This paper analyzes judicial review (concentrated and abstract) exercised by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) and the methods for and theories that allow an empirical approach to this phenomenon as a decision-making process, making use of political institutions (distribution of powers and competences) and legal interpretation (legal literature and concepts). The institutional context of the decision-making process assigned by the Brazilian Constitution to the Federal Supreme Court (STF) makes it act by means of concentrated judicial review, ascribing to it the power to judge the constitutionality of federal and state law or normative acts, judicially reviewing these norms. The objective of this study is to determine the role of judicial review and the extent of concentrated judicial review, using as empirical basis the decisions of the Supreme Court in 5011 Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs), adjudicated between 1988 and 2013. In the empirical test, there are the following main and mutually exclusive hypotheses: H1- Judicial review adds an institutional collective veto player in decision-making (institutional analysis), increasing policy stability while reducing size the winning set of the status quo or expanding the core of unanimity; H2- Judicial review does not add an institutional/collective veto player, because, institutionally, the constitutional design and the process of appointment of the members of STF indicates the validity of the absorption rule of the Court in concentrated judicial review by other veto players. Secondly, there are the following hypotheses: H3 – The number of legitimized plaintiffs for the petition of judicial review cases (ADI) increases policy stability and reduces importance of agenda setting and decision-making capacity of majority coalitions in decision making; H4 – The number of legitimate plaintiffs for the petition of judicializing measures increases the state/federative policy stability and is innocuous to federal policy stability and decision-making. Conclusions: The data demonstrates that H1 is supported in federative/state decision-making and little evident national level, partially refuting H2. However, given the number of legitimized plaintiffs, the massive introduction of judicializing measures at the national level indicates that judicial review is used by minorities as signaling for political positioning and maximizing future electoral opportunities without effectively restricting government (H3). Judicial review is directed preferentially to increase federative/state policy stability, reducing the role of opposition majorities or restricting decisions to extend the federal decentralization by state decision making (H4).