Abstract
Between 2013 and 2017, Canadian federal policymakers grappled with mandating abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) for oxycodone products as a response to the overdose crisis. Marketed as a safeguard against misuse and diversion, ADFs promised a technological fix to opioid-related harms, yet their population-level effectiveness remained contested. This study systematically analyzes federal parliamentary debates and committee hearings, identifying key arguments in framings to support or oppose ADF mandates. Proponents framed the crisis through the lens of individual misuse, positioning ADFs as pharmaceutical safeguards that protected "legitimate" patients while curbing illicit opioid use. Opponents challenged ADFs' effectiveness, highlighted Purdue Pharma's role in the crisis, and warned of unintended consequences, including shifts to more dangerous illicit markets. These discursive struggles reinforced a bifurcation between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" opioid use, shaping perceptions of responsibility, medical necessity, and the scope of appropriate intervention. Divergent framings reflected deeper ideological fissures over the etiology of the overdose crisis and who should be considered a justifiable opioid patient. By demonstrating how ADF debates entrenched a dichotomy between acceptable and unacceptable opioid use, this study advances theories of problem framing to demonstrate how policy debates actively shape regulatory paradigms and the boundaries of acceptable government intervention.