This paper analyzes the exclusion of responsibility in cases of battered women who kill their abusive partners in self-defence, emphasizing the theoretical and practical difficulties from a gender lens. I investigate self-defence simultaneously from a double perspective: the perspective of intimate partner violence, and the perspective of Canadian law. I reflect on alternative solu-tions in cases where there was a deferred self-defence, seeking a more equitative response from institutions. Self-defence protects whoever kills another person to defend herself or a third party. Even though this legal figure seems unquestionable, it is actually an ambiguous area in criminal law. Women who are abused for extended periods of time, who one day kill their abu-sers, generally do not do so during a context of physical confrontation. In this paper, instead of merely restricting my analysis to the events that occurred on the day of the abuser’s death, I will go back in time to scrutinize in detail the cycle of systematic violence and the “battered woman syndrome”, as well as the theory of “coercive control” in the Canadian context. I draw from the famous Canadian case Rust v. Lavallee (1990). I problematize some of the requirements for self-defence, emphasizing their inability to respond to the realities of battered women. This research shows a problematic disconnect between the current legal framework and the realities of violence against women.