This article explores how national judges' reasoning in the preliminary ruling procedure varies depending on the prescriptive clarity of European Union (EU) legal frameworks. Drawing on the logic of appropriateness and the logic of expected consequences, this article formulates hypotheses regarding judges' motivational patterns. Interviews with Swedish judges generate findings that partly corroborate these hypotheses. The findings show that when EU legal frameworks are clear, judges express a mix of considerations, including references to EU rules, expected politico-strategic outcomes and professional norms. When the clarity of the frameworks is low, judges mainly motivate their decisions by invoking professional norms. In light of these findings, the article proposes a revision of the compliance pull explanation that takes into account how not only formal EU rules but also informal norms of appropriate professional conduct may influence the actions of national judges.