Women's rights have remained a major concern in reports issued by international human rights bodies, and the Islamic Republic of Iran has frequently faced allegations regarding violations of women's rights. This study aimed to provide a jurisprudential and legal assessment of international allegations concerning violations of women's civil rights in Iran. Employing a descriptive-analytical approach and relying on documentary and library-based sources, the study examined international human rights instruments, United Nations reports, sources of Imami jurisprudence, and the legal framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Data were analyzed through qualitative content analysis and comparative examination. The findings revealed that international allegations concerning women's rights in Iran should not be assessed solely by comparing legal provisions or the theoretical foundations of the two legal systems. Imami jurisprudence conceptualizes women's rights within the framework of human dignity, justice, and the proportionality of rights and obligations, while Iran's legal system regulates these rights on the basis of religious principles and within the framework of its legislative autonomy. Accordingly, an assessment of international allegations requires simultaneous consideration of normative foundations, the basis of legislation, the interests protected by the legislator, and verification of the sources and evidence underlying such allegations.