Turkey is deemed to be one of the showcases for the closing of the civic space and systematic attacks on human rights norms that is being experienced on the global scale. Within this context, the domestic human rights organizations (HROs) have been targeted by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government especially more severely since the failed coup attempt of 2016. While scholarly attention has been paid to questioning of the legitimacy and the effectiveness of human rights organizations, activism and norms by some academics as well as activists alongside state leaders, how has this new environment impacted the conceptualization of human rights of civil society actors and organizations has not been subject of inquiry. This paper aims to map out the ways in which human rights civil society organizations’ discourse, organization and activities have been shaped during the AKP rule. It draws on the findings of a project focusing on nine HROs with differing world views and social bases reflecting ideological, religious and ethnic cleavages in Turkey, involving 60 in-depth interviews with administrators and 72 surveys with members from Human Rights Association (İHD), The Association for Human Rights and Solidarity for the Oppressed (MAZLUMDER), Human Rights Agenda Association (İHGD), Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (TİHV), Citizens' Assembly, Amnesty International Turkey Branch, Association for Justice Defenders (ASDER), Human Rights Joint Platform (İHOP) and Right Initiative Association. One the most important findings of the project is that HRO’s accept different sources and justifications for human rights based on secular versus religious, left and right wing ideological leanings, however, there is wide level of agreement on human rights conceptualization as given at birth, universal, comprehensive and inclusive. Knowledge of human rights theory, perceptions of the West, definitions of the concept of the state and engagement with international human rights networks are also factors that account for the differences in the conceptualization of human rights among different organizations. The degree to which the HRO’s have been concerned with human rights violations against individuals or sections of society with different worldviews have increased over the course of the human rights movement’s history as cross-ideological cooperation since the late 1990’s produced trust among the HROs. However, there have been splits within certain HROs due to differences in ideology, interpretations of religious beliefs and ethnic identity paralleling the transformations of ideological and political discourses and practices of the Turkish state during AKP’s rule.