Is Nora in A Doll's House a victim of circumstances or a villain who causes problems?

Certainly, if Nora were legally allowed to take out a loan without her husband's consent or without her father's co-signature, she would have been able to get the money she needed to save her husband's life without having to resort to subterfuge and forgery. Obviously, Torvald still would not have been happy about it, but it could be chalked up to an error in judgment rather than evidence of Nora's so-called lack of morals or criminal tendencies. Because Nora's rationale and motive for committing her crime was so innocent and loving, Ibsen does not seem to condemn her as a villain. Instead, he presents her as a victim of circumstance. She tells Christine that Torvald

[. . .] wasn't even to suspect how ill he was. The doctors came to me privately and told me his life was in danger—that nothing could save him but a winter in the South. Do you think I didn't try diplomacy first? [. . .] He said I was frivolous, and that it was his duty as a husband not to yield to my whims and fancies—so he called them. Very well, thought I, but saved you must be; and then I found the way to do it.

Thus, Nora was charged to keep the truth of Torvald's health from him by his doctors, and she was told that he would die without this trip. Honestly, what ought a loving partner to do in such a situation? She does one unethical thing by forging her father's name, but she even claims that she was thinking about his health, then, too, as he was quite ill and learning of Torvald's illness would have deeply upset him. Nora takes the responsibility for the loan upon herself despite the fact that it was taken to save her husband, and she has found a way to make regular payments on it for years: what more could she do? We would likely condemn her for not trying harder to save Torvald if she had not. No, she seems to me to be presented as a victim of circumstance and not a villain at all.

Is Nora in A Doll's House a victim of circumstances or a villain who causes problems?

Nora is BOTH a victim of circumstance and someone who brings about some of her own problems.  She is clearly not a villain, however.  Because of the time period that the play is set in, Nora is already at a disadvantage.  She is limited as to her "freedoms."  Women were treated differently back then and were not allowed some of the freedoms that women have today.  They were expected to stay home, raise the children, and take care of the home.  Their opinions concerning serious matters like finances and family crises were not really welcomed or expected.  Therefore, Nora was a victim of circumstance.  However, she also created her own problems, as well.  She went behind her husband's back and was deceitful and "sneaky"; she kept information from her husband, as well, which was not beneficial to her or to her marriage.

Ibsen, in my opinion, wanted his reader to see BOTH sides.

In A Doll's House, is Nora a victim of circumstances or a self-made villain? What is Ibsen's view?

There is little doubt that Nora is victimized by a society that places unreasonable restrictions upon women. Because she was not able to procure credit, she forged the signature of her father in order to procure a loan so that her husband, Torvald, could go to Italy and regain his health. Now she must keep her act a secret and work clandestinely to pay off this loan.

Unfortunately for Nora, there are complications that develop in hers and Torvald's lives which lead to the revelation of the illegal act that she committed because of her love for her husband. One day Krogstad, an employee at Torvald's bank, comes out of Torvald's study after he has been relieved of his position for immoral behavior; Torvald later hires an old friend of Nora's for this position. Later, holding a contract that contains Nora's forgery of her father's name, Krogstad returns and threatens to reveal her secret if she does not get his position back for him from her husband. Nora realizes that if he uncovers her crime, it will bring shame upon her and Torvald. She considers leaving, but her husband calls to her. He has read the letter that Krogstad has written, revealing Nora's secret. Enraged, he tells Nora that her act has caused him to be in Krogstad's power. Now he must yield to the man's demands. He vilifies Nora, calling her a "wretch."

HELMER All these years...she, my pride and my joy--a hypocrite, a lair...a criminal!....To do down so miserably, to be destroyed--all because of an irresponsible woman!

Later, however, he tells Nora that he has forgiven her because of her "womanly helplessness." Quietly, Nora thanks him for his forgiveness, but she tells him that she realizes that he "only thought it was fun to be in love with me." Now because their marriage will merely be one of appearances, and because she holds Helmer responsible "that nothing has become of [her]" while he has treated her like a doll, not a wife, Nora decides to leave Torvald. She explains to him that she needs to make sense of "[her]self and everything around her.” Then she departs.

In A Doll's House, is Nora a victim of circumstances or a self-made villain? What is Ibsen's view?

Henrik Ibsen was keen to expose social constraints such as they affected men and women of the time and his play A Doll's House, caused far more controversy than he expected. Rather than revealing that men and women are equally stereotyped and limited by their expected roles in society, A Doll's House received criticism for Nora's decision to leave her children. It was not feasible for a woman, no matter how demeaned and belittled, to effectively abandon her children. It is often seen as a feminist play but Torvald is equally as much restricted by his paternalistic, dominant role as Nora is by her subservient one.

Nora is most certainly a victim of circumstances, feeling that she has to forge her father's signature on a document to secure a loan that will save her husband's life. To Nora, it is a small price to pay to save a life. The fact that the restrictions placed on women, at the time, were unjust is what mitigates Nora's decision - "a woman has no right to spare her dying father, or to save her husband's life ! I don't believe that."

It is also the reason why she cannot understand Torvald's reaction to her apparent sacrifice or, to his way of thinking, believing "my dearest Nora, what have you to do with serious things?"

Torvald is still focused on the effect it will have on him and the embarrassment Nora is apparently bringing on the household - "consider what the world will say" is his motivation for trying to make her stay. Nora has finally realised that she has spent too much time in the pursuit of the happiness of others - especially Torvald's - and in keeping up appearances. She used to think this was worth it because Torvald loved her but now she knows he loves his reputation far more than his wife as "no man sacrifices his honour, even for one he loves."  

The "miracle" that Nora has waited for - the real proof of Torvald's love and appreciation for her sacrifice - is not going to happen and Torvald has not given any thought to the burden his "little squirrel" has borne all these years, only that "I almost think you are out of your senses."

Nora does not believe she is worthy of her children and after all the years of being made to believe that the children are victims of the parents' vices - such as Dr Rank - she is not leaving them from  simply her own selfish needs but because she truly thinks that she may compromise them in some way and ruin their future.This makes Nora the ultimate victim.  

In A Doll's House, is Nora a victim of circumstance or a villain?

Nora is a victim of the male-dominated society of the nineteenth century. To save her husband, Torvald, she borrows money so that he might be able to recover from a life-threatening illness in a warmer climate. Since she could not borrow money without the endorsement of a man, Nora forged her father's signature on the note. From then on, she did what she could to get the money to repay the loan: for example, she took on copying jobs, she bought less expensive clothes for herself out of the money her husband gave her and applied the savings to the loan, and she made Christmas gifts. She could not tell Torvald about the loan, for he frequently comments on the effects of a bad mother on her children. Her decision to keep her secret from Torvald seems reasonable enough; when Torvald reads the letter from Krogstad, the man who made the loan to Nora, he worries about potential damage to his own reputation. He fails to act as if he is concerned at all about Nora. She is, therefore, a victim of circumstance and not a villainess.

In A Doll's House, is Nora a victim of circumstance or a villain?

This question depends on the individual reader. It is a matter of perspective. My personal opinion is that she is a bit of both, although "villain" is too strong.

Nora borrowed the money under noble circumstances. Torvald was gravelly ill, and they did not have the money to take off for a year. Nora did  what she had to do (forgery) to save her husband. Torvald would never have allowed her to make such a decision, and the consequences would have been grave.

However, at some point, after he regained his health, it would have been better to tell the truth. If not then, at least once she was being blackmailed. She created more problems by not coming clean about her actions.

Nora was never malicious in her actions. She believed everything she had done was for Torvald and her marriage. From the fraud to trying to cover her tracks, Nora never meant to be harmful. Had Torvald been a kinder husband, he would have seen this and forgiven her.