Abstract
<jats:p>This article examines the representation of the January 2022 events in Kazakhstan in international media, focusing on coverage by the American newspaper The New York Times and the British newspaper Financial Times. The study is grounded in framing theory and the concept of representation as developed by Erving Goffman, Robert Entman, and Stuart Hall. The empirical corpus consists of ten news and analytical articles (five from each outlet) published during the peak of the crisis. The research employs qualitative content analysis combined with framing analysis, conducted using the MAXQDA software. Six dominant frames were identified: Security/Violence, Elite Power Struggle, Chaos/Unrest, Socio-Economic Grievances, State Legitimacy and Governance, and Legitimacy of Protest. The findings indicate that The New York Times places greater emphasis on frames related to violence, security, and social disorder, portraying the events primarily through the lens of instability and unrest. In contrast, Financial Times more frequently highlights elite power struggles and governance-related issues, situating the protests within broader political and institutional dynamics. These differences reveal the fragmented and asymmetric nature of the international media discourse surrounding Kazakhstan and demonstrate how national and editorial contexts shape the framing of political crises. The study contributes to media and conflict research by illustrating how framing practices influence the international perception of protest movements and state legitimacy in post-Soviet contexts.</jats:p>