The purpose of this essay has been to study the different discourses that are expressed in social welfare secretaries’ assertions when they assess cases with elements of honour-related violence, intimidation and oppression. To do so I have used a discourse analysis theory and technique, based on three qualitative interviews with social welfare secretaries. The interviews were focused on vignettes, which were all fictitious cases with various elements of honour-related violence. One of the interviews was a focus groupinterview with four participants, while the other two interviews were individual. I have also used the theoretical perspective ”ideological dilemmas” in my analysis. The main conclusion is that there seems to be several discourses competing for space when the social welfare secretaries assess cases of this sort. On the one hand there is a strong ”family support discourse”, but on the other hand there is also a strong ”protection discourse” that are competing for space. Another conclusion is that there is a main dilemma that characterizes these cases, which arises when the victim declines protection from the social welfare. Then the social welfare secretaries need to make a choice whether or not to intervene against the victims’ will.