In 2021, Connecticut passed Right to Read legislation with the intent of improving reading outcomes for all students. This was passed in a national environment heavily influenced by the neoliberal education reform agenda, such as an emphasis on accountability. This study focused on the discourse surrounding the legislation and its implementation as evidence of and a product of existing power structures in literacy education, as well as what voices or perspectives are present or absent in the implementation of Right to Read legislation and what these voices or perspectives say. This study included interviews of three reading consultants and 15 district leaders. This study utilized critical discourse analysis and reflexive thematic analysis as articulated by Fairclough and Foucault. Foucault described power in terms of dynamic interactions in human relationships; those with power directly or indirectly dictate what must be done. Examining resistance, such as through dissents or subversions, illuminated institutional power and the opposition which is oppressed or marginalized. Categories and themes constructions were informed by literature and researcher conceptualizations. The first key discourse theme constructed from the data was Discourse of Reform. This included an adherence to authority as well as deficit-frames of thinking and fear driving decisions. The second key discourse theme was Discourse of Compliance and Equity. This included Power's Use of Equity, Power's Use of Professional Learning, and Funding. The third theme was Discourse of Resistance and Subversion. This included Equity for Social Justice, Professional Learning for Social Justice, and Relevant, Engaging Content. The fourth theme was Discourse of Dissent. This included Mistrust and expressions of being Against Control. One key takeaway for future research was a need to create room for counter-narratives and discourses of resistance on a national scale; additional studies could shed light on what has been naturalized in discourses in other states, and a meta-analysis of multiple studies could provide an opportunity for denaturalization to counter and resist the discourses of power perpetuated by the continued dominance of the neoliberal accountability reform agenda. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com.bibliotheek.ehb.be/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]