What do original 1974–1975 Delaware court divorce records say about the grounds for Jill Biden and Bill Stevenson’s divorce?
Executive summary
The publicly available reporting based on Delaware reporting and later interviews shows Jill Biden and Bill (William) Stevenson separated in 1974 and a civil divorce was finalized in May 1975, with contemporaneous accounts and campaign statements describing the split as irreconcilable; allegations that the divorce was caused by an affair with Joe Biden originate with Stevenson and are disputed by Biden spokespeople and biographies [1] [2] [3]. None of the supplied articles reproduces or quotes the original 1974–1975 Delaware court filings or decree text, so the precise legal grounds recorded in the official court documents cannot be independently verified from the provided sources [1] [2].
1. Timeline from separation to decree: what contemporary reporting records
Multiple biographical and news accounts place a separation in 1974 and a formal divorce decree in May 1975, with Jill Biden leaving the marital home in the fall of 1974 and a civil divorce being granted the following spring; those time markers are repeated in media summaries and in statements from Biden’s representatives [1] [2] [4].
2. How sources describe the legal basis: “irreconcilable” in public statements, not a reproduced court form
When outlets summarize the divorce they often quote a Biden spokesman’s characterization that Jill “separated from her first husband irreconcilably in the fall of 1974,” language that describes the breakdown of the marriage but is a campaign or representative statement rather than an image or transcription of the official Delaware decree; the available reporting does not reproduce the original court document’s typed or stamped “grounds” language [1] [2].
3. Stevenson’s allegations vs. contemporaneous filings: a gap between claim and court evidence
Bill Stevenson has publicly asserted that an extramarital relationship with Joe Biden precipitated the split, and he has repeated that account in interviews with tabloid and opinion outlets; those claims are prominently reported in several pieces but are presented as Stevenson’s allegations rather than as citations from the divorce filings themselves [5] [6] [3]. The materials provided to this analysis do not include a scanned complaint, decree, or docket entry that lists “adultery” or any other statutory ground placed on the official record.
4. The stone balloon fight: property disputes reflected in reporting, not necessarily in a grounds clause
Multiple reports note that during the divorce Jill Biden sought a share of the bar and music venue The Stone Balloon and that she did not ultimately obtain half ownership in the proceedings; those civil-property claims are described in secondary sources and biographies as part of the divorce dispute, but again the original courtroom transcript or judgment text is not reproduced in the supplied reporting [2] [7] [4].
5. Conflicting narratives and the evidentiary limit of later interviews
News outlets repeatedly juxtapose Stevenson’s retrospective accusations with denials from Biden representatives and with the documented claim that Joe and Jill Biden first dated in March 1975, after Jill’s separation, but these are competing narratives built on interviews and statements rather than on the primary Delaware court file as presented here; therefore, the factual dispute about motive or moral fault is unresolved within the corpus of articles supplied [1] [2] [3].
6. Bottom line: what the original records would need to show and what cannot be asserted from the supplied reporting
Based solely on the materials provided, it can be stated with confidence that the couple separated in 1974 and divorced in May 1975 and that property claims over The Stone Balloon were part of the dispute, and it can be stated that Stevenson later alleged an affair while Biden’s camp denied it [1] [2] [7] [3]. What cannot be shown from these sources is the exact language of the Delaware court’s filings or decree—whether the divorce paperwork listed a specific statutory ground such as “adultery,” “cruelty,” or “irreconcilable differences,” or whether supporting affidavits mentioned particular allegations—because none of the provided reporting reproduces or quotes the original 1974–1975 court documents themselves [1] [2].