To many women, Mr. Trump has come to represent male sexual entitlement. I heard this repeatedly as I researched my book about why accusers are often doubted. One woman I spoke with, Marissa Ross, who has written about sexual assault and harassment in the wine industry, explained her quite typical reaction to the notorious “Access Hollywood” videotape that surfaced during the 2016 presidential campaign, in which Mr. Trump brags: “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” including “grab” women’s genitals. When she heard the tape, Ms. Ross told me, “I didn’t just hear Donald Trump. I heard every man that’s ever hurt me. It was those boys in high school, it was my ex-boyfriend, it was all those men. For me, and I imagine for many other survivors, it was not just hearing Trump. It was everyone that violated me.”

Mr. Trump’s election, which followed a campaign in which several women accused him of sexual misconduct, helped catalyze #MeToo. Ms. Carroll credits that movement with empowering her own decision to step forward. In the civil complaint, she recounts watching the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s accusers, and then many others, tell their stories of harassment and rape. As her complaint put it, she “saw how women had at last changed the public conversation by saying ‘Me Too’ and by demanding accountability.”

Now a jury must resolve what the judge in the case, Lewis A. Kaplan of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, described in an earlier ruling as “a ‘he said, she said’ case.” Ms. Carroll’s version of events is likely to be corroborated by two friends to whom she says she promptly turned after the assault. Her depiction of Mr. Trump may also be bolstered by the “Access Hollywood” tape, which the judge has allowed as evidence along with the testimony of two women who have accused Mr. Trump of nonconsensual sex acts, allegations that Mr. Trump has denied.

The testimony of a rape accuser alone seldom persuades a jury, so this bolstering can be helpful, if not essential, in surmounting what I call the credibility discount. Like most accusers, Ms. Carroll will need to overcome formidable barriers to belief. Even in a civil case like this, where the evidentiary standard of proof is much lower than in a criminal prosecution, accusers confront an uphill battle.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers will deploy strategies that are at this point familiar — because they are often effective despite capitalizing on myths about abuse. Since Mr. Trump is anticipated not to testify at trial, his case is likely to hinge on attacking Ms. Carroll’s own account. The defense may insist that she welcomed the bantering exchange that led the two to the dressing room, and Ms. Carroll’s recollection in her complaint that she “kept laughing” after the incident may be used to support this consensual version of events.