In Europe, an increasing number of jurisdictions allow their judges to publicly reveal their disagreement by writing a separate opinion when deciding in panel. One of the recurring questions in the debates surrounding this trend is whether making disagreements between judges public threatens or, to the contrary, strengthens their independence. The answer is far from straightforward. If, on the one hand, dissenting opinions allow us to hear the alternative arguments that emerged during the court’s deliberative process, they, on the other, turn the judges into public figures and expose them to external pressure. The possibility of writing separate opinions provides greater liberty to the judge, but at the same time it also offers the judge the opportunity to take sides politically. This short essay reflects on the various factors that may make the publication of dissenting opinions detrimental or, to the contrary, beneficial for the independence of judges.