United StatesThis article discusses the legal concept of 'alienation of affections,' a tort that allows a spouse to sue a third party for interfering in their marriage through romantic involvement. The author critiques the argument that such a tort is unjust because the third party (the lover) did not make a promise to the spouse. Instead, the author draws parallels between alienation of affections and complicity liability, where knowingly encouraging someone to commit a wrong can make the encourager legally responsible. The author argues that while abolishing the tort in 45 states may be reasonable, it is not due to the claim that only spouses are at fault. Using examples like intentional interference with contracts, the author explains that even if two parties do not have ownership over each other, knowingly facilitating a breach of a voluntary agreement can still result in legal liability.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a legal analysis of the alienation of affections tort and its comparison to complicity liability. It does not take a clear ideological stance but rather provides a balanced explanation of legal principles and arguments surrounding the issue. There is no overtly biased language,
