The idea of "having a right to" something is an artifact of the ambiguity of language. Traditionally, if one were to assert something true, like "the Sun is the largest object in our solar system", one could be said to "have the right of it". That is to say, "having the right of it" refers to being correct about something. In this way, having the right of life, liberty, or property means that one is correct in choosing to live, act upon one's own discretion, or control goods. However, "having the right of" something sounds grammatically like one possesses a discrete thing, called a "right". In this way, "having the right of" things comes to be misunderstood to mean that one possesses a set of discrete items called "rights", which leads to much of the confusion surrounding rights in common discourse.
The illusion of rights as discrete things opens up the line of thought that these things do not exist. The questions; "do we have rights?" or "do rights exist?" only can be entertained because we misunderstand the issue. Framed properly, those questions would become "can people be correct?" and "do correct answers exist?" respectively. The answers then trivially become "yes" and "not as concrete things".
The misunderstanding also makes it possible to arbitrarily extend the concept of "rights" to envelop nearly anything to suit one's purposes. Typically, these expansions are used to manufacture an obligation in others toward the person claiming the "right". For instance, some people claim that the "right to life" implies that others are obligated to provide the means to support that life, rather than the more accurate position that one is correct in choosing to live and pursuing those means for oneself.