父姓的常規，母姓的權利：子女姓氏修法改革的法社會學考察

Patonymic Norm and the Right to Use the Matemal Sumame: A Social-Legal Study of the Legal Regal Reform of Children's Surname Law

從父姓是臺灣社會的常規。絕大多數的人從父姓，舊民法也規定子女應從父姓。2007年的民法修正廢除子女應從父姓的規定，賦予父母約定子女姓氏的權利，這被認為是婦運修法運動的里程碑勝利。然而，修法之後，父姓常規稍有鬆動卻仍穩固，僅有極少數父母約定子女從母姓的現象也常被理解為是法律與社會之間的落差，法律改革難以促成社會變遷。但落差研究無法適當解釋此現象並瞭解法律與社會的關係。本文採取法律與社會的共構論觀點，探究個人與集體的法律動員如何建構從父姓法律的意義、挑戰父姓常規，並分析民主化前後的法律動員所採用的法律構框，以思考權利運動的意義和限制。本文界定四種型態的法律動員：立法游說、司法訴訟、行政游說與救濟、正式法律場域外的法律動員，分就「嚴格強制從父姓」（1945-1985）與「放寬從母姓限制」（1985-2007）兩個不同的政治與法律結構階段進行考察，指出個人的法律動員在子女姓氏法律改革過程中的重要角色、人口政策如何作為戒嚴時期從母姓修法動員的機會結構、民主化前後集體行動的法律動員型態與影響差異、從政策構框到權利構框的轉向，以及不同權利構框的意義：訴諸傳統的構框有其多樣性，「女性宗祧繼承權」更是一種創造逆反傳統的構框；男女平等的權利被主張為一種自由約定的權利，而子女利益與權利構框在民主化之後的興起也顯示從母姓權利意義的轉變。最後，本研究檢討形式平等的父母約定權利困境，並主張從實質平等的觀點進行法律動員以創造女性平等公民身分的必要性。

Patronymy is a norm in Taiwan's society. Mandating that children shall take their father's surname, Taiwan's old family law was both constitutive and reflective of patronymy as a norm. The law was revised in 2007 to entitle parents with the right to decide the surname of their child upon mutual agreement. This legal reform is celebrated as a milestone of feminist legal reform. However, official statistics shows that very few parents of newborns chose to give children their mother's surname, which means that patronymy stays as the norm. That the newly revised law fails to change the dominant practice of patronymy is often understood as a gap between law and society, but the gap theory of law and society does not offer satisfactory explanations for this phenomenon. This study therefore adopts the constitutive theory of law and society to investigate how individual and collective legal mobilization shaped and challenged patronymic laws, and how right framing were used to push legal reform. In this study, political and legal regimes are divided into two periods: the period of 'strict regulation' (1945-1985) and the period of 'loosening the restrictions on using maternal surname' (1985-2007), and patterns of legal mobilization are categorized into four types: legislative lobbying, judicial litigation, administrative lobbying and remedies, and extra-legal mobilization. The investigation into legal mobilization during the two periods finds that individual legal mobilization has played a significant role in shaping the law and that official population policy has facilitated the legal reform, and identifies several differences between forms of legal mobilization under the two regimes. The study of right framing used in legal mobilization demonstrates the transition from policy-based framing to right-based framing and the diversity of tradition-based framing, reveals the framing of 'women's right to continue the family line' as an invention of counter-tradition, and identifies the emergence of interest/right-of-the-child framing. It is concluded that legal mobilization in the past is dominated by formal equality thinking, and it is suggested that future mobilization for women's equal citizenship be based on substantive equality.