In the course of the 8th European Parliament, its Members (MEPs) were exposed to the novel rules that set limits for the number of written questions they can ask. Faced with limitations to draw attention to political issues as well as to send signals to the domestic audiences, since then MEPs have to strategically choose which issues to emphasize. In this paper, I examine the rationales driving the MEPs' choice of the issues they draw attention to. I argue that the rule change, coupled together with the increasing EU politicization and its growing salience in domestic electoral politics, shapes the patterns of issue emphasis shown by the MEPs from the Eurosceptic and non-Eurosceptic parties. As their ability to represent domestic interests on the European level became more noticeable domestically, while opportunities to do so became scarcer, I argue that after the rule change non-Eurosceptic MEPs have shifted their focus to the issues that their domestic parties regard as more salient. The same is not expected for the Eurosceptic MEPs, as they rather benefit from the EU politicization and have less incentives to change the way they utilize written questions. To test the theoretical framework, I rely on the difference-in-difference approach and compare issue emphasis in the questions of Eurosceptic and non-Eurosceptic MEPs during the 7th and 8thparliamentary terms. The results bear important implications for understanding the effects that institutional change may have on the behaviour of legislators and in particular on their responsiveness to party issue priorities.