'This article builds on the growing body of work by demonstrating how the neoliberal interpretation of choice is employed to put forward a scientific rationale for the use of extended-cycle oral contraception (ECOC) for the purpose of menstrual suppression. It draws on comparative discourse analysis of two fields involved in the debates about menstrual suppression, biomedicine and women’s narratives following the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the first ECOC in 2003.'