This study aims to compare and analyse the similarities and differences in the approaches adopted by Sweden, Great Britain and Taiwan, on the issue of the right to work of disabled people. Drawing from the three welfare models proposed by EspingAndersen (1990, 1999), the study attempts to examine the validity of the three models in explaining the differing approaches taken by the three countries. The historical comparative analysis method is used to answer the three research questions posed in this study. Data was collected mainly by the documentary analysis method. However, to fill the gap in information that the documents did not provide, in-depth interviews, email, postal, and telephone contacts were also carried out as complementary data collection methods This study shows that the welfare models are useful in explaining the differing degrees of inclusiveness in terms of the main policy directions of the three countries. However, a distinction between the 'provision' type and 'market intervention' type of programmes should be made, in order to capture the differences in the power structure and the mechanisms in the differing welfare models. In addition, in all three countries, the role of the disability movement in changing the definitions of disability in the policies has to be highlighted Furthermore, I argue that in all three countries, the labour market programmes specifically designed for disabled people are based on the capitalist value of individual market merits. If this value is not changed fundamentally and if the right to work does not include the right to participate in the labour market and to be included in the society, regardless of an individual's market merits, labour market programmes in all three countnes will continue to promote the right to work of only those groups of disabled people who tend to be more competitive in the labour market.