Context: In recent years, 44 U.S. states have proposed legislation that restricts the teaching of race and racism in social studies. Commonly called "anti-critical race theory" (anti-CRT) legislation, these laws are notoriously difficult to interpret and have led many social studies teachers to avoid discussing race and controversial issues in the classroom. However, anti-CRT laws are not monolithic and differ widely in how they use explicit and implicit language to impose new limits on knowledge and pedagogical practices. Purpose: Because confusion around these laws has led to increased avoidance of controversial issues in classrooms, the purpose of this study is to provide greater clarity around the limits and implications of these laws in an effort to mitigate the "chilling effect" and enable teachers to renew engagement with important topics in social studies classrooms. We asked the question, "How does the presence of certain words and concepts in anti-CRT legislation shape what seems possible to teach in a social studies classroom?" We addressed this question through a close analysis of how individual states use language about CRT to impose strong or weak frames around instruction. Research Design: We conducted a qualitative content analysis by first surveying the anti-CRT laws that were passed in 18 states and then choosing to focus our analysis on three archetypal states to represent the range of explicit to implicit language in anti-CRT laws. We defined "explicit states" as those that name, define, and prohibit CRT or other theories or resources, and "implicit states" as those that impose restrictions without naming or prohibiting a specific theory. Our data collection included passed laws, resolutions from state departments of education, and executive orders. We used reflexive thematic analysis in collaborative coding over three rounds. Conclusions: This analysis concluded that state legislation often extends beyond its stated intention of prohibiting particular theories or concepts, allocating more power to the state and leaving less room for teacher and student agency. Our analysis associated explicit restrictions with weaker framing and more room for teacher agency, while implicit restrictions imposed stronger framings and resulted in less agency for teachers in classrooms. Mixed laws used both explicit and implicit language, resulting in maximal constraints for teachers. We recommend that educators adopt this approach of analyzing the language and framing of individual state laws to reduce confusion, minimize avoidance, and facilitate meaningful engagement with controversial issues.