In Defense of the Oxford Comma

The Oxford comma is one of the most hotly debated punctuation marks in modern English: beloved by some, dismissed by others, and occasionally at the centre of million-dollar lawsuits.

Also known as the serial comma, it’s the little comma that appears right before the final item in a list:

I bought apples, oranges, and bananas.

That last comma? That’s the Oxford comma.

Without it, you get:

I bought apples, oranges and bananas.

Same sentence, but sometimes, that missing comma can cause confusion—or even legal headaches.

This tiny punctuation mark has sparked a surprisingly fiery debate among writers, editors, and grammarians alike. Some insist it’s essential for clarity and rhythm; others argue it’s redundant or visually cluttered.

Different style guides have taken opposing sides. The Oxford University Press insists on using it, while the Associated Press style guide prefers to leave it out unless absolutely necessary to prevent confusion. And despite its name, it's actually more commonly used in the United States than in the United Kingdom.

And yes, real lawsuits have hinged on whether or not an Oxford comma was included.

The Great Comma Divide

So why is this single punctuation mark so controversial?

In favor of the Oxford comma:

• Clarity is king. Proponents argue that the Oxford comma prevents ambiguity. Without it, lists can sometimes read as if the last two items are connected—or even worse, as if they’re describing the previous item.

• Consistency. Some writers and editors like sticking to a clear rule: always use it, so you don’t have to make case-by-case judgement calls.

• Elegance and rhythm. For some, the Oxford comma simply feels more balanced. That little pause can add a satisfying cadence to a sentence.

Against the Oxford comma:

• Redundancy. Detractors claim it’s unnecessary and that context usually makes things clear enough.

• Visual clutter. Some find the extra comma disrupts the visual flow of a sentence.

• Stylistic differences. Journalistic style guides (like the Associated Press) have traditionally omitted the Oxford comma, which has filtered into everyday writing preferences.

The battle lines are drawn. And occasionally, this grammatical (well, punctuational) squabble leaves the realm of stylistic opinion… and enters the courtroom.

The $10 Million Comma

One of the most famous Oxford comma controversies happened in Maine, USA. In 2017, a group of dairy delivery drivers sued their employer over overtime pay. The state law listed exemptions that included:

“…packing for shipment or distribution of…” certain products.

The lack of an Oxford comma made it unclear whether “packing for shipment or distribution” was one activity or two separate ones. If it were two, the drivers weren’t exempt from overtime. The court agreed that the sentence was ambiguous and ruled in favour of the drivers.

The company ended up paying $10 million in back wages. Yes, $10 million. Because someone skipped a comma.

Why I'm Pro Oxford Comma

I started using the Oxford comma as a kid, long before I had any clue what a style guide was or why people argued over punctuation marks. (I was that kind of child. My parents were not even a little bit surprised when I declared I wanted to be a writer.) Honestly, at the time, it was because it had “Oxford” in the name, and that's where I dreamed of going to college.

But as I got older and learned more about language and writing—and about how easily a sentence can go sideways—I realised I’d accidentally made a very wise choice. Because the Oxford comma? It’s practical. It makes things clearer.

Yes, I know that in most cases the meaning is perfectly clear without it. But I’m a writer. Words are my tools, and I like mine precise and well-aligned. Plus—and let’s be honest—it just looks nice. There’s something about that extra comma that feels tidy. And sure, I could write around the ambiguity most of the time, but why would I when I can just use the Oxford comma instead?