This thesis is devoted to the study of innovations that are ambiguous to existing regulatory frameworks. The problem is how these ambiguous innovations achieve regulatory acceptance. I start by proposing an analogy between a social movement and the process of achieving regulatory acceptance for innovations. It enables me to introduce social movement theories to systematically explain the variation of regulatory outcomes of an innovation. I then turn to the discursive side of this problem, that is, how companies influence policymakers' interpretations of an innovation in their favor. Drawing on the framing perspective, I explore which aspect of the innovation a company chooses to promote would work for policymakers. Finally I consider how regulatory acceptance for an innovation is possible in a non-democratic setting, where companies are unable to influence policy making through democratic participation. I find that the substitute to democratic participation is to utilize the divisions within the state to push the frontier of what is permissible.