The mechanisms by which civil society organizations (CSOs) navigate restrictive environments or shrinking civic spaces remain under-explored. Limited space to engage in advocacy is one manifestation of a restrictive civic environment – reflected in many CSOs’ avoidance of confrontational tactics. In environments where CSOs are keen to maintain a low profile, non-confrontational advocacy mechanisms are often used instead. This paper explores how CSOs can engage in advocacy in a restrictive setting by considering issue characteristics, actor characteristics and advocacy tactics. This inquiry is approached through a case study on the adoption of a new law that criminalizes denial of inheritance to women which was put forth by a coalition of local civil society organizations in Egypt and led by an international NGO. I argue that the coalition’s ability to navigate the restrictive environment in Egypt can be explained by a confluence of factors, including that the issue did not conflict with beliefs of powerful decision-makers, that it was framed within a non-controversial guise, and that the actors used insider tactics in mobilizing support of influential government actors. Findings in this paper fill a gap in the literature on how non-adversarial partnerships with government are pursued by non-state actors, without being co-opted by the regime, for strategic purposes beyond survival.