<p>Public diplomacy has become a central instrument of international political communication, yet the role of regime type in shaping its communicative strategies remains insufficiently explored. This article presents a cross-national quantitative study of how democratic, authoritarian, and hybrid regimes frame their public diplomacy messages. Drawing on 273 official statements published on the websites of Ministries of Foreign Affairs across 33 countries, the study applies a content analysis of 1,706 paragraphs coded for five framing dimensions (values, identity, perception, communication, and power) and three framing functions (diagnostic, prognostic, motivational). Reliability was ensured through a coding manual and intercoder agreement (Cohen’s Kappa &gt; 0.80). Statistical analyses (χ² tests, ANOVA) were conducted using SPSS. The findings reveal significant differences across regime types. Democratic regimes emphasize universal values, dialogue, and soft power. Authoritarian regimes rely more heavily on frames of sovereignty, legitimacy, and external threats, often legitimizing hard power. Hybrid regimes combine both strategies, presenting democratic rhetoric while simultaneously reinforcing stability and security frames. The study contributes theoretically by linking framing theory with political culture and regime typologies, and empirically by providing large-scale evidence of systematic variation in public diplomacy strategies. Practically, it demonstrates how domestic regime logics structure the international narratives states project, offering new insights into the global competition for legitimacy and influence.</p>