What explains the variability in between nations' choices to ban lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS)? Also known as "killer robots," LAWS are a class of weapons that are able to engage and destroy a target without the need for human intervention. Despite disagreement on their definition and existence, nations and intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations have already begun debating how LAWS could be used or misused, publicly voicing their stances on the possibility of banning LAWS once they emerge. Stark variations have since developed between stances on a possible ban of LAWS, yet explanations and analyses of nations' stances are lacking. What would compel a nation to legalize the development and use of LAWS or generate bans against them? Employing a comparative case study analysis, my research categorizes stances on LAWS through a nation's humanitarian beliefs, democratic status, and ability to develop LAWS in the near future, theorizing and analyzing which factor would contribute the greatest to a nation's decision to develop or ban LAWS. Cases will encompass the United States, Brazil, China, Russia, and Egypt. Through my comparative case study analysis, I uncover that each hypothesis is proven equally true, and more complex conversations must be had regarding decision-making processes to develop or ban LAWS. Employing these findings, I hope to provide a framework for the likely international development of LAWS and contribute a novel perspective of the future of international security policy and military automation to both academics and policymakers alike.