Despite systematic reviews calling for more research to determine which batterer intervention programs (BIPs) work, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service (SPPS) officially claims that their CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy)-based programs are successful. In order to find a plausible explanation for the discrepancy between what the service claims and what is reasonable to claim, a qualitative content analysis of the SPPS’ use of evidence in the accreditation of BIPs and the treatment with these programs is conducted. The study first addresses the manifest content, which refers to the SPPS claims of scientific evidence that BIPs have a positive effect and the internal application of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) for the accreditation of their programs. The results show that despite the SPPS’ efforts to keep up to date with research and public claims that treatment programs reduce recidivism, there is no independent scientific evidence that the treatment methods used are effective. The interpretative analysis of the latent content indicates that the concept of evidence is used rhetorically to convince the public that the activities are conducted successfully, scientifically and cost-effectively. The state of knowledge is uncertain, and a more realistic approach is required as the public has a right to know that treatment of IPV offenders is often based on uncertainty.