This dissertation examines how policy advocacy networks attempt to reverse policy losses using subversive, indirect means. I identify and examine a strategy I call "passive-aggressive policymaking": policymaking that is indirect, deceptive, and intentional. I examine passive-aggressive policymaking in the creation of abortion legislation through a cross-national quantitative study of abortion legislation, as well as case studies that focus on the United States and Canada. I find that passive-aggressive policymaking is common in the area of abortion law around the world. I find that passive-aggressive policymaking is common in the area of abortion law around the world. I also find that the success of passive-aggressive policymaking hinges on whether an advocacy coalition is able to come together in a sustained, organized, and synchronized way. An innovative and coordinated approach is necessary to keep an issue alive and survive the trial and error process of developing a deceptive strategy to indirectly subvert the law they lost on. This dissertation introduces a new framework on which to understand the behavior of policy losers and I conclude by examining other policy areas to which it can be applied.