This article engages with well-known critiques of international human rights law discourse and how they limit the human rights project’s ability to further profound change. The author argues that it is possible to transform discursive practices of international human rights law so as to better address structural inequalities. The author demonstrates this using the case study of the feminist campaign to frame domestic violence as torture (DVT). She analyzes the discursive practices of the campaign and applies the common critiques of justification and representation to it. The author finds that while the discourse of DVT exhibits familiar flaws of justification and representation, it overcomes these critiques by putting forward a substantive vision of justice to address what is identified as a social, structural problem. This in turn suggests international human rights law’s potential for profound reform. The author concludes that the case study suggests it is possible to successfully operate within international human rights law while advocating for a structural understanding of injustice.