This thesis explores debates around seed governance in the context of Tanzania’s recent changes to its seed policies and laws, in order to critically examine the framings and discourses employed. Three narratives emerge, Seed Capitalism, Seed Pluralism, and Seed Sovereignty. Consistent with Westengen (2017), Seed Capitalism and Seed Sovereignty rely on, and are entrenched in, binary opposition, despite the complexity of the problems involved, and put forward singular solutions that risk harming smallholder resilience. Seed Capitalism portrays scientist-bred certified seed as superior to farmer varieties, and as optimal for smallholders, despite evidence to the contrary. Seed Sovereignty constructs rigid distinctions between peasant seeds and industrial seeds, failing to engage with the phenomenon of creolized seed, the intermixing of farmer varieties with scientist-bred varieties. Creolized seed presents a narrative threat to Seed Sovereignty’s rejection of industrial seed. Both Seed Capitalism and Seed Sovereignty narratives obscure evidence relating to seed quality and yield that is in tension with their underlying agendas. A third discourse, Seed Pluralism, not previously identified as such by the literature, resists binary framings and recommends a multiplicity of approaches informed by the nuance of relevant facts. Tanzania’s seed governance framework predominantly reflects the Seed Capitalism discourse. While Seed Pluralism has a small foothold in Tanzania’s seed governance, through the Quality Declared Seed (QDS) system, overall Tanzania’s seed laws are threatening smallholder resilience. Positive reform under Tanzania’s current political settlement is unlikely. Pro-poor donors should withdraw support for governance frameworks rooted in Seed Capitalism, and instead promote seed governance reforms grounded in Seed Pluralism, including eliminating restrictions on smallholder seed exchange in low income countries.