Before beginning to engage in the proposed analysis of the case studies, it is necessary to first set out the theoretical understandings and key concepts that ground this book. If one of the outcomes I am seeking is to reveal and analyse the underpinning understandings about bodies that legal discourse employs and that law authorises, then it is important to lay out my own underpinning assumptions about discourse and the law with a high degree of transparency. The aim of this chapter is threefold. Firstly, I want to foreground the particular way in which the subsequent analysis will be conducted by providing a principled theoretical basis for its scope, content, method of approach and, ultimately, the types of conclusions that it reaches. This theoretical basis provides support and structure to the subsequent analysis but it is not the main feature of this book. The focus of the book is not directed specifically towards adding to, expounding upon, varying or critiquing the theory from which it draws: the focus is more on utilising such theory. Instead of being the object of analysis itself, this theoretical basis simply blends into and informs the shape of the case studies to come. Secondly, I want to introduce and explain a number of key concepts that this book will specifically draw on during the course of the subsequent analysis. Locating these concepts at the outset of the book allows the same concepts that arise within multiple case studies to be explained initially and in a central space, and it also assists the progress of the analysis within each chapter by obviating the need for lengthy segues into conceptual explanations that would distract from the case study at hand. Unlike the theoretical basis that blends into the analysis, these concepts will be explicitly addressed throughout the course of this book and their usage will be directly addressed in the Conclusion. Thirdly, certain theorists and thinkers have influenced this book and its approach towards the material. This chapter provides an opportunity to acknowledge the academic debts the book owes to these writers, as well as to locate it within the broader corpus of commentary in the area.