The present study undertakes an interdisciplinary comparative analysis of two pivotal Iranian water laws: the Nationalization of Water Law (1968) and the Fair Water Distribution Law (1982). Drawing on appraisal theory and discourse analysis, the research examines the implicit attitudes, values, and ideologies embedded within the legal texts. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the study integrates both quantitative and qualitative content analyses. The dataset comprises the full texts of the two laws, with analytical categories encompassing attitude, gradation, and engagement. The frequency and distribution of these categories were meticulously calculated, and key textual examples were selected for critical discourse analysis. This approach allows for a systematic investigation of the interplay between language, discourse, and legal policy. Findings indicate that the monologic dimension in engagement exhibits the highest frequency in both laws (4.1% in the 1968 law and 9.2% in the 1982 law), reflecting the dominance of a single discourse and limited diversity of perspectives. However, significant differences emerge in attitudinal content: the 1968 law foregrounds negative elements such as unhappiness (3.5%), insecurity (3.2%), and dissatisfaction (2.9%), which, combined with intensified gradation, signify a control-oriented approach emphasizing the legitimacy of centralized water resource management. Conversely, the 1982 law features more positive elements, including security (6.9%), desire (6.4%), and happiness (5.5%), alongside social value orientations and amplified gradation, indicating a more optimistic attitudinal stance, legitimization of equitable water distribution, and reinforcement of stakeholder engagement.