After many years of climate negotiations, a universally binding agreement has become the main objective for many scientists and politicians in the field of international climate negotiations. The highly anticipated climate conference in Paris 2015 has been portrayed as a success by politicians, newspapers and international organisations worldwide. It seems reasonable to assume that the binding part of the agreement is one of the reasons to its perceived significance given the fact that a binding agreement, historically, has been difficult to achieve. Although the agreement has been celebrated and praised by several influential organisations such as the UN, this perspective has not been uncontradicted. Organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth challenge the assumption that this is a milestone for humanity. This thesis seeks to explore this disagreement with a framing analysis. It is possible to identify two separate frames combatting for their beliefs to become perceived as the truth. The ”Successframe” is illustrated by the Swedish government. The successframe is challenged by the environmental organisations in what can be referred to as a counterframe, in this essay the counterframe is called the ”failureframe”. This thesis uses a theoretical framework inspired by Benford and Snow (2000), to explore why the successframe has become the dominating frame in the public discourse when discussing the Paris agreement.