Parliamentary supremacy has traditionally been at the core of the Westminster Model of government. Over the last century, however, a number of the classic Westminster polities have incorporated elements of judicial review of statutory law in innovative and often unique ways. What accounts for the variety of different forms of judicial review adopted? What is the most appropriate methodological approach to understanding its widespread adoption? This paper traces the process by which judicial review developed in three different instances: the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand. A comparative historical institutionalist approach is outlined and employed in advancing the claim that judicial review in Canada and New Zealand must be understood as rooted in the changing trajectory of Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom, in the colonial structure of the British Empire, and, crucially, in concerns over ethnic consociation and exclusion. In particular, policies regarding the expropriation of indigenous peoples have shaped the development of judicial review in these countries, often with feedback effects that had important consequences for the nature of the control regimes imposed by the settler state. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]