The body of work that we usually call science fiction has a rich and often ambivalent history. Its humble roots in pulp magazines and dime novels contributed to an image of disposable, low brow writing, unworthy of the title “literature”. Those incipient assumptions, which still remain, became themselves ways of establishing what we now call a genre. In part, due to this uncomfortable image of a bastardized literature, the history of science fiction criticism frequently reflected a sense of discomfort with the way this genre was perceived. As a result, there have been many readings that attempt to lift the texts under scrutiny from a perception of polluted beginnings. While this impetus has produced some of the most essential science fiction criticism, it has also stirred a level of controversy by inevitably inscribing a canon. In recent years, we have begun to encounter a frontal discussion both on the literature itself and on the significance of these readings. These include further connections not only with theory, but also with their pulp legacy. In this regard, this study attempts to link utopia to science fiction, particularly in relation to how the roots of science fiction became enablers for a thoroughly utopian-driven genre. For this purpose, three authors are analysed: Frank Herbert, Isaac Asimov and Philip K. Dick. Their prominence has garnered an enormous amount of study, perhaps the biggest of any other author. Tied to this is the fact that all three have a background in writing for pulps and their work has become iconic on its own. Therefore, it seems productive to analyse the threads that run through their work, the links their writing might have to each other and to external input but, most of all, how utopia may be a fitting way to interpret the science fictional impetus.