Background: Discourse production is a fundamental aspect of everyday life. There is a growing body of research on discourse production in persons with aphasia (PWA) but one understudied aspect of discourse production is the use of discourse particles. Understanding the role of discourse particles in PWA is crucial given the recent shift in clinical practice towards therapy at discourse level, addressing functional communication in everyday life situations. The limited available literature does not provide clear answers on how Dutch PWA use discourse particles. Because in Dutch discourse particles are more frequent and have other types of functions compared to, for example, English, studying the use of Dutch discourse particles by PWA can provide valuable insights in their discourse production. Aims: This study aims to compare the proportion of produced discourse particles between Dutch-speaking persons with and without aphasia, to investigate the distributions of the discourse particles produced, and to explore the functions of the discourse particles of interest. Methods and Procedures: Discourse samples elicited by the adapted version of the Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test from 27 persons with aphasia and 23 neurotypically healthy speakers were analysed for the use of discourse particles. Proportions of discourse particles were contrasted between persons with and without aphasia using a Wilcoxon non-parametric test. The distributions of the discourse particles were analysed using a linear mixed-effects model, and the functions of the discourse particles were examined qualitatively. Outcomes and Results: The results show that persons with aphasia produce a larger proportion of discourse particles compared to neurotypically healthy speakers. The distribution of the discourse particles differs between the two groups, and we find that at least some discourse particles are used differently. Conclusions: This study reveals that Dutch-speaking persons with aphasia still employ some discourse particles effectively despite language difficulties. It furthermore shows that the frequency and manner in which these particles are used, as well as their role in communication, may differ significantly among the different discourse particles. This insight may inform therapeutic approaches.