Introduction: Easy Read health documents prepared for people with intellectual disabilities are often generated from Standard Texts. Language in Easy Read versions is typically assumed to be simpler. However, simplification of language may have unintended consequences. This study aimed to explore the differences in language used between Easy Read health material and the Standard Text versions of the same material produced for the general population. Methods: Five Easy Read/Standard Text pairs were sampled and analysed using Systemic Functional Linguistics. This addressed: how people with intellectual disabilities and others were represented by language, the author stance in relation to the reader and the overall organisation of the text. Results: The Easy Read versions often used language that was less empowering and inclusive. Conclusion: Increased awareness of author power and better knowledge of the impact of language choice could help to redress these issues.