Dorthy
#10,917 in the US in 2025
Dorthy in the United States
Between 2015 and 2025 the name has been rising — up 48% as a share of girls' births.
SOURCE·US Social Security Administration, national baby-name data·Public domain. SSA lists a name only if it was given to at least 5 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026
Dorthy in New Zealand
Dorthy never reached 10 births in a single year in New Zealand, so it does not appear in the DIA file. That is a reporting floor, not a zero — the name may still have been registered here, just never ten times in one year.
SOURCE·NZ Department of Internal Affairs, births by first name·CC BY 4.0. DIA lists a name only if it was given to at least 10 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026
Decade by decade in the US
| Year | Rank | Births |
|---|---|---|
| 1890 | #1,099 | 7 |
| 1900 | #742 | 24 |
| 1910 | #495 | 67 |
| 1920 | #313 | 437 |
| 1930 | #234 | 684 |
| 1940 | #318 | 400 |
| 1950 | #542 | 231 |
| 1960 | #976 | 120 |
| 1970 | #1,904 | 45 |
| 1980 | #2,749 | 33 |
| 1990 | #6,131 | 14 |
| 2000 | #8,534 | 11 |
| 2010 | #12,276 | 8 |
| 2020 | #8,406 | 12 |
Where in the United States
The states that registered Dorthy most often since 1885. These are lifetime totals, so they track state population as much as local taste — a name common in Wyoming will never out-count California.
| State | Births |
|---|---|
| Texas | 2,045 |
| Mississippi | 1,664 |
| Arkansas | 1,449 |
| Tennessee | 1,409 |
| Kentucky | 1,146 |
| Alabama | 1,046 |
| Oklahoma | 844 |
| North Carolina | 826 |
| Georgia | 818 |
| Missouri | 677 |
How these figures are worked out
- Counts come straight from the registrars: the US Social Security Administration (1880–2025) and the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (1900–2025). Nothing is scraped from another names site.
- Ranks are computed against every name in that year's file, not just the ones this site publishes pages for — otherwise a rank would flatter every name we happen to list.
- The curve is drawn on births per 100,000 of that sex, not raw counts. Raw counts across eras are misleading: far more births were registered in 1957 than in 1890, so a flat count is a falling share.
- Each country hides small numbers — the US below 5 births a year, New Zealand below 10. A gap in a line is "below the floor", never "nobody".
SOURCE·US SSA (1880–2025) + NZ DIA (1900–2025) birth registrations·ranks and shares computed from the source files, see method·REVIEWED JUL 2026