As populist radical right-wing parties (PRRPs) have gained electoral and political leverage across Europe, it is still contested what explains their increasing acceptability. Parties might try to engage in a variety of strategies to make themselves feel and appear more mainstream without actually changing their policy positions. By framing their most controversial, "unacceptable" policy positions in more normatively acceptable ways, radical right-wing parties might try to present themselves as a respectable political option, especially for voters traditionally underrepresented in these parties. In this paper, I examine the effects of one particular frame used by the radical right: using women's protection and gender equality to justify anti-immigration claims. I argue that these gendered immigration frames make anti-immigration policies more acceptable. Through survey experiments conducted in Germany and Norway, I find that gendered anti-immigration messages make voters more likely to express anti-immigration preferences and to report voting for the radical right. These findings have important implications for our understanding of how previously unacceptable positions become normalised, and how gender equality rhetoric is used as a powerful legitimising device to this end.