This essay examines Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House in the context of late 19th-century attitudes toward women, particularly the "cult of domesticity" that defined middle-class married life in Europe and America. The paper analyzes how Torvald's treatment of Nora — his controlling behavior, pet names, and surface-level expectations — reflects the prevailing cultural norms of the era. It also explores Nora's responses, including her manipulation and habitual lying, as survival strategies within a rigidly patriarchal marriage. The essay concludes by contextualizing Nora's dramatic departure as a rational response to the impossible standards women of her time were expected to meet.
Henrik Ibsen wrote his play A Doll's House at a time when women's lives were closely aligned with home, marriage, and family. While some women were actively working for greater rights by the end of the 19th century, they were the exception. Most women allowed their lives to be defined by the prevailing views of what women should be. While Ibsen may have exaggerated Nora's status within her marriage to some extent for theatrical purposes, the overriding sentiments about what a wife and mother should be were an accurate portrayal of women of that time.
By the end of the 19th century, a "cult of domesticity" — a set of beliefs about how wives should act — had been solidly established among the middle class in Europe as well as in America (Hartman). This was a set of cultural beliefs regarding the appropriate role of a married woman. People believed that the role of wife and mother, performed in submissive ways, was sanctioned by God. She raised the children, served her husband, managed the household, and was expected to be a moral example for her children (Hartman). As one popular magazine wrote in 1884: "A really good housekeeper is almost always unhappy. While she does so much for the comfort of others, she nearly ruins her own health and life. It is because she cannot be easy and comfortable when there is the least disorder or dirt to be seen" (Hartman).
These standards are reflected in Ibsen's play. While both Nora and her friend Christine are ready to sacrifice for their families, they do so for far more important reasons than a relentless pursuit of cleanliness. Christine marries a man she does not love so she can care for her mother and two younger brothers, while Nora commits a crime in order to save her husband's life. By comparing that magazine article with the kinds of choices Nora and Christine had to make, we see Torvald's actions in sharper relief — focused on trivialities and blind to the genuine strengths of the woman he imagines he has married.
The popular culture of the day could have encouraged women to seek more education, but instead directed them to focus obsessively on their home and families (Hartman). Torvald wanted this of Nora to an extreme degree. That extreme may have been a literary device, but it was grounded in reality.
During this period, "women's work" as homemaker was extolled as serving a higher purpose. As one writer of the time declared: "…some one said that woman's best work is that which is unseen by mortal eye…that this work is the steady uplifting and upholding of a higher standard of living; it is the reaching forward and upward, both for ourselves and others, towards a loftier life — for as a rule, and it is a rule that has few exceptions, woman creates the atmosphere of the home." Other writers of the period likewise viewed housekeeping as part of God's divine plan for women (Hartman). It is therefore understandable that Nora would see her lies and her crime as signs that she was an unfit mother who would inevitably corrupt her children through her misdeeds.
Ibsen's play also reflects the shifting views of the era. Although Torvald sees Nora as childlike and regards her primary role as amusing him, he is more than willing to hire her female friend as an employee. Clearly, both Torvald and Nora are aware that some women were beginning to lead more independent lives, but this is not the kind of wife Torvald wants. He says early in Act I that he hopes she will never change: "And I would not wish you to be anything but just what you are, my sweet little skylark."
Torvald frequently criticizes Nora yet insists he does not want her to change. He wants her to help maintain the appearance of a proper home while also valuing her ability to amuse him. These attitudes surface throughout the play. By using pet names that emphasize his superior position, Torvald keeps control of their relationship. In fact, the only time he calls her by her real name, Nora, is when he is lecturing her. He lectures her about careless spending, scolds her for speaking to Krogstad, and essentially orders her never to lie to him.
Yet Torvald himself creates the conditions that make lying necessary. Even though Nora's actions save his life, she knows he would not be able to accept that level of help from her and would oppose the debt she incurred — so she must lie to him about it. At the same time, Torvald expresses a belief common to the period: that mothers must serve as moral examples for their children, going so far as to state that "nearly all young criminals have had lying mothers."
Torvald also demonstrates a felt need to guide all the women within his sphere of influence. He plans to hire Nora's friend Christine at the bank where he works, and in Act III he notices Christine's knitting and suggests she take up embroidery instead because it is more "graceful." When he looks at women, surface appearances are his primary concern.
Torvald's actions and views only make sense against the backdrop of the "cult of domesticity" that shaped attitudes toward women when this play was written.
"Act-by-act evidence of Torvald's dominance"
"Nora's manipulation, lies, and survival strategies"
"Nora's departure understood through historical context"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.