1  0LJUDWLRQJHQGHUDQGYXOQHUDELOLW\  0DUORX6FKURYHU Abstract Theorising in the field of research on migration and gender has been pointed out as one the greatest challenges for future research. This challenge is taken up in this article. I look critically and from a gender perspective at the theories on migration and settlement, and suggest an alternative theory. Most of the older theories on migration in general use SURILWDELOLW\ as its central concept. In this article I argue that this concept should be replaced by the concept YXOQHUDELOLW\. I argue that differences between migrant men and women can be explained by differences in (perceived) vulnerability of (potential) migrant women and men. Migrants themselves, their families, immigrant communities, employers, lawyers, governments, organisations and media reports all play a role in the construction of this vulnerability. In this article describe the assumptions and observations that underlie this hypothesis. Vulnerability in one domain (for instance economic or legal) can be countered by reducing vulnerability in other domains (for instance socio-cultural). Furthermore, immigrant men and women are differently vulnerable in the legal and economic domains, and are perceived to be differently vulnerable in the social domain. Migrant women are restricted in their migration differently than migrant men. In the pubic, political and academic discourse a lot of attention is paid to the trafficking of women. The narrative of victimhood and the assumption that women are forced leads to protective measures, which sometimes help women, but also restrict them in what they can do. Legally we find differences in the grounds on which immigrant women are granted asylum. Furthermore, immigrant women, more often than men got and get a dependent residence permit.