Litigation has become a central tool in the toolbox of European civil society organizations (CSO) active in the field of asylum. Cases that challenge European migration control policies and human rights violations against asylum seekers have led to outcry by political actors, which indicates that this ‘strategic’ litigation is striking a nerve. At the same time, there is stronger consensus in the (American) literature that CSOs too often fall victim to a ‘myth of rights’ that leads them to place excessive faith in the courts as agents for social change. Only under certain conditions can strategic litigation achieve its aims, according to these authors. This study performs an analysis of existing works on law and social change and adapts this framework to the European asylum context, creating a basis for assessing impact of progressive strategic litigation to enhance asylum seekers’ rights protection.