This article compares the significance of judicial review as a means for groups and individuals to challenge the allocation of resources in the health care field in the United Kingdom and Canada. It argues that judicial review can play an important role not only as a means of reversing decisions but also as a means of leveraging access to policymakers and decision making processes. The degree to which judicial review plays this role will depend, in part, on the structure of the judicial system and, in particular, on the existence of a rights tradition.