Co-founder? I wasn't aware of that
"In 1993, Scott and Bezos were married, and in 1994, they both left D. E. Shaw, moved to Seattle, and started Amazon. Scott was one of Amazon's first employees, and was heavily involved in Amazon's early days, working on the company's name, business plan, accounts and shipping early orders.[4][8] She also negotiated the company's first freight contract.[8] When Amazon began to succeed, Scott took a less involved role in the business, preferring to focus on her family and literary career.[4]"
Employee != co-founder.
I don’t think anyone thinks of Mackenzie as an Amazon co-founder (nor have I read anywhere other than this editorialized title).
That’s not to play down her involvement and contribution to Amazon in its early days, but it’s disingenuous to call her a co-founder.
looks like the submitter called here that, possibly to create a flamewar like this.
She worked at Amazon and she is one of the people that made the company succeed.
Those early employees however are not called co-founders.
I suspect Amazon was a similar afair. They both quit their job and moved city to start and work on Amazon. When the company began, she was working on it with Bezos, both together.
It's possible that they then decided similarly not to bother with adding her name to the company officially, since as they were married that doesn't really matter. In fact, IANAL, but I'd suspect it might be complicated to do so, since by your marriage you already have a contract with one another, and as a contractual business partner you'd have another contract, and I wouldn't be surprised if that gets messy as both contract can easily conflict and the marriage contract has special status.
So I think it's fair to consider her a co-founder, in that she acted as one, took all the same risks, quit her job, moved city, worked on starting the company, put her financials at risk and invested her own money into it, etc. Even though she's not really a co-founder as registered in the company itself.