A constitutional referendum was held on September 12, 2010 in Turkey. The majority supported the constitutional amendments, hoping that they would democratize the country. Although the work on these amendments has been interrupted a few times since then, the political discourse revolving around the promises of the new constitution is continuous. Some months after re-election, the Armenian president announced plans in September, 2013 to implement major constitutional changes. A committee was formed, which produced a draft concept paper in April, 2014, with a final draft for a new constitution published in August, 2015. The referendum held on December 6, 2015, was controversial, adhering to the general trend in Armenia of fraudulent elections. But the document was adopted as the new constitution of the Republic of Armenia. This presentation attempts to explore the discourse present in major Turkish and Armenian media outlets regarding proposed changes to the respective country's constitution. Data taken from a representative sample of publications between the periods 2011 to 2015 are analyzed for keywords pertaining to the general narrative of democratization in both states. Particular attention is paid to the shift in Turkey from a parliamentary to a presidential model and in Armenia from a semi-presidential to a parliamentary model. In addition, in-depth interviews with media workers at the editorial level supplement the data in order to gain insights into the process of the creation of that discourse. Our data show that different media outlets that represent diverse stances use a variety of frames on the new constitution. In the Turkish context, regardless of these conflicting media frames, the rhetoric by the politicians in power shapes the dominant public discourse on the new constitution. One major realm of public discourse on democratization and the constitution has been the pros and cons of the presidential system. In the Armenian context, a largely pro-government and self-censored media is peppered with opposition or radical viewpoints, mainly online and through social media, with a few politicians in or out of parliament regularly voicing concerns. Those voices tend to make little impact on the party in power, which remains securely entrenched in its position. We argue that the political cultures of Turkey and Armenia are similar enough to echo each other’s discourse, but that their traditions and scales of media production and distribution are disparate enough that a comparative analysis would reveal worthwhile insights into the generation and dissemination of public discourse.