<p>Socioscientific issues (SSIs) are recognized as a vital approach for developing scientific literacy. Negotiating different opinions can enhance students’ ability to address SSIs by considering the complexity of both the scientific dimensions and social factors. However, few studies have explored how students handle differing opinions to work toward a consensus that integrates multiple perspectives into the SSI discussion process. To bridge this gap, this qualitative study investigates the negotiation processes among 162 eleventh-grade students from three classes, complemented by follow-up interviews with a sample of five students. Data sources included worksheets (indicating student thinking), audio recordings of student group discourse, and semi-structured student interviews. The study identifies four key negotiation strategies employed by students:1) integrative negotiation (resolving dual-value conflicts through threshold compromises), 2) conditional negotiation (refining positions via pragmatic evidence-based conditions), 3) implicit negotiation (building tacit consensus through collaborative concept-defining), and 4) reverse negotiation (consolidating shared opposition before addressing counterarguments). These strategies are operationalized through specific behavioral moves (e.g., clarifying concepts, adding information, qualifying boundaries) and reveal that consensus building relies on negotiating evidence, strengthening logical reasoning, and integrating interdisciplinary perspectives. This study contributes practical insights for guiding student-centered SSI discussions, emphasizing the need to scaffold negotiation moves (e.g., teaching students to clarify conflicts or propose conditional solutions) to help them integrate diverse standpoints, make informed decisions, and ultimately foster scientific literacy.</p>