政策合法化階段為政策執行的基礎前提，在代議民主的制度設計下，政策合法化係行政官員與立法委員相互對話之結果，且兩者應透過具備審議民主精神的論述內容，強化決策的正當性與品質，然而此主題過去卻為學界所忽略。本文從多元性、互惠性、尊重性、與合理性等面向探究政策合法化論述之審議民主精神，透過個案比較研究法，選取大學法與私立學校法的修法過程進行內容分析。研究結果顯示，立法委員論述的互惠性、多元性、尊重性、與合理性皆有待加強；行政官員的論述則過於保守與消極，缺乏合理性精神。審議民主精神的不足應與兩者的制度性角色要求相關。基於研究發現，本文建議應於現制中增加立法委員彼此間互動與對話的誘因，以更接近審議民主之理想；並鼓勵行政官員發表積極論述，強化其合理性進而發揮更多影響力。本文為一初探性嘗試，未來學界可根據實務觀察，建構更完善的評估指標，甚至輔以制度論角度，裨益於對政策合法化論述的審議精神有更全面性地解釋。

Policy legitimation is the prerequisite of policy implementation. Under therepresentative democracy, policy legitimation results from the interactionbetween administrators and legislators. And they should strengthen thelegitimacy and quality of decision-making by deliberative discourse. However,this process is ignored by the academia in the past. This study investigates thepolicy legitimation discourse from the perspective of deliberative democracy,specifically from the aspects of diversity, reciprocity, respect, andreasonableness. The author selected the processes of amending the UniversityAct and the Private School Law by comparative study of cases, and used thecontent analysis as the research method. The results show the attributes such asreciprocity, diversity, respect, and reasonableness in the legislators’ policylegitimation discourse have a great room for improvement. Administrators arealways conservative and passive, and there is a lack of the reasonableness in thediscourse. The difference between legislators and administrators’ discoursesmay relate to respective institutional roles. Accordingly, this study suggests current system should give legislators more incentives to interact with eachother, and to promote the deliberative spirit of the discourse. The institutionshould encourage administrators to be more active in making arguments, toenhance reasonableness and exert more influence. This study also givessuggestions to further studies.