This paper contributes to the field of law and society by highlighting the process of legitimizing and rationalizing the establishment of an exclusionist gendered juridical field in the post-1979 Revolution Iran. Following the establishment of the Islamic Republic, an Assembly of Experts was formed to write the new political system’s constitution which resulted in the establishment of a highly gendered judicial system in Iran. Yet, the literature on the legal status of women in post-revolution Iran neglects the process of creating, justifying, and presenting these sets of laws to the public and mainly concentrates on the rights activists' attempts to alter the highly gendered judicial field. Focusing on the arguments at the Assembly of Experts for the Constitution and the translations of their ideas to the public, this paper offers a new narrative on women's representation in the text of the law and addresses the following question: How did the lawmakers and the translators of their ideas to the public justify the exclusion of women in post-revolutionary Iran? To answer this question, I use discourse and document analysis in two steps: first, by reviewing the debates of the Assembly of Experts for the Constitution (1980), I analyze member’s arguments for the establishment of an exclusionist gendered set of laws. Afterwards, I review the translation and representation of these arguments in the newspapers for the public by focusing on two major newspapers of the time, Keyhan and Ettelaat, in 1979-1980. Going beyond the dichotomy of agents, as players of the field, and the structure, I apply Bourdieu’s conceptual framework to illustrate the power relations and the intertwined relationship between the juridical field, the field of knowledge, and the political field as a set of interrelated fields. I argue that the members of the Assembly of Experts for the Constitution were the prominent players in the political field and the field of knowledge who, in their attempt to determine the monopoly of rights in the juridical field, deprived Iranian women of their rights. An analysis of the discussions reveals that the Assembly of Experts for the Constitution in their argumentation and the translator of their ideas in the newspapers in their presentation and justification for the public did not limit themselves to the religious arguments. Instead, by highlighting a set of non-religious arguments and justifications, these players of the judicial and political field tried to appeal to a greater public, including women.