This study explores the use of conflict frames in political communication, focusing on online and offline contexts. It identifies four conceptual dimensions of political conflict frames: style (civil/uncivil), subject (personal/substantive), depth (deep/superficial), and type (normative/factual). A content analysis of Dutch newspaper articles and politicians' tweets reveals that most conflicts are civil and substantive, with few highlighting deep or factual disagreements. The findings suggest that while political debates can be constructive, the increasing use of uncivil language and personal attacks may hinder democratic discourse. The study also highlights differences in conflict framing between government and opposition parties, as well as between populist and mainstream politicians. Government parties are less likely to use conflict frames, while opposition and populist parties tend to use more uncivil and substantive conflict frames. The research underscores the importance of distinguishing between superficial and deep disagreements, as well as between normative and factual conflicts, in understanding the impact of political communication on democracy. The study contributes to the theoretical understanding of conflict framing by providing a comprehensive framework that accounts for the multi-dimensionality of political conflicts. It also highlights the need for further research into the desirability of conflict framing for democracy, emphasizing the potential benefits of civil, substantive disagreements and the risks of uncivil or deep disagreements. The study concludes that while political conflicts can be a necessary part of democracy, the way they are framed can significantly influence public opinion and democratic processes.This study explores the use of conflict frames in political communication, focusing on online and offline contexts. It identifies four conceptual dimensions of political conflict frames: style (civil/uncivil), subject (personal/substantive), depth (deep/superficial), and type (normative/factual). A content analysis of Dutch newspaper articles and politicians' tweets reveals that most conflicts are civil and substantive, with few highlighting deep or factual disagreements. The findings suggest that while political debates can be constructive, the increasing use of uncivil language and personal attacks may hinder democratic discourse. The study also highlights differences in conflict framing between government and opposition parties, as well as between populist and mainstream politicians. Government parties are less likely to use conflict frames, while opposition and populist parties tend to use more uncivil and substantive conflict frames. The research underscores the importance of distinguishing between superficial and deep disagreements, as well as between normative and factual conflicts, in understanding the impact of political communication on democracy. The study contributes to the theoretical understanding of conflict framing by providing a comprehensive framework that accounts for the multi-dimensionality of political conflicts. It also highlights the need for further research into the desirability of conflict framing for democracy, emphasizing the potential benefits of civil, substantive disagreements and the risks of uncivil or deep disagreements. The study concludes that while political conflicts can be a necessary part of democracy, the way they are framed can significantly influence public opinion and democratic processes.