While framing represents one of the most important concepts in public opinion research, we know far less about the ability of elites to get their preferred frames adopted by decision-makers than we do about the effect of those frames on public opinion. In an effort to address this gap in our understanding, this dissertation evaluates interest groups' ability to assert their frames in the congressional discussion and media coverage surrounding various versions of the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act, 1995-2003. I employ both quantitative and qualitative research methodology to explore interest groups' efforts. Through interviews with pro-life and pro-choice activists, and examination of archival records, I examine how interest groups envision and develop framing as a political strategy. Using content analysis and archival research, I examine interest group and congressional statements as well as media coverage to explore when and under which conditions an interest group can expect members of Congress and the media to promote their issue frames.

My findings suggest that interest groups do not exert an autonomous, independent influence on the framing process, but rather that interest groups and members of Congress work together to promote their shared interests. This is particularly the case for interest groups and members of Congress in the same party. This research contributes to our understanding of how interest group efforts to shape policy debates actually affect the framing of the issue by legislators and journalists, as well as the factors that increase the likelihood that interest groups will have surrogates in Congress and the media promoting their frames. Doing so provides another way to understand the often-elusive role that interest groups play in the policy process, as well as the interdependent yet competitive relationship between interest groups and elected officials.