This paper analyzes Richard Swinburne's theodicy with special attention to the uneven distribution of suffering—why people, often shaped by birthplace or location, endure far more (or less) harm than others. Building on Swinburne's greater-good framework, it examines how appeals to libertarian freedom, the regularity of natural laws, and the moral value of opportunities for compassion and responsible action aim to make not only suffering itself but also its geographical and social asymmetries intelligible within divine providence. Methodologically, it offers close textual analysis of key works alongside contemporary philosophical critiques of distributive justice and structural harm. The goal is to clarify the explanatory limits of Swinburne's account and propose criteria for a theodicy adequate to systemic, unequal evil.