International recognition is an integral component of state sovereignty; however, International Relations scholars have only recently begun questioning this practice. Early pioneers have offered some guidelines for thinking about the motivations behind sovereign recognition, especially in the context of a closed and territorially defined international system. This project contributes to this literature by asking why states recognize the way they do? By understanding the form and framing of a recognition decision, we can observe the motivation behind the decision, glean the interests that are at play, and assess the care given to the consequences of these actions. I argue that certain domestic and international conditions will determine the decision, form, and framing of international recognition of statehood. While this project hypothesized a motive behind the policy itself, the focus of this study is the rhetorical strategies that inform their official statements. Furthermore, the theoretical backbone of this story will evaluate how each country considers their circumstances, their interests, and the consequences of their actions. Through the qualitative study of three cases of recognition, the first component reviews if, how, and why states are concerned with setting precedents through the sovereign recognition of a new entity. The second component of this project utilizes these lessons and unpacks the rhetorical variation within recognition statements emitted by state officials to see how this precedent setting concern translates on paper. With a focus on theory building and exploration, I observe the phenomenon within the case studies and offer an initial theory of rhetoric of recognition that can be expanded upon in further research.