Under what conditions do secessionist parties advance identity, socioeconomic and political frames for constitutional change? By performing a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) of 93 party manifestos from six different Western regions, the results identify a key variable that largely explains framing strategies: the governmental status of the party. Parties in opposition from ethnolinguistic distinct regions tend to advance identity claims for constitutional change. Instead, being in office is a condition for justifying their territorial position in socioeconomic terms. Finally, the results concerning political frames are highly complex, although patterns around office holding have also been identified. Hence, the present article shows that vote and office seeking strategies imply a fundamental change in how these parties frame the constitution. When going “from protest to power”, minority nationalists try to bolster their position and enhance their credibility as governing parties by downplaying identity issues in favour of a more inclusive and policy-oriented appeal. Moreover, they engage in blame avoidance strategies by pointing out the limits of the current territorial settlement and promising a “better future” in the event of constitutional change.