In 2011, Porismita Borah published "Conceptual Issues in Framing Theory: A Systematic Examination of a Decade’s Literature" to shed light on the status of framing research, and attempt to answer several scholars' criticisms of framing research practices (Carragee and Roefs 2004, D'Angelo, 2002, Entman, 1993). Borah argues that framing research has several areas of necessary improvement, and her prescription is for future research to be able to examine specific framing issues or effects, but also be able to connect with broader understandings of framing. The following content analysis of framing research, conducted between the year 2000 and 2013, seeks to examine the current state of framing literature, and whether or not scholarship is advancing optimally. The hope is to examine partially if Borah's concerns remain relevant to current framing research. Additionally, the current study seeks to expand the questions asked of framing research in multiple ways. What follows is an account of framing, as a theory broadly. Borah's role in attempting to measure the state of framing research is explained, and then I show how research can be expanded in several areas to be more inclusive. Then, new avenues of inquiry will be opened, particularly in regard to power, and social relationships, to delve deeper into whether or not framing research can be improved in terms of accuracy and efficacy. Following those sections is an explanation of the way my research questions have been operationalized, an account of the methodology employed by this study, our findings, and a discussion of the data and it’s meaningful portions.