The central aim of the thesis is to understand why intersectionality remains at the fringes of mainstream discrimination law and to provide an alternative vision to the dominant conception of single-axis discrimination. This aim is pursued by translating intersectionality theory into the conceptual and doctrinal precincts of comparative discrimination law of South Africa, Canada and the United Kingdom. The thesis is divided into three parts. Part One posits the framework of 'intersectional integrity' as forming the backbone of the category of intersectional discrimination. Its normative core insists on mapping the intersections between identities as creating unique and shared patterns of group disadvantage by considering people's identities as a whole. It is this bipartite framework against which the doctrine is considered. Part Two deals with the doctrinal limitations which impede a successful claim of intersectional discrimination. The comparative analysis fine-combs through the judicial interpretation to understand how it fares against the framework of intersectional integrity. The judicial strategies emerging from the doctrinal analysis are consolidated in the form of a graded spectrum which captures the proximity of each response from the category of intersectional discrimination. Beyond this conceptual reimagination, it also considers how other tools in discrimination law need to be recalibrated to accommodate an intersectional claim. These include the conception of equality and discrimination, the criteria for selection of analogous grounds, the understanding of indirect discrimination, the relationship between impact and justification analysis, apportioning the burden of proof and determining the standard of scrutiny. Part Three consolidates the normative insights emerging from the thesis. A restatement of the theoretical and doctrinal recalibrations helps imagine how a lawyer would walk through the labyrinth of discrimination law for realising a claim of intersectional discrimination.