In this chapter, I compare governments’ use of blame avoidance strategies across the cases examined individually in the last two chapters. This comparative approach allows me to evaluate whether the two independent variables, politicisation and reputation for policy support, indeed have the expected effect on governments’ strategy choice. Furthermore, I contrast the results of these comparisons with the explanatory power of alternative explanations, such as a sequential use of blame avoidance strategies, government ideology, the style of policymaking, and governments’ compliance record. I show that the observed pattern of blame avoidance strategies in and across the cases matches the theoretical expectations and that the empirical fit exceeds that of alternative accounts.