We contribute to the research on organizational accounts by examining the role of different framing languages and the frame articulator's credibility on justifying controversial organizational actions. Drawing on regulatory focus theory and the literature on source credibility, we develop novel arguments as to how a gains versus non-losses framing and the perceived speaker credibility influence stakeholder responses as well as how the effectiveness of these aspects is influenced by context. We test our arguments using data on the framing of the adoption of "poison pills" by U.S. firms between 1983 and 2008. Using content analysis and an event study, we find that a gains framing aligned with the dominant institutional logic leads to a positive stock market reaction, while statements emanating from speakers with potentially self-serving interests negatively affect the stock market reaction. Our findings further show that the effectiveness of framing and source credibility are dependent on contextual attributes such as speaker visibility, prior performance, and practice prevalence.