This study presents the ongoing debate in Tunisia about inheritance equality between males and females, and examines the arguments used by both proponents and opponents of the new draft law. It analyses 64 arguments offered by Tunisian politicians, academics and media figures in 2018. The paper thus poses three research questions. What types of arguments have been put forward for the bill? What is the role of religion in the public debate? Does the discussion demonstrate a continuation of the politics of identity and polarization between the different elites, or is there any inclination towards a more reasonable debate? The Maeve Cooke concept was used for authoritarian versus non-authoritarian logic. The study concludes that the debate used a common language, which facilitated the reduction of exclusionary authoritarian tendencies and of historical polarization through dialogue in the public sphere.