In a context of rising inequalities in the European Union, accompanied by a certain mistrust in the capacity of the European institutions to improve and secure the social conditions of the citizens, the question of 'social Europe' is more than ever source of debate and interrogations. Focusing on the revision of the Posting of Workers Directive, proposed by the Commission in 2016, this thesis analyses the way the European Ministers framed this revision and 'social Europe' more broadly during the negotiations. This work contributes to the existing research on elite framing and expands this field to 'negotiations analysis', a topic which has rarely been addressed. The analysis, based on Helbling's frame categorisation, shows that workers' social protection is a divisive issue which opposes two main groups: the proponents (high wage member states) and the opponents (low wage member states). The first group frames 'social Europe' as a way to restore trust in the European economic model, jeopardised by the downward pressure on wages and social conditions caused by low wage member states. On the other hand, opponents to the revision frame social policies as disruptive forces damaging the single market's competitiveness and economic freedoms. They portray themselves as the victims of an unwelcome protectionism orchestrated by high wage member states. These findings question the future of 'social Europe', as they bring to light the unwillingness of both sides to rethink the European economic system. In the absence of a strong and positive 'counter-narrative', it seems that social policies will continue to be seen as hindering economic freedoms or as a mean to legitimise a system that has proven to be unequal. In that sense, the European social project did not yet reach the 'status' of the economic project and is still understood as a side issue that cannot challenge the status quo. If framed differently, social welfare in the Union could become a priority and take precedence over the fundamental freedoms that have been defined twenty-five years ago, in a very different socio-economic and political context.In a context of rising inequalities in the European Union, accompanied by a certain mistrust in the capacity of the European institutions to improve and secure the social conditions of the citizens, the question of 'social Europe' is more than ever source of debate and interrogations. Focusing on the revision of the Posting of Workers Directive, proposed by the Commission in 2016, this thesis analyses the way the European Ministers framed this revision and 'social Europe' more broadly during the negotiations. This work contributes to the existing research on elite framing and expands this field to 'negotiations analysis', a topic which has rarely been addressed. The analysis, based on Helbling's frame categorisation, shows that workers' social protection is a divisive issue which opposes two main groups: the proponents (high wage member states) and the opponents (low wage member states). The first group frames 'social Europe' as a way to restore trust in the European economic model, jeopardised by the downward pressure on wages and social conditions caused by low wage member states. On the other hand, opponents to the revision frame social policies as disruptive forces damaging the single market's competitiveness and economic freedoms. They portray themselves as the victims of an unwelcome protectionism orchestrated by high wage member states. These findings question the future of 'social Europe', as they bring to light the unwillingness of both sides to rethink the European economic system. In the absence of a strong and positive 'counter-narrative', it seems that social policies will continue to be seen as hindering economic freedoms or as a mean to legitimise a system that has proven to be unequal. In that sense, the European social project did not yet reach the 'status' of the economic project and is still understood as a side issue that cannot challenge the status quo. If framed differently, social welfare in the Union could become a priority and take precedence over the fundamental freedoms that have been defined twenty-five years ago, in a very different socio-economic and political context.