行政官員與立法委員於立法院的政策論述，是代議民主體制中政策合法化過程的核心，論述內容是否具備審議民主精神係影響政策合法性及未來執行過程的關鍵因素，但相關主題過去卻為學界所忽略。本文從審議民主觀點探究行政官員與立法委員的政策合法化論述，透過個案比較研究法，選取大學法與私立學校法的修法過程進行內容分析。研究結果顯示，立法委員的政策合法化論述主要以監督、連任、與政策為目標，其互惠性、多元性、尊重性、與合理性皆有待加強；行政官員的論述則是基於課責、回應、及責任等考量，但大多論述皆過於保守與消極，缺乏合理性之精神。兩者論述內容的差異及審議民主精神之缺乏，應與各自的制度性角色要求相關。基於研究發現，本文主張立法委員的論述應多聚焦於政策方案內容，行政官員則應更為主動、積極，以更符合回應與責任的要求、提升政策論述的審議精神。本文亦建議，立法院應針對政策合法化過程建立完整的公開記錄制度。本文為一初探性嘗試，未來學界可根據實務觀察，設計更完善的評估指標，或輔以制度論角度，裨益於對立法委員與行政官員的政策合法化論述有更完整地解釋。 / Administrators and legislators’ policy discourse in the Legislative Yuan is the core of policy legitimation under the representative democracy. The content of discourse with deliberative democracy spirit, ignored by the academics in the past, will influence policy legitimation and policy implementation. This study investigates administrators and legislators’ policy legitimation discourse from the perspective of deliberative democracy. The author selected the processes of amending the University Act and the Private School Law by comparative study of cases, and used content analysis method. The results show legislators take the supervision, reelection, and policy as their purposes in the discourse of policy legitimation. The attributes such as reciprocity, diversity, respect, and reasonableness in the legislators’ policy legitimation discourse have a great room for improvement. Administrators would mainly consider accountability, responsiveness, and responsibility during the discourse. Administrators are always conservative and passive, and the discourse is a lack of the reasonableness. The difference between legislators and administrators’ discourses may relate to respective institutional roles. Accordingly, this study suggests legislators focus on the content of policy proposal. This study also recommends administrators be more active and enthusiastic to answer to the requirement of responsiveness and responsibility, and to promote the deliberative spirit of the discourse. Besides, the author proposes the Legislative Yuan institutionalize the complete and open records of the policy legitimation. This research is the pilot study. Therefore, in the future, the academics could design more appropriate evaluative indicators, or can be integrated by the perspective of the institutionalism for better explanation of administrators and legislators’ policy legitimation discourse.