Under historical critical scholarship, the book of Judges is generally considered a composite work comprising three distinct and essentially unrelated sections. The central section (2:6-16:31), redacted out of traditional source material, is believed to be originally a part of the larger Deuteronomistic History that runs from Deuteronomy to Kings. The prologue (1:1-2:5) and epilogue (17:1-21:25), on the other hand, are seen as independent compositions that are only artificially appended onto the central section at a later stage of the book’s redactional history. In the last two decades, there has been an increasing tendency for the book to be read synchronically as an integrated whole. Although synchronic scholars have drawn attention to the presence of thematic links that connect the different sections of the book, they have yet to justify their integrative approach by exploring whether such links are established by design, and if so, whether, they imply compositional unity for the book as a whole in its current canonical form. The present thesis thus seeks to remedy this lack. In Chapter 1, the present thesis is placed in its historical context as scholarship on Judges in the past century is critically surveyed. In Chapters 2-4, rhetorical links between the prologue and the epilogue, the epilogue and central section, and the prologue and central sections are respectively examined in detail. As the evidence seems to suggest that such links are established by conscious design, the implication is that at the compositional level, a closer relationship than has been recognised thus far may indeed exist between the three sections. Recognising that any claim of compositional unity for Judges would inevitably have to answer questions regarding apparent discrepancies in viewpoints within the book, in Chapter 5, the issue of kingship, concerning which critical scholars have discerned divergent voices within the book, is explored.