The object of this thesis was to deepen the understanding of the contemporary political discourse regarding migrant women exposed to domestic violence. This was conducted by analysing propositions, motions and interpellation debates raising the issue during the years 2000-2012. The method used was inspired by Foucault’s discourse analysis and the traditional hermeneutic approach. The result showed how several different mechanisms work to both include and exclude these women from the Swedish welfare system. By being women they are included in the political debate regarding men’s violence against women, but their migrant status excludes them from it at the same time. When migrant women are exposed to domestic violence it is often seen as an individual problem even though men’s violence against women generally is seen as a structural problem. Several conflicts of interests were also found. One of them being whether migrant women are to be warned if their partners have abused women before. The man’s right to integrity stands against the woman’s right to protection. Another conflict is the fear of the migration right being abused, which is pitted against the migrant women’s rights. To summarize the analysis this thesis has shown how the portraying of migrant women as different in the political discourse plays an important role in creating conflicts of interest and to some extent exclude them from the welfare system. Women’s right seem to apply only to certain women under certain circumstances. An intersectional perspective was necessary for understanding the complexity of the situation, taking into account how different power relations interact and construct the contemporary discourse.