Social movements’ most effective methods are often perceived as illegitimate by civilians, politicians and activists themselves. This creates a paradox as social movements’ methods needs to be able to mobilise to be effective, which requires legitimacy. This legitimacy is largely affected by the perceived legitimacy of the social movement itself. In this thesis, a thought experiment is constructed by portraying a hospital in crisis where the only possible action to change the status quo is through civil resistance. By applying the principles of the normative theories, Liberal Neutrality and Kantian ethics, on what can be called the optimal strategy of civil resistance for a hospital in crisis, social movements’ most effective methods are normatively analysed and valued. These normative theories deem social movements most effective methods legitimate depending on situation and motive. If the occurrence of civil resistance is motivated by legitimate reasons and do not endanger patients’ life, most disruptive and non-violent methods are deemed legitimate during a hospital crisis. However, the normative theories applied was found to contain limitations that create applicability issues and interpretation difficulties. This encourages further research on the normative principles, their interpretations, and their applicability to advance the evaluation of social movements’ most effective methods.