Why should we assume systematic comparative research on state-based curriculum-making to be possible at all, given the high complexity and large variety of institutional forms of educational and political systems across nation-states? On the other hand, how can we explain the significant endeavour of nation-states all over the world to align their curricula with emergent issues, within their systems and on a global scale, if we reject the idea of comparability altogether? Drawing on research aiming at the re-analysis of data from parallel projects on curriculum-making in comparative perspective, this paper outlines some of the questions that need to be answered. It deals, first, with the issue of comparative methodology. It subsequently identifies the nation-state as the explanatory, but not necessarily observational, unit of analysis of research on state-based curriculum-making and discusses relationships between education, state and society. Finally, it attempts to distinguish different sources of challenges to the existing education system and to draw a line from their perception to their awareness and interpretation as issues to deal with and finally to their translation into charges for curriculum developers.