["Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 115, Issue 4, October 2026. ", "\nAbstract\n\nBackground\nUse of theory is a quality marker in engineering education research. However, it can be challenging to select an appropriate theoretical framework and explicate how that framework was used.\n\n\nPurpose\nUsing undergraduate STEM disability research as an example, this systematic review develops a framework of theory use in engineering education research. We sought to understand what theoretical frameworks have been used, how frameworks are implemented, and what opportunities exist to strengthen use of frameworks.\n\n\nMethod\nWe identified 101 articles, conference papers, and dissertations reporting on undergraduate STEM disability studies conducted in the United States since 2005. We coded their theoretical frameworks on two dimensions: (1) thematically, by framework genre, and (2) whether the framework primarily informed the overall framing of the study, research methods, or an educational intervention.\n\n\nResults\nWe identified 12 genres of theoretical frameworks, the largest of which were universal design; motivation, identity and advocacy; and critical theories. Most studies used these frameworks to frame the entire study (N = 64), while fewer primarily informed methods (N = 15) or an educational intervention (N = 22). While a few theoretical frameworks were used exclusively for methods (e.g., grounded theory) or interventions (e.g., instructional frameworks), most framework categories spanned multiple usage types.\n\n\nConclusion\nWe call for more explicit labeling of framework use in future work to support common understanding of how frameworks are selected, synthesized, and applied in engineering education research studies. We also encourage researchers to use anti‐deficit frameworks as research about STEM undergraduates with disabilities evolves.\n\n"]