Honor-related violence is a prevalent social issue in society today. This candidate's thesis originates from an interest developed in a previous essay about honor-related violence from the perspective of social workers in Sweden. The results of that essay indicated uncertainty among social workers regarding the definition of honor-related violence in their practice. This interest laid the foundation for the present thesis, which explores whether a similar uncertainty exists within Swedish courts. The aim of this thesis was to investigate how courts define honor-related violence based on the relevant legislation and bill. Additionally, it examined how courts assess and justify the honor motive based on the statements made by the involved parties during trials. To achieve this, empirical data was collected in the form of ten legal cases from the database Juno. These cases were subsequently analyzed using Fairclough’s discourse analysis. The main findings of this thesis indicate that Swedish courts define honor-related violence in a manner consistent with the legislation and bill, aligning with interpretations found in previous research. Another key result was that the way courts applied the bill when reasoning about the honor motive could influence the severity of the sentencing. In conclusion, since Swedish courts handle relatively few cases involving an honor motive, this may impact how other authorities, such as social services, define and approach honor-related violence and oppression.