This essay analyzes Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House through three interconnected lenses: the power dynamics of Nora and Torvald's marriage, Nora's eventual decision to leave, and the pervasive theme of manipulation that runs throughout the play. Drawing on close readings of Act I and beyond, the paper examines how Torvald's condescending treatment of Nora reflects traditional gender roles, how Christine Linde's reunion with Krogstad does not undermine Nora's pursuit of freedom, and how nearly every character — including Nora herself — employs manipulation to navigate social and financial pressures. Together, these analyses reveal the play as a sharp critique of nineteenth-century domestic life.
The paper demonstrates close reading: it attends to specific word choices — "squirrel," "spendthrift," "little person" — and shows how those terms carry thematic weight. By linking recurring language to character dynamics, the writer moves beyond plot summary to genuine literary analysis.
The essay is organized around three discrete analytical questions, each building on the last. The first section evaluates Nora and Torvald's relationship. The second defends Nora's departure while acknowledging the counterargument about Christine. The third broadens the scope to argue that manipulation is the play's dominant structural theme, involving all major characters. A brief conclusion ties these threads together.
Whether the relationship between Nora and Torvald is good or bad really depends on the viewpoint of the reader. From a more traditional perspective, the marriage would be deemed proper, as Torvald ruled over his wife in the way many men of the era considered correct. From a modern perspective, however, Torvald would be deemed domineering and condescending. At the same time, Torvald genuinely believes he is doing what is best for his wife and fulfilling his role as her husband. For example, in Act I, Nora asks her husband for some money, and he suggests that she is wasteful with it while simultaneously indicating that she spends it all "on the housekeeping and any number of unnecessary things" (Ibsen 3). He goes on to remark that "One would hardly believe how expensive such little persons are" (Ibsen 3). Although he does not intend to be condescending, referring to her as a "spendthrift" and a "little person" is representative of his view of her as a less capable human being than himself.
Another example of his condescending attitude also appears in Act I, when he asks Nora whether she has been "breaking rules in town today" (Ibsen 3). Nora attempts to convince her husband that she has not been breaking any rules — that she has not been at the confectioner's or eating macaroons — even though she has. He eventually gives up as she insists on her innocence. As the ruler of the home in the traditional sense, Torvald apparently cannot imagine that Nora would ever defy him by indulging in sweets, and she is let off the hook.
It is also important to note that Nora makes many references to her own attractiveness throughout the text, particularly in the first act. When discussing with Mrs. Linde how she procured the money for the trip to Italy, Nora indicates that she will be more willing to tell the truth when her husband is no longer as interested in her. "When Torvald is no longer as devoted to me as he is now," she says, she will be more willing to tell him the truth — "when my dancing and dressing-up and reciting have palled on him; then it may be a good thing to have something in reserve." She then corrects herself, adding, "that time will never come" (Ibsen 9). Whether she means the time when she will stop doing those things or the time her husband will lose interest in her is left unclear. This statement demonstrates that their marriage is based largely upon appearances, at least in Nora's eyes — and looks alone are not the foundation of the "happy home" (Ibsen 9) that Nora believes she shares with her husband.
While critics have argued that Christine's relationship with Krogstad negates Nora's newfound freedom, this view is not entirely convincing. As the old saying goes, "different strokes for different folks." What makes one person happy is not always what makes another happy. This is made evident by the fact that, even knowing how Nora feels about her marriage and her new freedom, Christine still chooses to pursue her relationship with Krogstad. From the very beginning of the play, Nora signals that she is unhappy with her situation and her marriage to Torvald. In the context of the play's era, leaving may not have been the conventional thing to do, but from a modern standpoint a woman so deeply unhappy with her life would be encouraged to separate from her husband. Several passages support the conclusion that leaving was the right decision for Nora, at least in her own estimation, and most of them come from the first act.
While Torvald does not set out to be intentionally cruel, some of his words and actions are troubling. He often refers to his wife as a "squirrel," implying she is frivolous with money. She must hide the macaroons she purchases and wipe away the evidence before he can see, and when she asks him to come look at what she has bought, he first replies, "Don't disturb me" (Ibsen 1) and closes the office door. When he does return, pen in hand, he questions her immediately: "Bought, did you say? All these things? Has my little spendthrift been wasting money again?"
Torvald also makes statements such as "That is like a woman" (Ibsen 2). His attitude toward women generally, and toward his wife specifically, is deeply traditional — and Nora is anything but traditional by nature. Breaking free of him appeared to her to be the best course of action. In the end, Nora's decision to leave her husband and her former life behind provides a fitting counterpoint to Mrs. Linde's reunion with Krogstad, illustrating that two women can draw entirely different conclusions about love and independence.
The entire story is rich with manipulation. This can be viewed as a mirror of society and how people use and maneuver one another — sometimes without fully intending to — simply as a consequence of the social structures in which they live. In A Doll's House, manipulation flows in every direction: from husband to wife, from blackmailer to debtor, from admirer to beloved. The cycle of manipulation only ends when Nora severs the marital tie between herself and Torvald, choosing self-determination over the comfortable, if suffocating, performance of domestic life.
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.