In 2006 a new law in Sweden let refugees apply for asylum on the grounds of them being in need of protection due to their gender or sexual orientation. Due to this law, the Swedish migration authority are the ones who decide whether or not a person has made it likely to be of a certain gender or sexual preference and whether or not they are in need of protection in Sweden due to this. The asylum process thus becomes a clear example of how norms for gender and sexuality are constructed and reproduced by the government. The limited research about sexual orientation, gender and asylum in Sweden, which in itself was a reason for this paper, stated that there were limited definitions and guidelines on the subject which made decision-making depend on the person in authority. The aim of this study were to understand how the construction of gender and sexuality are made within asylum-cases through analyzing two cases from the Swedish Supreme Court of Migration (Migrationsöverdomstolen) and the government-proposition of the 2006 migration-law. To meet the purpose of the study’s aim, the research questions used were, what constructs of gender and sexuality could be found in asylum-cases and which discourse of gender and sexuality could be seen as ruling in legislations and judgements. To understand this we used a social constructivist approach and Judith Butlers theory about the heterosexual matrix. The main findings were that constructions of sexuality is categorized in terms of homo-, bi- and heterosexual orientation. Hence, the Swedish government produces and reproduces western designations of sexuality as valid, while leaving non-western designations invalid. Further more, our study shows that this is all done under a heterosexual norm that produces and reproduces a binary perception of gender, consisting of male and female as opposites. Hence, the discourse links gender and sexuality together under the heterosexual matrix. While previous reports and research show that decisions are depending on individual decision-makers, this study shows that both the decisions and the decision-makers are depending on the judicial and societal discourse.