民國十九年民法親屬為制定公布，源於西方基督教國家之一夫一妻制度也隨之移植於我國婚姻法律規範。但為反應社會習俗，先後或同時與二人結婚之重婚行為，在民國七十四年親屬編修正之前，一直限於「得撤銷」之效果。自民國七十四年六月三日，親屬法修正第九八八條，重婚遂成為結婚無效之原因。關於重婚之效果，我國除有民事上損害賠償之規定外，刑法上亦有重婚罪之處罰。從法律規範上而言，我國婚姻制度乃從一夫一妻原則，即使在「得撤銷」時期，前婚配偶之權益仍優先且排外的受到法律保障。然而，自大法官作成釋字第242號解釋開始，我國法律對於一夫一妻制度的信仰開始動搖。釋字第362號解釋更使重婚無效之「自始」、「當然」、「絕對」的法律效力受到質疑，亦促使各界對於重婚無效之效力規範議論紛紛，甚有主張放寬重婚之效力者。而為粉飾362號解釋所作成的552號解釋，似亦無法回復一夫一妻制度在我國婚姻法上的面貌。在台灣本土對於重婚禁止之實質效果產生處動之際，又面臨台商紛紛至大陸「包二奶」的問題，台灣配偶的婚姻權益可調岌岌可危。 本研究之目的即在檢視我國禁止重婚之法律，在規範上、解釋上與執行上所發之爭議，並提出相捌規定之修正建議。首先，從法理土觀察一夫一妻法律制度形成與重婚禁止規定應有之內涵。其次從我國民法、刑法與大陸相關法律規定探討重婚之法律效果，並解析釋字第二四二號、第三六二號及第五五二號解釋所產生的影響與效果，尤其針對大陸「包二奶」問題，比較兩岸法規及兩岸人民開係條例，提醒我國人民在大陸結婚時注意重婚禁止之規定，並避免觸犯大陸對於「包二奶」之不利規定。本研究之預期成果，在於探究如何重新整頓我國關於重婚禁止之規定、解釋與適用，以維護人民在一夫一妻制度下的的婚姻權益。因此擬透過民意調查，探知我國人民對於重婚(包括「大陸包二奶」)問題的認知、對於法律禁止重婚的認同以及對於一夫一妻制度的看法，並藉以提出修法建遂，以供立法者參考。

The 1930 ROC Civil Code adopted the Christian-originated monogamous marriage system. But for the consideration of social custom, a polygamous marriage was simply ‘voidable’ under the 1930 Code. When the law was amended in 1985, the legal effect of a second marriage finally became null and void. Apart from the Civil Code, the Criminal Code also punishes the bigamous parties to a marriage. Though it is fair to say that the ROC law is in support of the monogamous marriage system, the Grand Justice has made some Interpretations to cause uncertainties. Interpretation NO.242 started to guard the legal status of a second marriage for political reasons. Interpretation 362 further raised doubts on the traditional legal belief in monogamy. Interpretation 552 failed to make things better, though the Grand Justice was trying to clarify some points. Facing the problem of the so-called 'taking a concubine' at the Mainland China, the uncertainties on monogamy further endanger the marital rights of a Taiwan ‘legal' spouse. The main aim of this research is to examine the ROC law regarding the prohibition of bigamy, especially the doubts on its interpretation and enforcement, with the view to make proposals for amendments. It begins with studies on the legal jurisprudence of monogamy and legal prohibition against bigamy, followed by observation of relevant ROC and PRC laws and relevant Interpretations made by the Grand Justice. By a thorough inspection of the provision of monogamous marriage under the laws, coupled with pertinent fieldwork done to understand opinions from the common people, suggestions may then be made for further modification of relevant laws and practice.