We examine how Danish politicians articulate views on the ‘parallel society agreement’ (aka, the ‘ghetto-laws’), a controversial legislative intervention aiming to manage urban migration-related diversity. Through nationwide urban redevelopment aimed at facilitating residential ‘mixing’, the goal of the legislation is to eliminate so-called ‘parallel societies’—socio-economically deprived neighbourhoods characterized by high concentrations of ethnic minorities. In-depth interviews with Danish politicians (n = 11) explored how this proposal was supported, contested or rejected in situated discourse. Following social representations theory, we focus on how ‘parallel societies’ were constructed in relation to differing ideas about ‘mainstream society’ and value-laden oppositional meaning-categories (i.e. themata). In particular, we highlight processes of socio-ethical reasoning that occurred through thematization of a shared oppositional meaning-category: ‘freedom-constraint’. Views on the intervention were articulated around this oppositional meaning-category. Moreover, a connection was observed between the views articulated by individual politicians and sets of congruent ideas and images mobilized to represent ‘parallel societies’. We discuss the theoretical value of taking a social representations approach to urban policy debates, and the practical limitations of dominant representations for successfully promoting intercultural dialogue and engagement—the stated goal of this intervention.