 |
| Why Did Lizzie Borden Kill Her Father and Stepmother? The Motives Explained. |
Lizzie Borden’s motive for killing her father and stepmother has never been established as fact, largely because she was acquitted and the 1892 Fall River murders remain officially unresolved. Netflix’s Monster: The Lizzie Borden Story takes a much firmer position, portraying Lizzie as responsible and using several possible explanations to explore why she might have turned against Andrew and Abby Borden. In reality, however, the evidence never settled the question, leaving behind a case where motive has become almost as famous as the crime itself.
The Borden household was hardly a picture of domestic bliss. Lizzie and her older sister Emma reportedly had a strained relationship with their stepmother, Abby, whom their father Andrew married after their biological mother, Sarah, died in 1863.
Andrew and Abby married in 1865, but the sisters allegedly never fully accepted Abby as a replacement for their mother. According to accounts cited in Sarah Miller’s The Borden Murders: Lizzie Borden and the Trial of the Century, Emma referred to Abby by her first name, while Lizzie reportedly called her Mrs. Borden rather than treating her as a mother figure.
There were also claims that Lizzie disliked spending time with Abby, including reportedly choosing not to eat meals with her. One account even says Lizzie told a dressmaker that she hated her stepmother and considered her particularly mean.
That sounds like the sort of family grievance that would make for an extremely awkward Christmas dinner, but it is important not to turn it into proof of anything. Lizzie herself reportedly gave police a very different account, saying she and Abby had “kindly feelings” towards one another. Emma also maintained that there was no serious hostility between the sisters and their stepmother.
The financial question gives the case another possible explanation. Andrew Borden had accumulated considerable wealth, yet he reportedly lived more modestly than his fortune might suggest. The family home on Second Street in Fall River did not have some amenities Andrew could easily have afforded, including indoor plumbing and gas lighting. At the same time, he purchased another property for Abby’s half-sister in 1887, reportedly without first telling Lizzie and Emma.
That decision may have contributed to resentment because the sisters could have viewed their father’s spending as evidence that Abby was gaining greater influence over the family finances. More importantly, Andrew’s death could have changed the inheritance picture. Abby, as his wife, had an interest in his estate, meaning some observers later speculated that Lizzie and Emma could have feared receiving less of their father’s wealth than expected.
This theory has subsequently become one of the most frequently discussed explanations for the Borden murders. Some accounts have suggested that Abby may have been considered the first obstacle because removing her would leave fewer competing claims to Andrew’s estate. The estimated modern value of the Borden fortune is often placed at around $10 million, making the inheritance theory particularly tempting when trying to construct a motive more than a century later.
But there is a rather large problem with that explanation: there is no conclusive evidence that Lizzie killed either of them for money. The same applies to the theory that she acted because of her relationship with Abby. A difficult family dynamic can explain tension, but it does not automatically explain a crime.
Another theory concerns Lizzie’s pigeons. Andrew was reportedly believed to have killed the birds, which Lizzie cared about deeply, prompting speculation that anger over the incident could have played a role. Netflix changes that detail by incorporating Abby into the story surrounding the birds, giving the theory a more dramatic role in Lizzie’s motivation. It works neatly as television storytelling, but that does not make it established history.
The important distinction is between what was alleged about Lizzie and what was proved against her. She was charged in connection with the deaths, stood trial and was acquitted. Because the case never produced a definitive explanation, later generations have filled the gap with theories involving family resentment, inheritance, anger and personal grievances. Some may sound convincing when arranged into a neat narrative, but historical uncertainty does not disappear simply because a theory makes for a satisfying story.
The inheritance theory is fascinating precisely because it is so easy to construct and so difficult to prove. A wealthy father, complicated family relationships and daughters who reportedly wanted more freedom certainly provide plenty of ingredients for speculation, but ingredients are not evidence.
The Netflix version understandably needs Lizzie to have a clear motivation, while the real case offers something far messier: an acquittal, conflicting accounts and a mystery that refused to provide the convenient final answer. The pigeon theory is even stranger, because imagining a family tragedy beginning with birds sounds almost absurd until you remember how little is actually known about what happened inside that house.
The most interesting part of the Borden story is therefore not simply asking what motive sounds best, but recognising how much remains unknowable. More than a century later, we still cannot say with certainty why the murders happened, or whether Lizzie was responsible at all. Which theory do you find most plausible based on the known evidence?