ABSTRACT
This article examines how the legitimacy of physician associates (PAs) is constructed and contested in English medicine. Drawing on Critical Discursive Psychology, it analyses formal submissions to a government commissioned independent review of medical associate professions from the British Medical Association, General Medical Council and United Medical Associate Professionals to ask: What does conflict over PAs reveal about fractures in medical status and power? The findings show that these actors do not simply disagree about a new occupational role but mobilise shared concerns, especially around safety, standards and responsibility, through competing legitimacy logics. For the BMA, legitimacy is framed predominantly through boundary protection and the exclusivity of medical expertise; for the GMC, through regulatory governance and system assurance; and for UMAP, through workforce contribution and professional integration. Conceptually, this article extends jurisdictional accounts by showing that contemporary role disputes concern not only who controls clinical tasks but also which criteria and institutions are authorised to validate healthcare work. The PA controversy therefore reveals a pluralisation and institutional fragmentation of the grounds of medical authority, rather than its straightforward decline or reproduction.