Advisors play an important role in the success of all doctoral students, but particularly so in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, where advising relationships determine funding structures and lab work possibilities. In cases where there is a mismatch between advisors and advisees, conflict can hinder students' academic progress, research expertise, and career prospects. However, relatively few institutions have clear processes to address power imbalances, creating an onerous burden for students who may risk damaging relationships and incurring unexpected consequences by raising concerns. In this critical constructivist narrative inquiry, we used self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 1998, 1999) within a power-conscious framework of doctoral advising (Bettencourt et al., 2021; Linder, 2018) to examine how 28 STEM doctoral students made meaning of power in advising relationships. Our findings demonstrate that the STEM doctoral environment heavily emphasizes external messages, which students must often negotiate within rather than move away from to succeed.