Participating in the growing scholarly attention to the roles of rhetoric and argumentation in policymaking, we examine how the use of research evidence operates in explicitly argumentative legislative hearings characterised by partisanship and polarisation. Conducting a rhetorical analysis of three legislative hearings in the US state of Wisconsin, we discovered that partisanship and polarisation did not influence argument and the use of research evidence uniformly. Instead, legislators and committee witnesses employed a range of uses for research evidence. To understand this usage, we have developed a framework that foregrounds situations of research use. These situations consist of conditions of polarisation (visibility, bipartisan leadership, familiarity, and controversy), modes of interaction (participation, cooperation and (dis)qualification), and conceptions of research use (necessity, relevance, and sufficiency). This situational model recognises that symbolic use provides the foundation for the use of research evidence in legislative settings. This model also reconfigures the relationship between research evidence and decision making.