Attachment rupture occupies a charged and generative position in the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as a developmental hazard, a clinical inevitability, and — when followed by repair — a vehicle for growth and neural reorganization. Bowlby’s foundational work establishes rupture as inseparable from the structure of attachment itself: separation protest, grief, and the collapse of the secure base are, in his view, the ineluctable consequences of loving bonds that cannot be sustained. Siegel extends this framework neurobiologically, arguing that rupture-and-repair sequences are not merely corrective but constitutive of healthy brain integration, particularly through the orbitofrontal cortex, and that insecure attachment styles each represent a characteristic failure of this cycle. Dana and Porges, operating from polyvagal theory, reframe rupture as the autonomic consequence of violated neural expectancies — a neuroception of danger triggering disconnection — while foregrounding repair as a trainable skill with measurable nervous-system correlates. Flores, writing from an addiction-and-attachment frame, attends to alliance rupture within group and individual therapy, noting its especial weight with patients who already carry relational dysregulation. Heller locates rupture-repair as the central ongoing dynamic with connection-survival-style clients. The corpus as a whole converges on a tension: rupture is both the wound and, when metabolized through repair, the remedy.