thereof to do her job because she was sexually
assaulted.
Then, Warren Leight entered as showrunner in Season 13 and by the Season 14 finale,
“Her Negotiation,” Benson undergoes even more trauma when she is captured by the
psychopathic William Lewis (Pablo Schreiber). Director of “Her Negotiation,” Norberto Barba
discusses his work on the episode, which focuses on a serial rapist/murderer who continues to
evade the SVU detectives and prosecutors through legal technicalities and witness manipulation.
Norberto Barba shares his experience working on this character with Warren Leight and actor
Pablo Schreiber, who he had worked with on the series Lights Out (2011):
Warren had this character, and I think he had Pablo in mind the whole time, and
because I had this relationship with Pablo there was trust there and I thought ‘okay,
let’s try things!’ And [in the scene] where he puts his hand on the stove to burn-off his
finger prints, you really get a sense of this sociopathic, sadist, masochist, whatever he is.

176
And the tricky things with characters like that is they can easily become cartoons, and I
wanted him to be an intelligent guy, and Warren did too, who is charming. Ted Bundy
was known to be very charming and good looking and we thought about this guy like
that.
It is important to note from this interview quote that this character was one of Warren Leight’s
creation. As Norberto Barbara states, he “had this character in mind.” He does not mention Dick
Wolf’s involvement in this story arch, which once again points to the agency and creative control
of the showrunner. Warren Leight already had Pablo Schreiber in mind, and therefore gave this
actor an opportunity to give life to this character – a character Warren Leight devised and saw
Pablo Schreiber developing.
Law & Order: SVU has depicted many terrible perpetrators, but the Lewis character was
a true villain on an unparalleled level for the series. It is made clear to the audience through the
SVU’s investigation that he is guilty of multiple rapes and murders over the years. However,
even when the squad believes him to be held in jail after arraignment, they learn that he
manipulated his attorney into paying his bail, and he is loose and free on the streets. The episode
ends with Benson returning home to her apartment where Lewis is waiting for her. He holds a
gun to her head, and we see her being pushed out of frame. This episode was the first of three
consecutive season finales Norberto Barba directed for Law & Order: SVU. He explains:
The thing with finales is – it has to have a punch. You want people to talk about it,
and they can’t wait until the next season starts. So, it seems like I became the set-up
man for these things.
Here, Norberto Barbara is emphasizing his role as a director. It is his responsibility to create the
images the series needs, and in this case, how to wrap a season that will keep the audience’s

177
attention until the next season premiere. Ultimately, it would be the showrunner who would
bring Norberto Barbara back as the finale “the set-up man.”
Norberto Barba describes the close-up of Benson’s face, with Lewis holding the gun to
her head, as that impactful ending. Season 15 begins with Benson’s traumatic ordeal as Lewis’
captive. He abducts her, beats her, drugs her, starves her, and makes her watch him murder
others. All of this garish trauma is shown on screen. He is about to rape her when she ultimately
is able to break free of her restraints. Consequently, after she ties him up, he proceeds to torment
her emotionally, using her past to provoke a violent reaction from her. She beats him with a
metal bar before the squad comes in to stop her. The remainder of Season 15 centers on her
recovery from this horrendous ordeal and the rest of the squad trying to trust in her abilities
again. Captain Cragen and her co-workers routinely inquire about her mental status. They
question her ability to successfully fulfill her role as an SVU detective, and they express
apprehension that her judgment and temperament have been altered since her attack. She spends
the majority of next season in a constant state of defending her mental health, an story and
character arc constructed by Warren Leight.

Benson’s work and motherhood
It is interesting to trace how Warren Leight and the subsequent showrunners began to
treat her character more as a “woman” in conjunction with her corresponding rise to power and
authority. In Season 15, when Munch retires from SVU, Captain Cragen asks Benson to take the
Sergeant’s exam. When she passes, ranking 48
th
out of 8,000 applicants, Warren Leight has
Cragen promote her to acting commanding officer in light of his own impending retirement.
With Benson in charge, the dynamic of the squad changes. In a foreshadowing of what is to

178
come, a theme of motherhood is established in her character as the team begins to lean on her in
ways they never did with Cragen. This becomes apparent when Olivia’s therapist says to her,
“Bosses are often parent figures. They might be projecting feelings toward their mothers on to
you” (Season 15, episode 14 “Comic Perversion”). Her therapist isn’t actively trying to gender
her position, but because she is a woman in charge of a team, he compares her to their mother.
In the final episodes of Season 15, Benson takes an active interest in an abandoned baby she
rescues from a child trafficking operation. Within this same episode, she buys and takes a
pregnancy test. She admits to her therapist that she is both relieved and disappointed at the
negative result. Faithfully, she attends all of the Baby Boy Doe’s hearings in family court and
doggedly searches for his mother. The season ends with the baby’s mother being killed by the
leaders of the sex traffickers; the judge offers Benson the baby, Noah, to foster-mother. From
this point on, many of the episodes focus on Olivia Benson as a mother to Noah and the conflicts
and tensions this position offers to the plot. As Neal Baer said in the interview, “I get the feeling
the show is more about Olivia and her baby now.” Once again, this comment points to the
showrunner’s authority in dictating plot and character direction. It also reinforces the idea that
different showrunners will have their unique point of view for the characters’ trajectory. For
Neal Baer, Benson’s romantic relationships and/ or motherhood role was not as important of a
focus.
Season 16 introduces an array of various male superiors who outrank her in status as
Captain. This was also the case when Cragen was captain of SVU, but because other men
outranked him, the gender dynamic was not in play in the same manner. The gender differences,
and the men who outrank Olivia Benson become more apparent when she heads the unit. The
male superiors, and even her team, question Olivia Benson’s ability to handle life as a single

179
mother while being captain. They additionally question if she is mentally strong enough to
properly do her job after the ordeal of her abduction by Lewis. By Season 18, under Rick Eid as
the new showrunner, Benson is promoted to the rank of Lieutenant of the predominantly male
police squad, as she concurrently juggles the challenges of the adoption process of Baby Noah.
Furthermore, Rick Eid throws her character into a series of new romances. This character
journey challenges her to complete womanhood as both a mother and wife – a theme Benson has
challenged throughout the series.
With another showrunner shift, from Rick Eid to Michael Chernunchin, Olivia Benson is
taken to yet another direction devised by the showrunner. When Michael Chernunchin met with
Mariska Hargitay before replacing Rick Eid for Season 19, he recalls relating to her his plans for
her character:
I told her that I was going to take her character, which was already established as a
broken woman, and I was going to drag her through the woods throughout the whole
season and she was going to come out stronger on the other end (as cited in Stanhope,
2017b).
Michael Chernunchin repeats this phrasing in another interview with TV Line (2017):
What I told Mariska when I came aboard is, ‘you’re a broken woman, because of your
past, and I’m going to drag you through the woods and your’re gonna come out the
other side a better person.’ So we’re gonna throw the kitchen sink at her.
In analyzing Michael Chernunchin’s quotes, it is important to note the showrunner’s wording
and intention for her story. Michael Chernunchin’s repeated statement is clear in that he believes
Benson to be a broken woman, and he wants her character to go through even further trauma.
Mariska Hartigay, who had been a producer on the show since 2014 and an executive producer

180
since 2016, can offer her input, but as I will detail later in this chapter through my interview with
Norberto Barba, the role of an executive producer is still beholden to the showrunner’s vision,
and the showrunner is hired by the creator/ network - in this case Dick Wolf and NBC.
Therefore, I return to my argument in the beginning of this section; even as Benson and Mariska
Hargitay gain more power over the course of the series, the decisions of what happens to her
character has, and still is, dictated by the men who write Law & Order: SVU.
Of course, this analysis should be mitigated by the concept of dramatic storytelling. To
keep an audience engaged there must be conflict in the plot, however, these constant and
exhausted examples demonstrate how D’Acci’s (1996) assessment of gender continues to
manifest for female characters in crime dramas. Rather than writing a female character who
occupies a traditionally male space to be an active agent, full stop, the female character exhibits
extra traits of “womanhood” and/ or “the feminine” (D’Acci, 1996) as a countering effect
(Sowa, 2022), or be “dragged through the woods” in ways her male counter-parts are not. That
said, it is also important to note that many of the male detectives on the show have issues within
their backstories and personal lives as well: Cragen is a recovered alcoholic; Munch was abused
as a child by his bipolar father who ultimately killed himself; Stabler was also abused by his
father, his mother is bipolar and during the series his children get in trouble with the law and his
wife divorces him; Amaro’s wife divorces him; and Fin, as a child, was witness to his mother’s
murder by his father’s business rival; his grandfather, who raised him, dies as a result of nursing
home staff abuse. Yes, this is a lot of trauma for just a few characters, but because the personal
lives of the squad are often interwoven into the episodes, over the years the showrunners must
keep adding plot points. However, these issues do not define the male detectives on the show and
rarely negatively affect their work with the unit. Amaro and Stabler are often dinged for their

181
aggressive outbursts and use of excessive force on perps, but the story justifies their rage.
Amaro, Fin, and Stabler are all fathers, and their relationships with their children often are
addressed throughout the series. For Fin and Stabler, the critique that their roles as fathers
interfere with their detective work only emerge when their children are directly involved in the
relevant case. During Stabler’s tenure, we see how the crimes he encounters on the job impacts
his home life, but not the other way around. The male detectives are not subject to their gender to
the same degree as is Benson; whenever they are subject to their gender, it is a one-off moment
which resolves within the episode. The showrunners depict Benson’s traumas occur over season
arcs, and her ability to do her job is regularly deliberated by the characters in the script.

Hargitay’s real world activism
Mariska Hargitay’s work as an activist for sexual assault victims/ survivors expands the
relevance and importance of showrunner power and cyclical agency. As this section will
articulate, the showrunners’ storylines in conjunction with Mariska Hargitay’s portrayal of Olivia
Benson created the conditions that developed into meaningful, social interventions.
Fighting for the real-world victims/ survivors of sexual assault and harnessing her
celebrity to draw attention to these pertinent issues, Mariska Hargitay has taken Benson’s
fictional mission to the public. In all my interviews with actors, writers, directors, and producers
on Law & Order: SVU, the interviewees expressed gratitude and admiration for Mariska
Hargitay’s social activism. Peter Blauner states, “Mariska, is the real deal. She walks it like she
talks it.” He stresses the sincerity of her work, of exhibiting Benson’s traits in her own day to day
life. Ann Dowd admires her intention to “look beyond her own situation to reach out. She is

182
extraordinary. That’s a beautiful thing - when an actor realized they are in a position of privilege
and realizes, ‘there is something I can do here.’”
In the early years of her Law & Order: SVU career, Mariska Hargitay began receiving
thousands of letters and e-mails from survivors of sexual assault. Many of them were disclosing
their stories for the first time. Her character on the show allowed viewers to trust her with
accounts of their trauma experiences (Joyfulheartfoundation.com). Hargitay founded the Joyful
Heart Foundation in 2004 as a way to support victims and survivors of sexual assault, abuse, and
trauma. Their vision statement says, “the vision of the Joyful Heart Foundation is a world free of
sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse.” The foundation has resources for those
needing assistance in receiving sexual assault and rape help including: (RAINN/ National Sexual
Assault Hotline Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network; Planned Parenthood), for domestic
violence help (National Domestic Violence Hotline; National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline;
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Hotline; National Suicide Prevention Lifeline), legal and
shelter resources (womenslaw.org), and child abuse and neglect resources (ChildHelp National
Child Abuse Hotline).
The Joyful Heart Foundation continues to partner with and amplify existing coalitions
such as NO MORE while launching their own initiatives such as Enough. In 2013, NO MORE
launched as a “global coalition dedicated to ending domestic violence and sexual assault by
increasing awareness, inspiring action, and fueling culture change” (Joyfulheartfoundation.com).
Mariska Hargitay, as the founder and president of Joyful Heart, partnered with NO MORE to
create the NO MORE PSA Campaign. This campaign, which marked her directorial debut,
featured over 75 celebrities (which included actors, athletes, and public figures) in print and
video vignettes calling for “society to end the silence and inaction around domestic violence and

183
sexual assault” (Joyfulheartfoundation.com). The Joyful Heart Foundation reports the following
analytics from their outreach:
The campaign generated more than 4 billion media impressions including more than
1.8 billion impressions from television broadcast, 49 million from outdoor assets and
15 million from print. The campaign secured more than $86 million in donated airtime
and pro bono services and reached every single one of the 210 media markets across the
United Stated (Joyfulheartfoundation.com).
Despite the vast outreach NO MORE generated, it is interesting to trace the broad, cultural
temperature regarding rape-culture and accountability in the years between NO MORE and
#MeToo in conjunction with the Law & Order: SVU’s showrunners’ adaptation of this climate
and Mariska Hargitay’s continued social outreach.
Warren Leight departed from Law & Order: SVU after the 17
th
season (he would return 3
years later). On Rick Eid being tapped as the newest showrunner, Dick Wolf stated, “I’m
extremely pleased that Rick had decided to rejoin the family and hope that he will be here for
years to come” (as cited in Andreeva, 2016). Rick Eid stayed with Law & Order: SVU for one
season.
Season 18, episode 2, “Making a Rapist” features President Joe Biden as himself when he
was Vice President, speaking to the precinct in a press conference about the rape-kit backlog.
This episode related directly to Joyful Heart’s END THE BACKLOG campaign which addresses
six pillars of legislation for rape kit reform. However, this was not the first time Law & Order:
SVU drew attention to this critical, real-life issue. Just six years prior, in Neal Baer’s final season
as showrunner, he passionately headed the episode, “Behave” Season 12, episode 3. It was

184
directed by Helen Shaver, written by Jonathan Greene, and guest starred Jennifer Love Hewitt.
The episode addressed the extensive rape kit backlog. Neal Baer contends:
Before Mariska did the whole opening with the backlog of rape kits, we did a whole
episode with Jennifer Love Hewitt, and that was inspired by a woman I met. And so the
seeds of that episode came way before her advocacy, but her advocacy came out of that
episode. I think it reflects on leading to #Metoo and what was going on before #Metoo,
but it is all part and parcel. The raped in the military and college rape – I could not get
any PR going for those shows. Then 5-10 years later Kirby Dick’s documentaries did the
same thing. I’ve come to the conclusion that there are tipping points. You tell these
stories and they are out there but they haven’t gotten enough gravitas to push the scales
down and really open the flood gates. Mariska and I wrote a piece for the Huffington
post. We had a kit for people to go to their chief of police or their city council and how to
do it with Human Rights Watch. We did this huge campaign with the Jennifer love
Hewitt episode.
This quote from Neal Baer articulates the showrunner’s power as a critical thinker and social
critic. Neal Baer’s stories, pre #Metoo, laid the foundation for Mariska Hargitay’s continued
activism. The particular episode, “Behave,” was developed because of a woman he had met who
was affected by the rape kit backlog; he wrote an episode to address this issue publicly through
the series. In this quote Neal Baer also demonstrates that he had been writing storylines that
engaged with the same things as #Metoo. However, the social conjuncture did not create the
atmosphere needed for these episodes to gain the traction he wanted. He expressed how it helped
in launching Mariska Hargitay’s public outreach. However, as I will discuss with the following
episodes from the later showrunners, the #Metoo moment informed Rick Eid, Michael

185
Chernunchin, and Warren Leight storytelling; and in turn, their storytelling in these episodes
were amplified through the #Metoo conjuncture.
Neal Baer’s work on “Behave” brought attention to this critical discussion which was
largely not being addressed. Rick Eid’s take on the issue with “Making a Rapist,” had a more
immediate approach and underscored steps of legislation in which viewers could participate from
watching the episode. In bringing the current Vice-president on the show for a cameo, Rick Eid
drew an incontrovertibly political stance which entreats action.
“Making a Rapist” with Vice President Biden’s cameo aired on September 28
th
2016.
One week later, The Washington Post published the Billy Bush and Donald Trump Access
Hollywood recording from 2005 which included the infamous, “I don’t even wait. And when
you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab ‘em by the pussy” line from that
year’s presidential candidate. Ironically, Law & Order: SVU had a Donald Trump inspired
episode that was already in the works. “Unstoppable,” which had already been filmed, starred
Gary Cole as the Trump inspired character. The narrative was about “a larger-than-life
businessman and presidential candidate whose campaign is marred by several allegations of
sexual harassment and assault” (Seemayer, 2017, para 2). The episode was supposed to air in
October of 2016, but was postponed until the Winter of 2017, and then it was pulled by the
network altogether (Seemayer, 2017). This series of events demonstrates when and how the
network can (no pun intended) trump the showrunner’s power. Rick Eid had already created the
episode and he and his team went through the entire process of filming it. The episode exists, but
by postponing and then pulling it from the season, NBC acted as industry structure that the
showrunner must abide by. This is an interesting scenario where the conjuncture of the upcoming

186
2016 presidential election inspired the showrunner, but as the events of this moment unfolded,
the same conjuncture prompted the network to halt this particular narrative.
Ice-T stated of the episode, “it wasn’t one of our best shows…Law & Order wants to be
close, but not too close” (as cited in Seemayer, 2014, para 3-4). After it was confirmed that the
episode would never air, Ice-T shared the specifics of the plot, which diverted from then
Candidate Donald Trump’s narrative. Ice-T summarizes the story (in a tone only specific to Ice-
T):
There was this guy who was running for president—he was very Trump-ish, and girls
were coming out of the woodwork saying he was raping them…it comes out that he was
innocent. He didn’t do it. So we’ve got to apologize, and he’s still doing his thing, talking
his s**t. It turns out that his campaign advisor, who was his best friend, was booby-
trapping him because he knew he would be terrible for America! (as cited in Seemayer,
2014, para 6-7)
What is interesting here is that the episode was written for the character to be innocent of the
crimes. However, once the Access Hollywood tape was leaked earlier that month, this episode
was pulled. When asked about it, showrunner Rick Eid said:
Sometimes the facts go against you in a way you can’t imagine and all of a sudden
what you wrote two months ago feels different than what you might have wrote in the
present because the facts have changed, and I think there was a bit of that (as cited
in Stanhope, 2017a, para 8).
Between the timing of the episode’s intended air date, and the vague evasiveness in Rick
Eid’s comment, I would argue that the episode was written as more of a speculation about

187
presidential candidate, Donald Trump
66
. Rick Eid was taking his own liberties with the cultural
moment, as Law & Order: SVU is known for, and making an interesting connection. As he said,
“all of a sudden what you wrote two months ago feels different than what you might have wrote
in the present.” Once the Access Hollywood tape was leaked, the fabricated Law & Order: SVU
episode hit too close to the current story. This would explain Rick Eid’s justification that new
facts can alter the way one thinks about previously written ideas. In this case, “Unstoppable”
took on a new meaning after the leaked recording and NBC did not want to air the episode in this
new context. As for the episode never airing, Ice-T did not mind. He stated, “they paid me for
it…I don't give a f**k, really. I got my money!" (as cited in Stanhope, 2017a, para 8). However,
Ice-T did join other cast members in Joyful Heart’s response to presidential candidate Donald
Trump’s recorded statements from the 2005 Access Hollywood recording with their Enough PSA
Campaign. While they did not explicitly name this as the reason, their timing and statement
insinuate as such:
Joyful Heart launched the Enough PSA campaign in October 2016 in response to news
events that mirrored back the societal attitudes that have long excused, minimized, and
helped perpetuate violence against women and girls. These events involved egregiously
disrespectful statements about women, along with deeply misguided assertions about
sexual and domestic violence. (https://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/enough-psa).

66
Fun fact, Dawn and Green (2011) detail a story where Donald Trump was approached by his
(then) friend Mariska Hargitay to make a cameo in an episode in season 5. It was at the same
time he was doing The Apprentice on the same network, NBC. However, due to a creative
conflict in the script he could not be allowed to film the scene. As the story goes, according to
Dawn & Green, his assistant said in response to production, “let me get this straight: Are you
actually telling me that Mr. Trump has been fired?” (p. 40).

188
This campaign depicted a series of clips from the male stars of Law & Order: SVU and other
television male actors repeating the rape-myths and excuses circulated within society to highlight
their harm: “boys will be boys,” “well, he was drunk,” “but he’s such a nice guy,” “he didn’t
mean it,” “he said he was sorry,” “it was just a misunderstanding,” “it only happened once,” “it’s
none of my business,” “this is a women’s issue,” “it’s sad, but we’re never going to fix it.” The
PSA ends with a blank white screen with the words “ENOUGH” followed by “together we can
change this culture. Pledge #changetheculture.”
The same week this PSA launched, Law & Order: SVU aired Rick Eid’s interpretation of
the Brock Turner crime on October 26
th
2016 in “Rape Interrupted,” Season 18, episode 5. The
Brock Turner case occurred earlier in 2016; he received a lenient sentence for raping an
unconscious woman and was released after serving only 3 months for good behavior (Banet-
Wieser, 2021). In addition to the crime’s appalling gendered violence, the case received
significant media attention and scrutiny when Brock Turner’s father, Dan Turner, entered a plea
to the court centering his son (a Stanford student) as the victim. Dan Turner cited how broken-up
Brock was over the verdict and how Brock’s life was ruined over his “20 minutes of action”
(Banet-Wieser, 2021). Law & Order: SVU did their version of the Brock Turner crime which,
according to Mariska Hargitay, aimed to right wrongs.
Rick Eid’s version followed the same plot of Brock Turner’s crime, even having the
father, Patrick (Anthony Edwards), proclaim to Benson, “he graduated summa cum laude from
Dartmouth, he has a six-figure job, and you want to destroy his life because he had sex with
some drunk girl?” Key here is the parallel between Dan Turner’s “20 minutes of action” and
Patrick’s “sex with.” Both phrasings ignore rape and redefine the gendered violence their sons
committed. However, in Rick Eid’s Law & Order: SVU episode, justice prevails. The perpetrator

189
pleads guilty to the assault and receives the minimum sentence of 15 years in prison. Mariska
Hargitay said of the crime and their episode in an interview with the Huffington Post:
Can you imagine if Brock Turner – that makes me cry – happened with me [Benson]?
Like if I was the detective on that case? It could be healing to somebody to see what
should happen. [Seeing] justice. If a judge would do a different sentence. You know
that’s healing for people to see the right thing, the just thing, happen (As cited in
Ledbetter, 2016, para 7-8).
This is an important moment for Rick Eid’s work on the series and another example of how
showrunners as critical thinkers and social critics wield meaningful power within the television
landscape and within the structures of the network. Writing a restorative justice plot as a
response to the social outcry over the real-world verdict can be, as Mariska Hargitay stated,
“healing” (Hargitay as cited in Ledbetter, 2016, para 7-8). In this way, Rick Eid’s episode
allowed a revised version of events, a comment on what a “right” and “just” outcome would look
like (Hargitay as cited in Ledbetter, 2016, para 7-8).
Rick Eid’s time as Law & Order: SVU showrunner, while short, is significant in
articulating the showrunner’s interpretation of current events and cultural moments through a
series. As we will see in the follow section, the quick succession of the next two showrunners,
Michael Chernunchin and Warren Leight, continues to underpin showrunner agency and impact.
Regarding Mariska Hargitay’s public facing activism during this conjuncture, Joyful Heart’s
Enough #changetheculture hashtag did not have the impact #MeToo would just a year later.
Nonetheless, Joyful Heart and Rick Eid’s engagement (initiated by Neal Baer) in this discourse
is just one example of how these moments were brewing culturally and the series’ contributors
were responding.

190
SVU Too
Just before #MeToo transpired in October 2017, Rick Eid left for Chicago P.D. and
Michael Chernuchin stepped in as the new Law & Order: SVU showrunner. He joined the series
with a clear vision for the show:
Because I’m not going to choose a side. I won’t choose a side. I’m going to present both
political views and let the audience decide which one is right. My goal, and I told the
writers this on the first day of our writers’ room, is at the end of every episode, I want
half the audience to throw their shoes at the television and the other half to stand up and
cheer (as cited in Stanhope, 2017a, para 9).
This quote from Michael Chernuchin further demonstrates showrunner agency and their power to
dictate tone, style, and story. Stating his intention and direction to the writers (of which he is
head) “on the first day of our writers’ room” is indicative of the personalized perspective the
showrunner brings to a series. Michael Chernuchin, “wanted every episode to be about
something as opposed to just being a whodunit. [he wanted] it to be a why-done-it as well” (as
cited in Stanhope, 2017b). It is interesting that Michael Chernuchin made this statement, as
looking at previous seasons reveal that the Law & Order: SVU showrunners always took a why-
done-it approach to the show. Even so, within the two seasons Michael Chernuchin worked as
showrunner for Law & Order: SVU, smack-dab in the middle of #MeToo, he missed
opportunities to engage with that cultural moment to maximize the series’ voice during this time.
In my interviews with several actors (who are also regular viewers of the show), they stated that
Chernunchin’s focus on the backstory of the perpetrators “didn’t feel right” to them in that
moment (Actor B). Actor H stated:
#Metoo allowed the women to be heard, so the episodes that painted the perpetrator be

191
the ‘victim’ or focused on their story, took away from the actual victims in these
episodes. During this moment of #Metoo I didn’t expect quite as much focus on male
perps. Not even just a missed opportunity, but actually a little tone deaf.
In a time when the various men in power were being called out for sexual misconduct and sexual
harassment, for Chernunchin to amplify the perpetrators’ story felt too in-line with what Banet-
Weiser (2021) identified as the male-victimhood response to #MeToo. Her article, “‘Ruined’
Lives: Mediated White Male Victimhood,” analyzes the discourse from the men who were called
out and held accountable for their gendered violence. When Law & Order: SVU, under the
leadership of Michael Chernunchin, focused more on the perpetrators’ voices than the victims’
story, Law & Order: SVU “essentially lost the plot” of the #MeToo moment even when they had
been basically telling #MeToo movement stories for nearly two decades (Actor B).
However, it is important to recognize that Michael Chernunch thought he was addressing
the culture’s moments and giving #MeToo the stage. Hence, the showrunner’s positionality is so
critical; they have the agency to dictate how to address momentous shifts in social discourses. If
the showrunner is a social critic, then there is significant responsibility that comes with the
position. When asked about how he would handle the tipping point for #MeToo – Harvery
Weinstein, he responded as such:
We are hitting Harvey Weinstein head-on, but it not in the realm of the entertainment
business…It’s a real important episode about the rape culture in an industry, and we
wanted to try stretch the law to criminalize that sort of environment….We were actually
working on a story about airline pilots and what a boys club that is…We were beating the
story out and said, ‘Wow, this is exactly what the actresses go through in Hollywood. It’s

192
the same environment.’ So we got all of our Harvey stuff out with airline pilots (as cited
in Abrams, 2017).
Ultimately, Michael Chernunchin did not hit Harvey Weinstein “head-on.” While the episode to
which he is referring, “Flight Risk,” Season 19, episode 11, is a powerful episode about the
sexual assault of a flight attendant from a pilot, this was not the Harvey Weinstein episode
viewers wanted to see. Nearly all the female actors I interviewed felt the Harvey Weinstein
assaults were personal.
As actors in the very industry that initiated the #MeToo moment, the interviewees had
their own feelings of being powerless against various men with roles of authority within the
entertainment industry. While none expressed having experienced the trauma that Harvey
Weinstein’s victims survived, they offered how they experienced various situations that were not
professional but were normalized within the entertainment industry. The entertainment industry
operates very differently from the airline (or any other) industry when it comes to normalizing
sexual harassment because of the nature of the job. As Actor F shared, “auditions require us to
act and dress according to the character we are playing. These characters aren’t always
professional people.” Actors are auditioning for roles that represent various people in various
situations. Some of the stories they tell are of a sexual nature or require a certain look or
behavior from the actor playing the character. These are situations that do not come up in other
industries, and therefore inappropriate remarks or behaviors are more easily identified as wrong
elsewhere.
To exemplify this situation, I will share the story of one of the actors I interviewed, Julia
Bray. No longer acting in the entertainment industry, Julia Bray felt comfortable sharing her
story for this project with her name attached. She had a co-star role in Season 12, episode 13,

193
“Mask.” Her character was a stripper who was assaulted at a night club. Stabler and Munch
interview her about what happened to her and reassure her that they do not judge her for her
profession. When our interview began, Julia Bray asked me, “and I can just speak freely about
Dick Wolf?” which set the tone for her relaying her audition process for Law & Order: SVU.
Julia Bray had just graduated with a BFA from NYU Tisch School of the Arts in 2010. She
explains:
I had auditioned several times before, and talking about type casting… I was always
going in for the prostitute, or the hooker, or the stripper or the drug addict. Which, you
know, whatever, there is already implications about that sort of typecasting.
Typecasting, which I discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, refers to hiring actors for roles based
on their appearance and how they “read” to the audience. For this particular role of the stripper,
Julia was called back for a producer’s session. In a producer’s session the executive producers,
showrunner, writers, and sometimes the director of the episode are present. Actor B describes
producer sessions as:
high stake auditions. They are down to just two to four choices for the role. Any of us
could play the part at that point. All the top people are there to see how you read and look
before making the final choice and offering you the part.
For Julia Bray’s producer’s session, Dick Wolf was in the audition room too. She states of the
experience:
I remember going to callbacks, like a producers session, and I had this big fur coat on and
then underneath it I had this skimpier top, and I can’t speak exactly to what Dick Wolf
said, because I don’t want to quote him wrongfully, but it was something to the effect of
‘sweetie you can’t audition in that coat – like you need to take that off!’ And I don’t think

194
he physically touched me but it was like ‘let’s see what you have underneath the coat!’
you know, it was like this vibe of like ‘what are you doing, you are auditioning for a
hooker we need to see your body’ So that was like an interesting beginning to like - you
know at that point in my career you just do what you are told. And like, there is
something to be said about, of course they do need to maybe see my body for this role, I
guess. I’m playing a stripper who has been sexually assaulted. But like the interesting
thing is we never see the stripper dance! We don’t ever see her at work, in the script we
don’t ever see her do anything having to do with sex work.
Julia Bray’s story parallels many of the other stories from actors who have attended dozens of
auditions over the years. Because the role calls for something specific, potentially sexual, it can
be normalized for the industry men in power to say and ask things that would be blatantly
unprofessional in other industries. The irony in this case, is in Julia Bray’s scene, she is seated on
the back seat of an ambulance, wrapped in a trauma blanket, talking to Detective Stabler. You
only see her face. She does not dance, she does not strip, and you never see her body in the
scene. Yet, the creator for the show – a show that is about giving voices to sexually assaulted
victims/ survivor - unabashedly requested Julia Bray remove her jacket and show her body for
the audition. Conversely, Julia Bray describes the experience of shooting the episode to be
wonderful. She details how Chris Meloni was incredibly kind, professional, and made her feel at
ease when she was nervous on set. She said the production staff was lovely to work with and it
was one of the best television filming experiences she has ever had. Julia Bray adds final
thoughts on booking the role:
And to me it speaks to the industry. It speaks to like patriarchal bullshit and like, the
double-standard of women’s bodies. Before I even open my mouth he is like, ‘let’s see

195
your body.’ So um that happened, I got the job, and it’s just one of those things where I
just laughed it off because it wasn’t like harmful, it’s just the culture and it’s not
acceptable but it’s the culture. I think I laughed and joked about it with a bunch of people
like ‘well that’s Dick Wolf’ you know? It’s interesting talking to you about it in this
moment, because I am so far from that politically now. If someone talked to me like that
now, I’d be like ‘no, I don’t want this job.’ But at the time it was just par for the course. I
have a thousand stories about being objectified in multiple scenarios.
Again, Julia Bray’s sentiments are echoed by the other female actor interviewees regarding
auditions various shows/ series/ films. Because of the power dynamic, and the need to be hired,
not just for the sake of performing, but as an occupation to making a living, actors are more
willing to accept this type of culture. Julia Bray called in “par for the course.” Actor C referred to
these moments as “annoying but accepted.” And Actor B said, “it kind of just is what it is.”
Furthermore, as Julia Bray said, the producer’s session wasn’t traumatizing. She was not
physically or emotionally harmed. Dick Wolf said what he did in front of the entire production
team, not thinking there was anything to hide from his peers. But these are the small moments
that create the culture that allows the Harvey Weinsteins of Hollywood to prevail. Between the
power of the #Metoo moment and Julia Bray not being a part of the industry anymore, she states
that she would be more vocal about how Dick Wolf’s comments were not necessary. Her revised
outlook speaks to the changes happening within the industry. Even, as Billy Porter discusses at
the end of in Chapter 3, #MeToo has changed the way the industry understands its interactions
with each other. The previous notions of production culture have been disrupted. In our
interview, Billy Porter discussed how the gay culture within the entertainment industry has been

196
altered. What was understood or meant to be interpreted as harmless flirtations between
directors, choreographers, and chorus boys are now being reexamined in light of #MeToo.
Furthermore, a Julia Bray’s episode evolved into a noteworthy statement nearly a decade
after it aired in Spring of 2011. During the #MeToo moment, Julia Bray recalls being tagged in a
new viral meme, a screen shot from her episode. The meme had two key lines written in text
under her and Chris Meloni’s faces: Her line, “I’m a stripper, okay?” and his line, “it doesn’t
matter what you do. It is not an invitation to be sexually assaulted.”

Julia Bray recalls this experience:
When it aired in 2011, we were years away from the #MeToo movement. And it didn’t
surface until 2017ish. People started sharing that all over the internet on many different
platforms and tagging me and letting me know it was a meme. It was such a positive
encapsulation of the sexworker movement and sex positivity. It was very specific to
sexwork and their liberation. And I am not a sex worker so I cannot claim any part of that
movement, but I have friends who are sex workers, and I saw a lot of reflections from

197
people being like, this is really impactful to see the mainstream media defend sexwork in
2010. It’s a fun wild little moment. For me, that’s all you can hope for. You portray this
character on television which is like … I hope I did sex workers justice. And then later,
you become a symbol for like liberation (I mean not me, but that conversation in the
show) and it feels pretty cool that [Law & Order: SVU] was having those conversations
back then.
This scene (written under Neal Baer as showrunner), where Detective Stabler listens to her
character is a classic Law & Order: SVU moment. He understands that her profession could
affect the viability of her story, but the way he chooses to not judge her for what she does is
critical. His intention is to listen to what happened to her as though she were any other human,
and that is an important moment. These are the moments the female actors as viewers of the
series felt were missing from the initial #MeToo era of Law & Order: SVU. However, once
again, when the showrunner changed (Warren Leight returned for Season 21) and Norberto
Barba joined the team not as a director, but as an executive producer, the tone, style, and
narratives transitioned. With the return of Warren Leight, whose objective as a showrunner
(according to Norberto Barba’s account) aimed to take risks, push the network, and to promote
his intervention and social critiques, his narratives embrace the challenges of this conjuncture
(and future ones
67
) head on.

The Executive Producer and The Return of Warren
In Chapter 1, I discuss the process of creating produced television content as cyclical
agency. Expanding from Herbert, Lotz, and Punathambekar’s (2020) notion of “circumscribed

67
See the Conclusion

198
agency” wherein the director (or in this case showrunner) makes production decisions based on
the options they are presented from specialized departments/ individuals, I described the
cyclicity of this agency (p. 91). The showrunner informs the parameters for the writers,
producers, actors, directors, and designers of a series, and within those bounds, they present
options and ideas back to the showrunner for final approval. Norberto Barba, director and
executive producer for Law & Order: SVU (2006-2021) describes his role and how his agency
operates within this production process with the showrunner:
As an executive producer, I tend to look at a whole season. And I work closely with [the
showrunner]. Warren [Leight] and Julie [Martin] come up with their scenarios with the
other writers and then they send me an early draft. I’ll comment on it, and it is a very
collaborative space. My job is not only to execute the written word and try to elevate it
and do it in such a way that I give it justice in terms of the script itself and [but to make
sure] that everything the writers intended was addressed. And then everything that comes
with production, from hiring the directors, scouting locations, casting, everything. Also in
my purview is the look and style of the show.
In this role, Norberto styles himself as the support for the showrunner. He describes working for
the showrunner and the showrunner’s vision. He says, “my relationship with the showrunner
impacts how I do my job. Some are better than others. It comes down to trust and a
collaboration.” However, to do this, he says the showrunner needs to participate in the
collaboration (the cyclical agency). As a director Norberto Barba had worked with all four of
Law & Order: SVU’s showrunners, on this and other series. He describes Neal Baer as,
“interesting because he was a doctor, and he went to AFI
68
, and I went to AFI!” Norberto Barba

68
AFI is the American Film Institute located in Los Angeles

199
muses at Neal Baer’s unique background and how that impacts the choices he makes for his
narratives as a showrunner. He states that he “goes way back with Ricky [Rick Eid]” and that he
“did a bunch of cool stuff with Michael [Chernunchin],” but says of both on Law & Order: SVU,
they had a more hands-off approach that he didn’t find as successful. However, he states, “as a
director you feel Warren Leight is more visible. Some [of the other showrunners] you don’t see
as often, maybe you see them for the concept meeting and the tone meeting. Warren is more
involved.” This distinction is significant, because it speaks directly to the showrunner’s agency.
They can determine their level of involvement and influence with the show. Beyond creating the
narratives, the degree to which they are present and actively making decisions for the series is in
their control. According to Norberto Barba, he found Warren Leight to be more engaged and
immersed with the series than the previous two showrunners. As Norberto Barba explained, the
level of involvement from the showrunner impacts how he does is job as an executive producer.
Starting in Season 21, several changes occurred regarding style and content when Warren
Leight returned as showrunner and Norberto Barba joined the team as an executive producer. In
terms of style, Norberto Barba discusses how he noticed drastic changes from how the sereis
genre was depicted over the years. Because of his background as a director, he used this
knowledge to inform his work with Warren Leight to make cinematic adjustments. Norberto
Barba contends that since the show is over two decades old, it needs to constantly reinvent itself
– a job that is tasked to production by the network.
Norberto Barba describes his process of familiarizing himself with the cinematic
development of Law & Order: SVU. He watched Seasons 17 through 20 and then arbitrarily
chose Season 5 for a point of comparison. He explains what he noticed:

200
the movement of what happened, [Season 5] was very gritty, it was very dark. And then
as the show went on to became very stagey, very TV-ish, very glossy. And I said, ‘I want
to go back. Let’s backtrack. Let’s try to feel New York as a character more.’ I saw they
were using the steady camera a lot, and so we went back to a lot of handheld [cameras].
And we added more contrast with lighting and try to do things out in the street.
Within the realm of cyclical agency, Norberto Barba convinced Warren Leight of this change in
direction, of taking the show back to its original tone, its Dragnet inspired style. Even though
Warren Leight was showrunner during its shift to the light and glossy era, he responded to
Norberto Barba’s directorial input. This anecdote of collaboration exemplifies the cyclical
agency between the showrunner and the other creators on series.
In terms of content, the series revisited the #MeToo moment and gave the audience a
truer Harvey Weinstein inspired story as well as a Jeffrey Epstein influenced episode. In this
regard, Norberto Barba describes how he and other’s work on the show have been evolving and
responding to such moments. He states, “I feel privileged and honored to be involved with [Law
& Order: SVU] and make an impact.” While the theme of empowering women to speak out and
confront their assailants has always been an enduring premise of the show, the two previous
seasons did not do the #MeToo moment its proper justice. Warren Leight and Norberto Barba
embraced the attention this moment had received beyond the context of Law & Order: SVU.
Barba contends, “we are in this interesting time, so the #MeToo movement affects our show
tremendously.” As an executive producer, he addresses what this means for an ongoing show in
the two years following the initial #MeToo moment. Alluding to the basic plot points of Jeffrey
Epstein’s arrest and death (Rashbaum, Weiser, & Gold, 2019) from the previous summer, “Can’t
be Held Accountable” (Season 21 episode 9, 2019) and “Must be Held Accountable” (Season 21

201
episode 10, 2020) tell the story of wealthy photographer, Steve Getz (Vincent Kartheiser) who
preys on underage girls, “gifting” them with cash in exchange for sex with him and his elite
friends on yachts and in penthouses. His assistant, Granya Marcil, played by Bree Tuner, who
bears a striking resemblance to Ghislaine Maxwell
69
, recruits the girls for Steve Getz under the
guise of promoting them as models. When Steve Getz is eventually arrested, he commits suicide
by strangling himself while alone in his prison cell. While broadly following details from the
Epstein case, the backstories of the victims and their families are unique to these two episodes.
For Norberto Barba, it is imperative that even when they are ripping from the headlines, they are
also making “the stories [their] own.”
The historic Season 21 premiere
70
, “I’m going to Make you a Star” (Season 21 episode
1), evokes the Harvey Weinstein story (Feuer, 2020). This episode was also directed by Barba,
and “Manhattan Vigil” writer, Peter Blauner, served as consulting producer and co-writer with
Warren Leight. British actor, Ian McShane, portrays Sir Tobias Moore, a media mogul who is
raping young, aspiring actresses auditioning for him. His power and wealth make him a
challenge for Benson and the SVU team to take down, as he has influence and prestige with the
New York governing bodies. In the opening scene of “I’m going to Make you a Star,” just after
the teaser and intro, one of the cops who drove the latest victim to the station tells Lieutenant
Benson that the perpetrator “is some media big wig, and since the whole Weinstein mess, my
lieutenant told me not to put his name on the radio.” In that one opening line, the show
acknowledges the Harvey Weinstein case exists in their world and insinuates this is a parallel

69
Epstein’s alleged accomplice
70
With this 459
th
episode, season 21 broke the record for longest running primetime drama in
U.S. TV history.

202
situation
71
. Likewise, throughout the episode, references are made to #MeToo and Time’s Up.
The Time’s Up movement was started in 2018 by Hollywood celebrities to raise money and
awareness surrounding victims of sexual assault
72
. Detective Rollins details how Sir Tobias
Moore’s name has shown up on #MeToo lists and blogs. In another scene, the new ADA,
Venessa Hadid, appears on a morning news show and sates, “The DA has given my office a
mandate to aggressively pursue all predators.” Then, directly looking into the camera to address
the audience, she firmly states, “on subway, in bars, even boardrooms, if you’re an offender,
time’s up.” This depiction’s purpose is twofold. It addresses the broad outcry for prosecuting
those who have evaded justice, even referencing Time’s Up. It also foreshadows the hypocrisy of
the DA’s office when they succumb to financial and political power over justice in this and
future episodes. This scene speaks to the theme of Season 21, which Norberto Barba describes as
a way to examine how and by what means justice is and isn’t being served depending on social
economic status and power. Barba states “it was obvious it was the Harvey Weinstein story. But
we wanted to have even more of an impact.” He addresses the powerful, final scene where the
detectives walk into the courthouse for Sir Tobias Moore’s arraignment. A large crowd of
women are gathered; they are past victims of Sir Tobias Moore. The women stand together in
solidarity, holding #MeToo signs and posters stating the year they were attacked by Sir Tobias
Moore: 2018, 2007, 2002, 2000, 1999, 1995 etc. Barba explains that this last scene was added
after the initial episode was filmed and edited. He recounts, “so, after we cut
73
[the episode], we
need something to suggest that this is taking up a bigger space - becoming a huge thing. And a

71
This is reminiscent of the referencing Ray Rice in the Ray Rice inspired episode discussed in
Chapter 3.
72
Joyful Heart has not collaborated with Time’s Up.
73
In this instance, “cut” refers to the editing of scenes – not “cut” as in scrapping the episode as
with “Unstoppable.”

203
lot of people come back to that moment.” For Norberto Barba, it was vital to demonstrate how
this was a turning point in both the show and in our culture. Now, beyond the Law & Order:
SVU construct, which has been engaging in these discussions for two decades, the show’s
producers are underscoring how this moment is spreading into a mainstream discourse.

Chapter 4 Conclusion
#MeToo is a significant conjuncture in many respects, but it is particularly relevant to
Law & Order: SVU because of the series’ content. Looking at the showrunners’ perspective and
influence through the development of Olivia Benson leading into and during the #MeToo
moment heightens our understanding of why showrunner identity and perspective matters. The
narrative created by the showrunners shaped an environment (in conjunction with Mariska
Hargitay’s acting choices and portrayal of Olivia Benson) that permitted real-world activism,
outreach, and interventions through the Joyful Heart Foundation. The necessity of this
foundation’s work escalated publicly during the #MeToo moment. This chapter also articulates
how different showrunners respond and depict the same socio-historical moment in unique ways.
Through actor interviews, I explained why the showrunner as a critical thinker and social critic
has broader implications during important conjunctures. Further, the relationship and power
dynamics within the production process was explored in relation to #MeToo as way to
understand how different roles in the industry hold varying degrees of agency based on identity,
status, and perspective.

204

Dissertation Conclusion:
“The Defense rests, your Honor” -Season 5, episode 4, “Loss”

Closing Arguments

Members of the jury, throughout this dissertation you have heard expert testimony from
various creative contributors to Law & Order: SVU’s two-decade production that describes the
influential role the non-celebrity showrunner plays in presenting television narratives and the
production structures under which their agency can be limited. Drawing on theory and
methodological approaches grounded in the fields of communication, media studies, cultural
studies, and production cultures, I have presented an intervention on behalf of television’s artistic
contributors that underpins the showrunners’ power as a critical thinker and social analyst.
Broadly, what does this mean? It means that you, the jury (dissertation reader) must find the Law
& Order: SVU showrunners responsible for the series’ content in the first degree and Dick Wolf
and NBC principle in the second degree
74
. NBC and Dick Wolf (other than the pilot episode) do
not write the episodes, create new characters, or develop narrative arcs. They are, however,
dictating the showrunner’s engagement in these practices and can weigh in on the process. I
submit to you that the showrunner is responsible in the first degree for the details, tone, and
development of the television narratives. Due to the showrunners’ personal experiences and/ or
bias, the way each showrunner reflects and choses to highlight political turns, media headlines,
and social moments is encoded in how they dictate character journeys and narrative arcs. This

74
“Principal in the second degree – those who aided, counseled, commanded, or encouraged the
perpetrator in the actual commission of a crime” (law.cornell.edu).

205
becomes especially clear in terms of making this case through the Law & Order: SVU
showrunners because of the series’ longevity and direct engagement with sociohistorical
conditions (the ripped-from-the-headlines part). But we must also hold the network/ creator
responsible as well, for they hired the showrunner to commit this act. At any point, the network/
creator can intervene in the process or eliminate the showrunner altogether – which we have
witnessed.
Starting with the structural facts of the case, we explored the history of Law & Order:
SVU’s development and its place within the crime drama genre and television studies at large.
The structures of the television industry matter and play a role in maintaining Law & Order:
SVU as the “well-oiled machine” that continues its smooth operation. We saw how, even with
showrunner agency, certain aspects of the series remain largely unchanged. I return to the expert
testimony of director Sharat Raju: “you are not reinventing SVU.” The show’s basic premise and
format, set forth by creator Dick Wolf and the NBC network, endure through each showrunner
transition and must be followed by the directors, writers, producers, and actors working under
them. Furthermore, certain logics of casting and diversity that have been ingrained in the
entertainment industry prove difficult to shake. Through the critical content analysis, we saw that
over a two-decade period, even when social and political discourses regarding the need for more
inclusion and diversity surfaced over the last decade, representation on Law & Order: SVU did
not adjust. This speaks to the case laid out by opposing counsel (other scholarship) that suggest
the structures of the industry take precedence over the creators working within the structure. I am
not refuting the impact of these structures but submitting where there is space for agency within
these structures and that the showrunner has power within this space to dictate representational
shifts (shifts they thought they were embracing, but in actuality, were not). As many of the Law

206
& Order: SVU defense attorneys argue, their clients are purportedly not responsible for the crime
because of various circumstances. However, the prosecution, through witness and expert
testimony, endeavors to demonstrate to the jury that the accused bears a degree of personal
responsibility; similarly, I argue the showrunner can make these representational changes (if they
have the awareness to, as they have on streaming shows). The witness and expert testimony I
have provided you through this dissertation supports my argument that the showrunner can and
does exercise agency as a critical thinker and social critic through their work on a series. They
offer their unique commentary and set forth various agendas through the stories and characters
they introduce. You have heard from the showrunner, Neal Baer, himself, “the stories are from
my perspective, it is not an objective show.” The showrunner claims agency and I have
demonstrated how it operates in a cyclical nature with those working under them on the show.
This is critically important as we move toward larger interventions regarding media narrative and
character representations. If the perspective and personal lens of the showrunner is guiding the
encoded messages in a series, then who is in the showrunner position is of utmost importance.
Through the chapters of this dissertation, we have seen the content and perspective shifts
that have occurred through the showrunner transitions. In Chapter 2, I demonstrated how Neal
Baer’s seasons primarily focused on a medical perspective that was influence by his background
as a pediatrician and medical journals he had read. Through Chapter 3, we saw when Warren
Leight began working as the Law & Order: SVU showrunner, the medical angle largely dropped
out, and episodes focused on race and class, and popular media headlines and popular culture
references emerged with more prominence. Furthermore, in Chapter 1’s critical content analysis,
the representation of Black characters superseded parity with their Manhattan demographic
percentage under Warren Leight (evidence, if you will, that representational change and

207
movement is possible). In Chapter 4, I was able to demonstrate how given the same conjuncture,
the #MeToo moment, three different showrunners, Rick Eid, Michael Churnuchin, and (the
return of) Warren Leight represented this moment differently within the constructs of the same
series; I located how the showrunners engaged with #MeToo content leading into the #MeToo
conjuncture as well as its primary moment and famous cases. Additionally, in Chapter 4, I traced
how the same character, Olivia Benson, was developed and impacted by all of Law & Order:
SVU’s showrunners over the course of two decades. In support of why the content the
showrunners create matters, I shared how these moments on Law & Order: SVU have led to real-
world discourses and actions. Stemming from Neal Baer’s rape-kit backlog episode and the
victim/ survivor outreach toward Mariska Hargitay because of her role as Olivia Benson,
Mariska Hargitay founded the Joyful Heart Foundation to help real-world victims/ survivors. We
also heard witness testimony from actor Julia Bray whose role as a sexually assaulted stripper
from Neal Baer’s era resurfaced as a meme amid the #MeToo moment. Putting her audition
experience with Dick Wolf into context with the series’ content, we can see why who is in the
room making the decisions is impactful and relevant. The impact from the production exists
beyond the televised narratives and touches the lives and careers of the other industrial
professionals working under the production (as we also saw with Ann Dowd in Chapter 2 and
Billy Porter in Chapter 3).
Research on various episodes or aspects of the series matters, notions of media effects
exist, and methodologies and solutions regarding representation are important. However, I am
arguing that all these interventions and realms of scholarship are components to a larger outlook
on studying a television series. By combining the context from cultural studies, the content from
television studies, and the intent from production cultures, I introduce Law & Order: SVU’s non-

208
celebrity showrunners as critical thinkers and social analysts whose interpretation of
sociohistorical conjunctures are reflected through their series’ narratives.
Now, before the judge dismisses you to deliberate, I have several additional points to
address. These following sections of the conclusion are here to acknowledge the moving target
that is a currently airing series, which has not concluded its run. New conjunctures continue to
rise with which the showrunner (who is Warren Leight at the moment) must contend.
Furthermore, as we continue to embrace the interdisciplinarity of Communication and the
changing landscape of media studies, additional lines of inquiry regarding the digital afterlives of
Law & Order: SVU will inevitably impact showrunner decision making in a similar capacity to
sociohistorical conjunctures. Between the official Law & Order: SVU social media interactions,
the lead actors’ social media interactions, and fan and audience social media interactions, how
the showrunner chooses to filter and engage with these added discourses will be consequential.
Furthermore, given the shows traditional broadcast platform in conjunction with binging
capabilities provided through cable marathons (TBS, TNT, USA, Ion) and streaming options
(Hulu and Peacock) the simultaneous and nonlinear presentation of multiple showrunner
discourses present an interesting juxtaposition. In these following two sections of the conclusion,
I will briefly introduce these additional lines of inquiry and where my future research in this
arena might lead.

Police Shows in the era of “Defund the Police”

My research for this dissertation concluded with Warren Leight’s return as showrunner,
the 459
th
episode “I’m Going to Make You a Star,” and the #MeToo conjuncture. However,
through the Spring - Summer of 2020 it became clear a new sociohistorical conjuncture had

209
entered our culture (one we are still in); and much like #MeToo, it would directly impact the
production and creative aspects of Law & Order: SVU.
As I addressed in the introduction, several articles were published that called for the
canceling of Law & Order: SVU and specifically Olivia Benson (Calhoun, 2020; Dickson, 2020;
Lawler, 2020). Dickson (2020) states:
No matter how much you love Olivia Benson, you have to be willing to grapple with the
fact that she plays a major role in perpetuating the idea that cops are inherently
trustworthy and heroic, and that many viewers are unable to distinguish between the
gossamer fantasy of how justice should be handled, and how it actually is. If cops are
canceled, that means all cops are canceled, up to and including the strong and pretty ones
we like to watch break down pedophiles in interrogation rooms. (para 9).
Calhoun (2020) expresses a similar sentiment:
If stories play a role in shaping public opinion, the legacy of American cop narratives has
mostly functioned as escapist storytelling for white comfort at the expense of black
experience: Crimes are solved in an hour and the good guys tend to win, when in
reality fewer than half of reported violent and property crimes are solved. (para 9).
These accounts are important and a critical example of how society is reexamining culture and
storytelling during this current conjuncture, something the showrunner of Law and Order: SVU
must not only contend with, but directly address.
In my interview with Norberto Barba, he stressed the impact the discourses from these
articles had on Warren Leight as they resumed filming amid the Covid-19 pandemic. For Warren
Leight and Norberto Barba, the manner in which Law & Order: SVU opened their season post
Summer 2020 was pivotal. Barba states, “People will not be able to see police procedurals again

210
in the same way. Articles about how TV distorts stuff because they make the cops heroes…[that]
is what we address in the first episode.” Norberto Barba felt this perspective needed to be
addressed by showing the SVU detectives as nuanced, fallible characters. He opens up about
tension with the network regarding their depiction of this content. He explains, “We got heat for
that first episode because they thought we were being too political, and they didn’t want that.”
But he credits Warren Leight and Mariska Hargitay (currently an executive producer), for
pushing the episode forward. Norberto Barba contends, “it’s 42 minutes, it’s supposed to be
entertaining. We want to bring up these social issues but at the same time we don’t want to hit
you over the head with these things. We get a chance to bring up certain issues and it makes for a
discussion.” The way Warren Leight presented the episode demonstrates his concern for the
cultural climate and continued desire to use Law & Order: SVU as vehicle to ignite discussion
and perspective shifts in their viewers. Of course, there is the added element that they do not
want their show to be canceled, but his actions, in pushing back against NBC is yet again,
another example of how the showrunner agency is pertinent.
Norberto Barba credits Warren Leight with undertaking “the obligation to present the
reality of where we are,” which ultimately leads into the first episode of Season 22, “Guardians
and Gladiators.” Norberto Barba, who also directed the Season 22 premiere, took on the weight
and complexity of the Summer of 2020. He describes the opening scene:
from the first seconds, you know we are telling the audience that we are not going to
bow away from any subject matter. It starts off with the central park bird watcher guy
and the Karen. And I shot it the same way they did it, that it was for real. It starts with

211
that and then becomes a whole George Floyd thing, and then we address the pandemic.
All in one episode we deal with racial unrest, police accountability, and the defund the
police things.
The premiere, which was delayed due to Covid-19 filming restrictions, hit the viewers with
everything at once and specifically addressed the viral Christian Cooper video (Nir, 2020).
Masks are periodically worn by detectives, witnesses, and medics, as people casually remind
each other “Covid” as they maintain distance. The White woman in the park, who adamantly
declares to the detectives, “I’m not a Karen!” called the police on the Black man in the park,
Jayvon Brown (Blake Morris), claiming he was scaring her young son. A crowd gathers as the
police arrive, and the young boy finds an injured and unconscious man off the main path of The
Ramble in Central Park. Without the victim able to identify his assailant, the White woman
indiscriminately blames Jayvon for the crime. The SVU detectives run Jayvon through their
system and see he has two outstanding arrest warrants. As they cuff him, he explains his warrants
are from George Floyd protests. It is clear Fin Tutuola is conflicted as is Benson. However, they
feel given the information they have, they follow their “by the book” procedure and continue
with the arrest. This sets off a domino effect that blocks their ability to prosecute the true
perpetrator because the NYPD has lost all credibility with the grand jury, due to mistakenly
arresting Jayvon for a crime with which he had nothing to do. The episode underpins how
Benson begins to confront her own racial biases and blind spots. Benson is interrogated by
internal affairs, IAB Captain Renee Curry (Aime Donna Kelly) a Black woman, and she
confronts Benson about how her actions, which were “grounded in standard police procedure,”
contribute to the systemic racism of the NYPD. Benson is humbled and horrified by the
insinuation, but Curry shares with Benson that she had falsely arrested Jayvon 5 years ago. She

212
details the instance from Season 15 episode 3, “American Tragedy,” where a Southern, racist
chef, “stands her ground” and shoots a young, Black boy wearing a hoodie, which is a clear
reference to Paula Deen’s (2013) racial slur scandal and Trayvon Martin’s (2012) murder.
Benson explains Jayvon fit the description the chef had given them, but in this moment she
becomes aware of the effects caused from the NYPD racial profiling. Throughout the episode,
which sets the tone for the season, Benson embarks on learning and soul searching.
Barba describes another important scene from “Guardians and Gladiators,” where Deputy
Chief Christian Garland (Demore Barnes) has a weighty confrontation with Detective Tutuola.
Detective Tutuola defends Benson, and Chief Garland asks him point blank, “Would things have
played out differently if Jayvon were White?” Tutuola agrees that the “Karen” wouldn’t have
called the cops in the first place if that were the case, “and if she did, the precinct cop wouldn’t
have cuffed him.” When asked if he thinks SVU’s racial bias played a role in the incident,
Tutuola gives his honest response, “Not consciously. I’ve worked with Captain Benson for over
20 years. Her only bias is for the victim.” As Tutuola begins to depart, Deputy Chief Garland
says to him:
Sergeant… We have one thing in common. We’re both Black and blue. We’ve been
on this job a long time. Did you know my father joined the force in the ‘70s? Made
Sergeant. Those days, that was about as far as they’d let us go. Those days are over.
Things are changing… This is a true inflection point….I know it. I also know the old
guard won’t go down without a fight. There’s gonna be a purge… This is your second
lawsuit this year. You shot a Black man in his home [who was trying to kill his son].
It was a good shooting but that doesn’t matter. None of us are safe. Not me, not you,
not Captain Benson.

213
This moment is vital as it depicts two Black, NYPD detectives addressing how race affects their
roles as police. Barba explains how it was good that previous Deputy Chief Dodds (Peter
Gallagher) departed the show the prior season because Garland, “as an African American guy
can bring up stuff that someone like Dodds couldn’t. And he does. It’s like he’s held a lot of this
stuff in about what it means to be a Black cop.” This scene allows the audience to hear the
tensions these men experience between their identity and their careers. Garland and Tutuola’s
race enables them to unpack the layers of these issues in ways White cops would not. The scene
even goes so far as to outline how Tutuola might face racial backlash for his past actions even if
they were justified. Garland’s speech is layered with hopefulness for change, but caution that the
change might occur merely for optics rather than engaging with the nuance of individual
situations.
In continuing with my research and this project, it will be critical to follow Warren
Leight’s engagement with this conjuncture. As I have stated, because the showrunner is dictating
the narrative, who the showrunner is matters. I question if Warren Leight is the best showrunner
to head the writing of this next era of stories. I had the same question for the #MeToo moment. If
the intention of the showrunner is to embrace these social discourses, and (as executive producer
Norberto Barba states) do justice to these critical moments, and if the showrunner is a critical
thinker and social critic, I suggest the narratives should be led by someone who intrinsically
understands these perspectives. Julie Martin has been working under Warren Leight for many
years. Mariska Hargitay has been an executive producer. Women are involved and have
influence, but there has never been a woman showrunner. Moreover, when specifically
addressing issues of race and discrimination, is the lens of a White man showrunner the ideal
lens through which these stories should be filtered? To be clear, I am not saying no one can write

214
for characters that do not share their exact identity; but if the point Law & Order: SVU wants to
make is that it is engaging and representing these perspectives, and the showrunner’s personal
experiences and interpretation of social moments impact their work on a series, I offer that rather
than cancel Law & Order: SVU or Olivia Benson, NBC reexamines who is in charge of the
storytelling. This is a line of inquiry I will continue to pursue, particularly as the Law & Order
franchise’s newest spinoff, Law & Order: Organized Crime, introduces the franchises’ first ever
female showrunner, Ilene Chaiken.

More Next Steps

Through these chapters I have introduced various conjunctures and tied their impact on
the showrunner to how the showrunner creates narratives and character arcs for the Law &
Order: SVU series. Therefore, I find it rather meta, that at this particular moment, there is a
micro sociohistorical conjuncture within the Law & Order: SVU world. Over the last year (Fall
2020 – Summer 2021) several important moments have come to the forefront: Christopher
Meloni has returned as Elliot Stabler in the franchise’s newest spinoff, Law & Order: Organized
Crime; mid-season (January 2021), Law & Order: SVU and Law & Order: Organized Crime
started several cross-over episodes which reunited Benson and Stabler after more than a decade;
Law & Order: SVU fan activity on Twitter and Instagram has reached new heights as the threads
about #EO (their moniker for Elliot and Olivia) are running ramped. At the same time, both
Christopher Meloni and Mariska Hargitay have significantly increased their personal social
media presence and interactions with fans, driving further engagement from the Law & Order:
SVU social media community. Leaving hints and Easter eggs for the fans, Christopher Meloni
and Mariska Hargitay share friendship photos, fan pictures, teasers for the future of their

215
characters and collaboration. As of last night (August 12
th
, 2021) fans interpreted a hint from
Mariska Hargitay’s twitter that she has several fake fan accounts where she is participating in the
fan activity incognito. All this is to say, a lot of activity is developing within the Law & Order
franchise world; activity from their most avid viewers with which the showrunners of the two
series Warren Leight (Law & Order: SVU) and Ilene Chaiken (Law & Order: Organized Crime)
will need to contend. This is an interesting moment I will continue to follow as my research
continues and progresses.
Additionally, I am interested in exploring the digital afterlives of Law & Order: SVU and
how various showrunner discourses and past sociohistorical conjunctures function when two-
decades of intertextuality live simultaneously and indiscriminately for audiences. Parallel to its
20-year broadcast evolution on NBC, which continues to air new episodes, is Law and Order:
SVU’s network re-run culture on Ion, TNT, TBS, and USA in addition to its current Hulu and
Peacock streaming format. Therefore, despite its evolved, newer discourses, the show continues
to circulate previous issues and perspectives, which creates a complex paradox of messaging.
Future research should examine how this concurrent access and distribution impacts the overall
arc of contemporary conjunctures and showrunner reputation.

216
Afterword
In the doctoral student system, dissertation defenses are considered especially important.
In the Annenberg School of Communication, the dedicated graduate students who
investigate their topics aim to be members of an elite squad known as the Doctor of
Philosophy holders. This was my dissertation.

217

References

Abrams, N. (2017, November 22). Law & Order: SVU to tackle Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Entertainment Weekly. Retreived from https://ew.com/tv/2017/11/22/law-order-svu-
harvey-weinstein/

ACLU Illinois (2011, March 17). Familial DNA testing raises privacy and civil rights
concerns. Retrived from https://www.aclu-il.org/en/news/familial-dna-testing-raises-
privacy-and-civil-rights-concerns

Adorno, T.W. (1954), How to look at television. The quarterly of film radio and
television, 8(3) 213-235.

Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (2000 [1944]). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as
Mass Deception.

Alsultany, E. (2013). Arabs and Muslims in the media after 9/11: Representational strategies
for a “postrace” era. American Quarterly. 65(1). 161-169.

Andreeva, N. (2011, April 11). Warren Leight to run ‘Law & Order: SVU.’ Deadline.
Retreived from https://deadline.com/2011/04/warren-leight-to-run-law-order-svu-
121580/

Andreeva, N. (2016, March 10). Rick Eid new ‘Law & Order: SVU’ showrunner, inks
Universal TV deal. Deadline. Retreived from https://deadline.com/2016/03/rick-eid-law-
order-svu-showrunner-universal-tv-deal-1201718325/#!

Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Empowered: Popular feminism and popular misogyny. Durham: Duke
University Press.

Banet-Weiser, S. (2021). ‘Ruined’ lives: Mediated white male victimhood. European Journal
of Cultural Studies. 24(1). 60-80. doi:10.1177/1367549420985840

Barnard, I. (2017). Rhetorical commonsense and child molester panic- A queer intervention.
Rhetoric society quarterly. 47(1). 3-25. doi: 10.1080?02773945.2016.1159720

Bird, S. E. (2003). The audience in everyday life: Living in a mediated world. London,
UK: Routledge.

Bennett, T. & Woollacott, J. (1987). Bond and beyond: The political career of a popular
hero. London, UK: Macmillian Education Ltd.

Bernabo, L. (2019). Expanding television’s cultural forum in the digital era: Prime time
television, twitter, and Black lives matter. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media. 63(1) 77-93. Doi:10.1080/08838151.2019.1566862.

218

Blakely, E. (2017). Showrunner as auteur: Bridging the culture/ economy binary in digital
Hollywood. Open cultural studies. 1. 321-332. doi.org/10.1515/culutre-2007-0029.

Blake, M. (July 1, 2013). Judge throws out three lawsuits against Elmo puppeteer Kevin
Clash. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from:
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-kevin-clash-elmo-
judge-throws-out-lawsuits-20130701-story.html

Blow, C. M. (2014, September 15
th
) Ray Rice and his rage. New York Times. pg. A23.

Bogle, D. (2001). Toms, coons, mulattoes, mammies, & bucks: An interpretive history of
Blacks in American films. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.

Bower, S. (1992). Fans as tastemakers: Viewers for quality television. In L. A. Lewis (Ed.),
The adoring audience: Fan culture and popular media. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bushman, B. J. & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D.
G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.) Handbook of children and the media. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Busis, H. (2013, October 3). ‘Law & Order: SVU’ takes on Paula Deen and Trayvon Martin.
Entertainment Weekly. Retreived from https://ew.com/article/2013/10/03/svu-trayvon-
martin-paula-deen/

Butsch, R. (2003). Ralph, Fred, Archie, and Homer: Why television keeps re-creating the
white male working class buffoon. In G. Dines & J. Humez (eds.) Gender, Race
and Class in Media: A Text-Reader. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications Inc.

Calhoun, J. (2020, June 28
th
). Saying goodbue to Law & Order. The Atlantic. Retrived from:
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/06/law-order-cop-stories-police-
violence/613570/

Cardwell, S. (2007). Is quality television any good? Generic distinctions, evaluations and the
troubling matter of critical judgement. In J. McCabe & K. Akass (Eds.), Quality TV:
Contemporary American television and beyond (pp 19-34). New York: NY: I.B.
Tauris.

Casey, M. (July 31, 2015). How the daycare child abuse hysteria of the 1980s became a witch
hunt. The Washington Post. Retrieved from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-modern-witch-hunt/2015/07/31/057effd8-
2f1a-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html

Chapleau, K. & Oswald, D. L. (2010). Power, sex and rape myth acceptance: Testing two
models of rape proclivity. The journal of sex research. 47(1). 66-78

219
doi:10.1080/00224490902954323.

Chow, R. (2016, October 14). ‘Shamless writer Krista Vernoff dishes Emmy switch from
drama to comedy. Golderby. https://www.goldderby.com/article/2016/shameless-
krista-vernoff-vancouver-film-festival/

Christensen, C., Gill, E., & Pérez, A. (2016). The Ray Rice domestic violence case:
Constructing Black masculinity through newspaper reports. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues. 40(5) 363-386. doi:10.1177/0193723516655576

Clark, M. D. (2020). DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture.”
Communication and the Public. 5(3-4) 88-92.

Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of
audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society. 4(3).

Cohen, L. R. (May 1, 2009). What happened to Etan Patz. New York Magazine. Retrieved
from: http://nymag.com/news/features/56441/

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review. 43.

Cucklanz, L. M. (2000). Rape on prime time: Television, masculinity, and sexual violence.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Cuklanz, L. M. & Moorti, S. (2011). Television’s “new” feminism: Prime-time
representations of women and victimization. In G. Dines & J.M. Humez (Ed.), Gender,
race and class in media (pp. 115-125). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

D’Acci, J. (1994). Defining women: Television and the Case of Cagney & Lacey. Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

DeFino, D. J. (2013). The HBO Effect. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.

de Graff, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, W.J. (2011). Identification as a
mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 39(6) 1-22.
doi: 10.1177/009365021140894

de Moraes, L. & Hipes, P. (May 22, 2018). 2017-18 TV series ratings rankings: NFL
football, ‘big bang’ top charts. Deadline. Retrieved from:
https://deadline.com/2018/05/2017-2018-tv-series-ratings-rankings-full-list-of-shows-
1202395851/

Dickson, E. (2020, June 12). Sorry, Olivia Benson is canceled too. Rolling Stone. Retrieved
from: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/olivia-benson-svu-
mariska-hargitay-canceled-cops-1014181/

220

Dines, G. & Humez, J.M. (eds.) (2003) Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, inc.

Duffet, M. (2013). Understanding fandom: An introduction to the study of media fan
culture. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

Dunn, J.L. (2005). “Victims” and “survivors”: Emerging vocabularies of motive for “battered
women to stay.” Sociological Inquiry. 75, 1-30. doi:10.1111/j.1475-
682X.2005.00110.x

Durham, G.M. & Kellner, D.M. (eds.) (2012). Media and Cultural Studies: Key works,
Second Edition. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.

Ellcessor, E. & Kirkpatrick, B. (eds.) (2017). Disability media studies. New York, NY: NYU
Press.

Evans, G. (2021, January 6). ‘Law & Order: SVU’ turns to a dark Broadway for job-hunting
actors. Deadline. Retrieved from https://deadline.com/2021/01/law-order-svu-
broadway-warren-leight-casting-actors-covid19-shutdown-1234665615/

Frank, L.B., Murphy, S.T., Chatterjee, J.S., Moran, M.B., & Baezconde-Garbanti, L.
(2014). Telling stories, saving lives: Creating narrative health messages.
Health Communication, 30(2), 154-163. doi: 10.1080?10410236.1014.974126

Fairstein, L. (2018, May 21). ‘The real SVU’: We kicked open the courtroom doors and got
justice for sex-crime victims. USA Today. Retrieved from
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/21/real-svu-sex-crimes-me-too-
special-victims-unit-column/627082002/

Farmer, A. (2013). Crime scenes. Directors Guild of America Quarterly. Winter, 2013.
Retrieved from: http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1301-Winter-
2013/Television-Law-and-Order.aspx

Feuer, J. (1983). The concept of live television: Ontology as ideology. In A. Kaplan (ed.)
Regarding television: Critical approaches – an anthology. Frederick, MD:
University Publications of America.

Feuer, J. (2000). Melodrama, serial form, and television today. In H. Newcomb
(ed.) Television the Critical View. Oxford. H. Newcombe (ed.) University Press:
New York, NY.

Feuer, J., Kerr, P., & Vahimagi, T. (1984). MTM: “Quality television.” London, UK: British
Film Institute.

Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture: Popular pleasures and politics. Methuen & Co Ltd.

221

Fiske, J. (1992) The cultural economy of fandom. In L. A. Lewis (ed). The adoring
audience: Fan culture and popular media. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fiske, J. (1996). Media matters: Race and gender in U.S. politics. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.

Federman, J. (1998). Introduction. In Television Violence Study. 3. University of California,
Santa Barbara; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; University of Texas at
Austin; University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Freedman, E. B. (2013). Redefining rape: Sexual violence in the era of suffrage and
segregation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ge, Y. (2018). Marching forward with #Metoo: The representations of women in American
political television series. Gender Forum, (70). 40-59.

Gill, R. & Orgad, S. (2018). The shifting terrain of sex and power: From the ‘sexualization of
culture’ to #MeToo. Sexualities. 21(8). 1313-1324. doi:10.1177/1363460718794647

Gitlin, T. (1983). Inside primetime. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Gitlin, T. (2000) “Prime time ideology: The hegemonic process in television
entertainment” in Television the Critical View. Oxford. H. Newcombe (ed.) University
Press: New York, NY.

Goldberg, L. (2011, September 21). ‘Law & Order: SVU’ showrunner Warren Leight on the
cast shake-up and his approach to the series. The Hollywood Reporter. Retreived from
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/law-order-svu-showrunner-warren-
236750/

Goldberg, L. (2014, December 10). Shonda Rhimes at THR’s power women event: “I haven’t
broken through any class ceilings.” The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/shonda-rhimes-at-thrs-power-755878

Gray, J. & Lotz, A. (2019). Television Studies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Gray, H. (1995) Watching race: Television and the struggle for Blackness. Minneapolis
MN: University of Minnesota Press

Gray, H. (2013). Subject(ed) to recognition. American Quarterly. 65(4). 771-798.

Green, S., Dawn, R., & Wolf, D. (2009). Law & Order: Special Victims Unit unofficial
companion. Dallas, TX: Benbella Books, Inc.

Gross, L. (1989). “Out of the mainstream: Sexual minorities and the mass media” in E.

222
Seiter (ed.) Remote Control: Television, Audiences and Cultural Power. New
York, NY: Routledge.

Halberstam, J. (2018). Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Hall, S. (1973). Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse. Birmingham, UK:
Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies.

Hall, S. (2013) Representation: Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1979). Policing the crisis:
Mugging, the state and law and order. Palgrave Macmillan.

Halliday, J. (June 26, 2014). Jimmy Savile: timeline of his sexual abuse and its uncovering.
The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/26/jimmy-
savile-sexual-abuse-timeline

Hancock, A.M. (2016). Intersectionality: An intellectual history. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press

Harnick, C. (2017, October 4). Finally! The Law and Order: SVU change everyone –
including Kelli Giddish – has been waiting for. E! Retrieved from
https://www.eonline.com/news/884589/finally-the-law-and-order-svu-change-
everyone-including-kelli-giddish-has-been-waiting-for

Haring, B. (2021, May 20
th
) ‘Law & Order: SVU’ lessons help 11-year-old Orlando girl mark
her would-be abductor – Mariska Hargitay responds. Deadline. Retrieved from:
https://deadline.com/2021/05/law-and-order-svu-mariska-hargitay-11-year-old-girl-
florida-attempted-kidnapping-blue-slime-helps-id-1234761426/

Harkins, G. (2020). Virtual pedophilia: Sex offender profiling and U.S. security culture.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Havens, T. & Lotz, A. (2014). Understanding media industries, 2
nd
edn. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Hendershot, H. (2013). “Parks and Recreation: The cultural forum” in E. Thompson &
G. Mittel (eds.) How to Watch Television. New York University Press: New York,
NY.

Henry, M. A. (2012). The Simpsons, satire, and American culture. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Herrera, B. E (2015). Latin numbers: Playing Latino in twentieth-century U.S. popular
performance. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

223
Herbert, D., Lotz, A.D., & Punathambekar, A. (2020). Media industry studies. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.

Hofmeister, S. (1997, October 21). Universal sells most of its TV assets to Diller. The Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://articles.latimes.com/1997/oct/21/news/mn-
44989

Hogan, J. (2021). Anatomy of a rape: Sexual violence and secondary victimization scripts in
U.S. film and television, 1959-2019. Crime Media Culture. 1-20. doi:
10.1177/17416590211000388

Hoggart, R. (1957). The Uses of Literacy: Aspects of Working Class Life with Special
References to Publications and Entertainments. London, UK: Chatto and
Windus.

Hong, C. (2011, October 14). When did people start saying “showrunner”?. Slate. Retrieved
from: https://slate.com/culture/2011/10/showrunner-meaning-and-origin-of-the-term.html

hooks, b. (1992) “Representing Whiteness in the Black Imagination”

Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T.W. (1972). Dialectic of enlightenment. New York, NY:
Herder and Herder.

“How did your favorite show rate?” (2002, May 28). USA Today. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20170222174856/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/televis
ion/2002/2002-05-28-year-end-chart.htm

Hunt, D., Ramon, A.C., Tran, M., Roychoudhury, D., Chica, C., & Brown, A. (2019).
Hollywood diversity report 2019: Old story, new beginning. Report for the UCLA
College of Social Sciences.

Hurst, S. J., Marett, E. G., Lei, M., Ren, C., & Ran, W. (2015). Law & Order, CSI, and NCIS:
The association between exposure to crime drama franchises, rape myth acceptance,
and sexual consent negotiation among college students. Journal of Health
Communication. 20(12). 1369-1381.

Inside Edition (2021, May 20
th
). Girl who escaped alleged kidnapping attempt says ‘Law &
Order: SVU’ taught her to leave ‘blue slime’ clue. Inside Edition. Retrieved from:
https://www.insideedition.com/girl-who-escaped-alleged-kidnapping-attempt-says-law-
order-svu-taught-her-to-leave-blue-slime-clue

Jackson, L. M. (2020, February 8
th
). When ‘representation matters’ becomes a meaningless
rallying cry. Vulture Retrieved from https://www.vulture.com/2020/02/representation-
matters-penguin-diverse-editions.html

Jenkins, H. (2006). Slamming media effects. Confession of an Aca-fan. Retrieved from:

224
http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2006/09/slamming_media_effects.html

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York,
NY: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H., McPherson, T., & Shattuc, J. (Eds.). (2003). Hop on pop: The politics and
pleasures of popular culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Johnson, D. (2013). Media franchising: Creative license and collaboration in the culture
industries. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2018, May 8). Inside the NYPD special victims unit: Victims tell their
stories. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-nypd-
special-victims-unit-victims-tell-their-stories-1525780801

Lambert, B. & Baker, A. (2007, October 23). ‘Preppy Killer’ arrested on drug-sale charges.
The New York Times.

Landau, N. (2014). The TV showrunner’s roadmap. Burlington, MA: Focal Press.

Lawler, K. (2020, June 5). Amid George Floyd protests, is it time for cop TV shows to be
canceled for good? USA Today. Retrieved from
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/06/05/george-floyd-protests-
should-we-cancel-cop-tv-shows-good/3145692001/

Lawrence & Wishart (2017). Conjunctural analysis and the crisis of ideas. Soundings: A
journal of politics and culture. 65.

Ledbetter, C. (2016, September, 21). Why you should expect a Brock Turner-inspired
episode on ‘Law & Order: SVU’ this season. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-you-should-expect-a-brock-turner-inspired-
episode-on-law-order-svu-this-season_n_57e0139fe4b0071a6e08888a

Levine, L. (1990) Highbrow/Lowbrow: The emergence of cultural hierarchy in
America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Levitt, L (2021). Sharing/ restricting knowledge: The moral economy of sex workers’
information sharing practices. The Spectator. 41(1). 18-27.

Lidchi, H. (2013). The poetics and the politics of exhibiting other cultures. In S. Hall, J.
Evans, and S. Nixon (Eds.) Representation. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Lindsey, C. (2016). Questioning Netflix’s revolutionary impact: Changes in the business and
consumption of television. In K. McDonald and D. Smith-Rowsey (Eds.) The Netflix
effect: Technology and entertainment in the 21
st
Century. 173-182. London, UK:
Bloomsbury Academic.

225

Lotz, A. (2018) We now disrupt this broadcast: How cable transformed television and
the Internet Revolutionized It All. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mac, J. & Smith, M. (2018). Revolting prostitutes: The fight for sex workers’ rights. London,
UK: Verso.

Maske, M. (2014, September 9
th
). Baltimore Ravens cut Ray Rice in wake of latest domestic
violence video. The Washington Post.

MasterClass (2021, September 10
th
). What is a showrunner: Shonda Rhimes’s advice for
showrunners. MasterClass Articles. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-a-
showrunner-shonda-rhimess-advice-for-showrunners#what-skills-do-you-need-to-be-a-
good-showrunner

Mathis, J. B. (2015). Demonstrations of agency in contemporary international children’s
literature: An exploratory critical content analysis across personal, social, and
cultural dimensions. Literacy Research and Instruction. 54(3).

Mayer, V., Banks, M. J., & Caldwell, J. T. (2009). Production studies: Cultural studies of
media industries. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.

McCabe, J. (2013). Feminist film studies: Writing the woman into cinema. New York, NY,
USA, Columbia University Press

McHugh, K. (2018). The female detective, neurodiversity, and felt knowledge in Engrenages
and Bron/Broen. Television & New Media. 19(6) 535-552.
DOI:10.1177/1527476418767995.

McLuhan, M. & Fiore, Q. (2001). The medium is the message: An inventory of effects.
Berkley, CA: Gingko Press.

Meisler, A. (1995, February 26). The man who keeps ‘E.R.’’s heart beating. New York Times.

Meizel, K.L. (2016). Idolized: Music, media, and identity in American Idol. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.

Merken, S. & James, V. (2019). Perpetrating the myth: Exploring media accounts of rape
myths on “women’s” networks. Deviant Behavior. 41(9). 1176-1191.
doi:10.1080/01639625.2019.1603531

Mittell, J. (2004) Genre and television: From cop shows to cartoons in American
Culture. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mitovich, M. W. (2021, May 28). TV ratings: SVU outdraws Grey’s and ties for Thursday
demo won. TV Line. Retreived from https://tvline.com/2021/05/28/tv-ratings-law-and-

226
order-svu-season-22-episode-15/#!

Modleski, T. (1984). Loving with a vengeance: Mass-produced fantasies for women.
New York, NY: Routledge.

Montgomery, K. C. (2007). Generation digital: Politics, commerce, and childhood in the age
of the internet. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Moyer-Guse, E., Jain, P., Chung, A.H., (2012) Reinforcement or reactance? Examining
the effect of an explicit persuasive appeal following an entertainment-
education narrative. Journal of Communication, 62(6) 1010-1027

Moyer-Guse, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining
the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication
Theory, 18(3), 407-425. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x

Morley, D. (1992). Television, audiences, and Cultural Studies. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Neuendork, K. A. & Jeffries, L. W. (2017). Media effects: Accounts, nature and hirstory of.
Communication Theory, 21.

Newcomb, H. & Hirsch, P. M. (2000) “Television as a Cultural Forum” in H. Newcomb
(ed.) Television the Critical View. Oxford. H. Newcombe (ed.) University Press:
New York, NY.

Newman, M. Z. & Levine, E. (2012). Legitimating television: Media convergence and
cultural status. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

Ng, E. (2021). The “gentleman-like” Anne Lister on Gentleman Jack: Queerness, class,
prestige in “Quality” period Dramas. International Journal of Communication. 15.

O’Connor, M. (2009, December 7). The brand manager: Dick Wolf’s family of crime dramas
took advance planning. TV Guide. Retrieved from
https://www.tvguide.com/news/dick-wolf-law-1012868/

Ong, T. (2017, August 14). Netflix signs Grey’s Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes to multi-
year deal. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16142342/shonda-rhimes-
deal-netflix-greys-anatomy-scandal

Paulsen, W. (February 13, 2003). Fox stands ground on Frenchie’s ‘American Idol’ ban.
Reality TV World. Retrieved from: https://www.realitytvworld.com/news/fox-stands-
ground-on-frenchie-american-idol-ban-954.php

Parrott, S., & Parrott, C. T. (2015). Law & disorder: The portrayal of mental illness in U.S.
crime dramas. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media. 59(4) 640-657.

227
doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1093486

Patterson, D. & Campbell, R. (2010). Why rape survivors participate in the criminal justice
system. Journal of Community Psychology. 38, 191-205. doi:10.1002/jcop.20359.

Pearsall, H. (2012). Moving out or moving in? Resilience to environmental gentrification in
New York City. Local Environment. 17(9) 1013-1026.

Pieper, K. (2017). Solutions. Retrieved from
https://annenberg.usc.edu/research/aii/research/solutions.

Porter, R. (2021, June 8). 2020-21 TV ratings: Complete 7-day ratings for broadcast network
series. Retrevied from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/2020-21-tv-
ratings-every-network-show-ranked-1234964854/

Prasad, B. D. (2019). Qualitative content analysis: Why is it still a path less taken?
Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 20(3).

Qutami, L. (2020). Censusless: Arab/ Muslin interpolation into whiteness and the war on
terror. Journal of Asian American Studies. 23(2). 161-200.

Rentschler, C. A. (2014). Rape culture and the feminist politics of social media. Girlhood
Studies. 7(1). 65-82 doi:10.3167/ghs.2014.070106

Russo, J. L. (2009). Sex detectives: Law & Order: SVU’s fans, critics, and characters
investigate lesbian desire. Transformative Works and Cultures. No
3. https://doi.org/10.3983/twc.2009.0155

Schwark, S. & Bohner, G. (2019) Sexual violence – “victim” or “survivor”: News images
affect explicit and implicit judgments of blame. Violence Against Women. 25(12),
1491-1509. doi:10.1177/1077801218820202

Seemayer, Z. (2017, March 7). Ice-T spoils ending of Trump-inspired ‘Law & Order: SVU’
episode, admits ‘it wasn’t one of our best shows.’ E! News. Retrieved from
https://www.etonline.com/tv/212377_ice_t_spoils_trump_inspired_law_order_svu_admit
s_it_wasn_t_one_of_our_best_shows

Sestir, M. & Green, M. (2010). You are who watch: Identification and transportation
effects on temporary self-concept. Social Influence. 5(4).

Shniderman, A. B. (2014). Ripped from the headlines: Juror perceptions in the ‘Law &
Order’ era. Law and psychology review. 38. 96-123.

Simoncini, M. (August 1, 2017). A global network comes together to find missing children.
Tulsa: WomenPolice.

228
Slater, M.D. & Rouner, D. (2002) Entertainment-education and elaboration
likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion.
Communication Theory, 12(2) 173-191. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2885.2002.tb00265.x

Snauffer, D. (2006). Crime television. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Sowa, (2022, Forthcoming). Beyond Benson: From Law & Order: SVU to Holland’s
Grenslanders, female masculinity in crime dramas fall victim to feminized tropes.
Communication, Culture, and Critique.

Sparks, R. (1992). Television and the Drama of Crime: Moral Tales and the Place of
Crime in Public Life. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Spigel, L. (1992) Installing the television set: Popular discourses on television and
domestic space, 1948-1955. In L. Spigel & D. Mann [eds] Television and the
Female Consumer. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Stanhope, K. (2017a, August 30th) ‘Law & Order: SVU’ season 19 to tackle Charlottesville
riots, Charlie Gard case. The Hollywood Reporter Retrieved from:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/law-order-svu-season-19-plans-
charlottesville-episode-1033727/

Stanhope, K. (2017b, September 19
th
) How ‘Law & Order: SVU’ is getting a ‘fresh; take in
Season 19. The Hollywood Reporter Retrieved from:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/law-order-svu-season-19-spoilers-
1039342

Stocker, M. (2001). Paedophile panic. Alternative Law Journal. 26 (3).
Thompson, R. J. (1996). Television’s second golden age: From Hill Street Blues to
ER. New York, NY: Continuum.

Sun, R. (2019, April 29). 88 percent of showrunners are White, WGA West finds. The
Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/wga-west-releases-first-
inclusion-report-card-1205673/

Television Academy Foundation (April 21, 2013). Dick Wolf interview. Retrieved from
https://interviews.televisionacademy.com/interviews/dick-wolf

Thomas, J. (2015, October 14). SVU fan prefer the grisly episodes: An interview with
showrunner Warren Leight. Slate. https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/10/warren-
leight-law-order-svu-showrunner-interviewed.html

Thompson, M. (2000). Life after rape: A chance to speak?. Sexual and Relationship Therapy.
15. 325-343. doi:10.1080/713697439.

229

Tulloch, J. & Alvarado, M. (1984). Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text. New York, NY: St.
Martin’s Press.

Turnbull, S. (2014). The TV crime drama. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Turow, J. (1978). Casting for tv parts: The anatomy of social typing. Journal of
communication, 28(4).

Turow, J. (1980). Occupation and personality in television dramas: An industry view.
Communication Research, 7(3), 295-218.

TV Line (2017, September 7). Fall TV spoilers 2017: Scoop on 35+ returning favorites.
https://tvline.com/gallery/fall-tv-2017-season-premiere-spoilers/law-order-special-
victims-unit-season-18-21/

Warner, K. J. (2015). The racial logic of Grey’s Anatomy: Shonda Rhimes and her “post-civil
rights, post-feminist” series. Television & New Media. 16 (7) 631-647.

Williams, R. (1974). Television: Technology and Cultural Form. London, UK: Fonta

Williams, R. (1958). Culture is Ordinary. In Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy,
Socialism (pp. 3-14). Verso.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Women showrunners: authorship, identity and representation in US television

PDF

Trendy or transformative? How the global meme elite creates social change in the multilingual internet

PDF

"Wonders and wishes": contexts and influences of Black millennials' childhood television viewership

PDF

Labors of love: Black women, cultural production, and the romance genre

PDF

MATCH CUT: the making of professional screenwriters and a (counter)storytelling movement in film school

PDF

Encoding women: popular culture and primetime Indian television

PDF

Hanguk, hip hop: the making of hip hop in South Korea

PDF

Networked misogynoir: a critical technocultural discourse analysis of gendered anti-Blackness in the Black digital public sphere

PDF

The out field: professional sports and the mediation of gay sexualities

PDF

Comic books incorporated: industrial strategy and the legitimation of lowbrow media

PDF

Supper and segregation: navigating difference through food in Chicagoland

PDF

Image breakers, image makers: producing race, America, and television

PDF

Tacit anticipation among film students: an ethnography of making movies in film school

PDF

Reproducing fear amid fears of reproduction: the Black maternal body in U.S. law, media, and policy

PDF

Crowdsourced art: activating creative participation in online spaces

PDF

Part-time labor, full-time dreams: extras, actors, and Hollywood's on-screen talent

PDF

Virtually human? Negotiation of (non)humanness and agency in the sociotechnical assemblage of virtual influencers

PDF

Asian American media activism: past, present, and digital futures

PDF

Angel dreams: collective desire, resonant myth, and political possibility today

PDF

The data dilemma: sensemaking and cultures of research in the media industries

Asset Metadata

Creator Sowa, Lauren Alexandra (author)

Core Title These are their stories: two decades of Showrunner production, content, and context in Law & Order: SVU

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 06/14/2024

Defense Date 09/01/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cultural studies,media studies,OAI-PMH Harvest,production cultures,representation,Showrunner,television

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Jenkins, Henry (committee chair), Kun, Josh (committee chair), Gross, Larry (committee member)

Creator Email laurenalexander27@yahoo.com,lsowa@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111345297

Unique identifier UC111345297

Legacy Identifier etd-SowaLauren-10773

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Sowa, Lauren Alexandra

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20220622-usctheses-batch-948 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu