There is emerging research, in the American rape trials, that addresses the embedding of rape myths during the cross-examination of rape complainants by opposing lawyer. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate whether the American cross-examination of rape complainant are embedded with rape myths. A total of 607 cross-examination questions were extracted and analyzed from two well-publicized American rape cases. The study utilized Zydervelt's et al. (2016) thematic analysis to explore the types of broad strategies and specific tactics opposing lawyers used when cross-examining rape complainants. After the identification of strategy-based questions, a follow up Discourse Analysis (DA) was performed to linguistically analyze the embedding of rape myths into cross-examination questions. Findings confirm that questions in the American cross-examinations were loaded with rape myths, and that opposing lawyers relied heavily on the use of strategy-based questions. Finally, based on the findings, the study provides future recommendations and further areas of research.