When describing women who have been raped, does how they are framed—e.g., as “rape victims” versus as “rape survivors”—matter? Based on critical feminist (e.g., Lugones, 2003) and social psychological (e.g., Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) theories of power, we systematically reviewed past research on individuals' rape-related attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, behaviors, and experiences, and concluded that such framing does matter. We compared the literature framing rape targets normatively (i.e., as victims) to the literature framing them non-normatively (e.g., as survivors, more individualistically). Comparison suggested their differences in framing are generally associated with differences in conceptualizations of women who have been raped (i.e., more stereotypic and limited versus more realistic and multidimensional) and in emphases on oppression versus resistance and empowerment, especially in terms of the outcomes found for women who have been raped (i.e., more negative outcomes versus more balanced outcomes). After providing evidence for these conclusions, we addressed limitations of our review and discussed its theoretical and practical implications. Finally, we concluded with three specific recommendations for researchers addressing rape-related psychology: conduct more experience-based research, develop tools to assess rape-supportive and rape-resistant psychology, and base such research clearly in theory.