Affirmative action is a topic that has been a flashpoint amongst policymakers, lawmakers, and the public since President Kennedy introduced the phrase in 1961. Within education, a legal status quo has been in place since the Supreme Court's ruling in "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" (1978), banning strict racial quotas but enshrining the use of race as a holistic factor in college admissions. Ever since, affirmative action has often been the focus of legal challenges. Whenever a case is before the Supreme Court, it is often the target of a high degree of legal attention, especially in the form of "amicus" briefs: legal filings by outside parties seeking to influence the Court based on their perspective. This work seeks to better understand how the language and rhetoric used in these Supreme Court cases have developed and evolved, and eventually embedded themselves in the opinions penned by the Justices themselves. The submission of amicus briefs is becoming a more frequently utilized advocacy tactic, and indications from the most recent affirmative action case, "Fisher v. University of Texas" (2016) point to the hearing of another case in short order. Through a better understanding of the content and framing of these briefs, the next time an affirmative action case is before the court a larger, more articulate, and more united network of advocates from the higher education sector and beyond will be better position to have their voices heard. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]