This works aim to establish an analogy between Deliberative Democratic Theory from John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas through a comparative analysis. The conceptions developed by these two exponents theoreticians seek to give some thoughts to political pluralism using different justifications. This theme was chosen in order to feed into the discussion on the importance of the legitimacy of the Democratic State. John Rawl's theory sets out substantive democracy, whereas Habermas proposes the procedural one. This paper attempts to outline both theories, without making value judgments, however it intends to highlight points of convergence and divergence. The method used was the deductive bibliographic research relaying on major works from these two authors and on writings an articles from their commentators. In an attempt to shed some light on the debate, primarily this paper discusses Rawl's Theory os Justice as Equity from the point of view of Contractual Theory and its specials characteristics, the original position and the veil of ignorance, public reason and principles of justice. In a second moment, it presents Habermas Procedural Theory, communicative action, public sphere, equiprimordiality between public and private autonomy and Law Discursive Theory. Lastly, this works draws attention to the main points of agreement as well as disagreements emphasizing the importance of the deliberative democracy in democratic countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]