Originally written as a novel by Turkish journalist Can Dündar while being held in solitary confinement in Silivri Prison, #WeAreArrested documents Dündar’s story of imprisonment after publishing footage of the Turkish Intelligence Service smuggling weapons for the Islamist army in Syria. This paper examines how the theatrical performance and the reviews written for the stage adaptation of Can Dündar’s autobiographical novel #WeAreArrested (2019), co-produced by the Royal Shakespeare Company and Arcola Theater in London, produce, circulate, and shape human rights narratives about Turkey. Elaborating on the meaning-making process, this study combines discourse analysis and close reading of the performance and the theatrical reviews published about #WeAreArrested. By doing so, it seeks to refine the existing understanding of how the British theater and the media represent the political conflict, divide, and dissent in Turkey, and how the theater event, co-constructed by theater reviews in the public sphere shapes the human rights narratives about Turkey and functions as a (controversial) humanitarian intervention. I argue that the performance and the British theatrical reviews about #WeAreArrested function as a paratext (Gérard Genette [1997]) of Dündar’s story of political dissent, and as a source of public opinion and an interlocutor for the audience about Turkey’s government and the political divide. The reviews published in blogs, online theater websites, newspapers, and magazines co-construct Dündar’s narrative of exile and imprisonment by disclosing the real-life struggles of Dündar, offering political remarks with regard to the political landscape in Turkey. Similarly, both the performance and the critics publicize, document, and archive Dündar’s version of the real-life events, which serve as a counter-narrative against the accusations by the Turkish government that Dündar belongs to a terrorist organization. On one hand, this documentation and publicization of the theater event act as a humanitarian intervention since the British theater-makers and critics call attention to the Turkish government’s oppression of the journalists. On the other hand, it is problematic that the production and the critics’ commentaries originate from a Western standpoint and tend to remain Euro-centric. Finally, the analysis seeks to illuminate how beliefs about politics in Turkey are constructed and circulated in a co-creation of meaning from a Western standpoint, and the aesthetic, the discursive, and the political are intertwined in various ways.