This research demonstrates how prior knowledge may allow for qualitative differences in representation of texts about controversial issues. People often experience a memory bias in favor of information with which they agree. In several experiments it was found that individuals with high prior knowledge about the topic were better able to recall arguments on both sides of a controversial issue (the legality of abortion, US military action in the Persian Gulf, the OJ Simpson case). Being able to integrate new information into a coherent representation seems to be one of the main advantages of prior knowledge on text comprehension. Individuals with less prior knowledge tended to recall more arguments that supported their position. The final two studies extend this finding by manipulating the presentation of the arguments. The results suggest that giving readers an interleaved text (where supporting and opposing arguments are presented in a point/counterpoint fashion) eliminated differences due to knowledge.