This chapter develops the book’s theoretical framework by conceptualizing law as a narratival enterprise in which meaning, legitimacy, and reform are mediated through master narratives understood as sociopolitical constructs. Drawing on Robert Cover’s theory of nomos and narrative, Ronald Dworkin’s interpretive integrity, and Hans Hansen’s sociology of narrative change, it argues that judicial reasoning is sustained by shared interpretive narratives that both constrain and enable reform. The chapter introduces the concept of narratival (in)cohesion to capture the degree of internal and external consistency within judicial framing and its effects on the rule of law, procedural justice, and internal reform. Cohesive narratives align legal authority with moral clarity. Narratival cohesion – especially when expressed in inclusionary form – helps lower courts apply higher-court precedents more effectively, fosters community trust in consistent rulings, strengthens perceptions of procedural justice, and provides feedback enabling reformers to harmonize community legal meanings with those of the state.