Abstract: Sarah Kane has been arguably the most controversial British playwright in the past three decades. Her provocative and unique works, as well as her suicide at the peak of fame and youth, greatly impacted her contemporaries and successors in Britain and across the globe. In 1995, when her first full-length play Blasted was staged, there was uproar in the country. This work became one of the turning points in the history of British theater and led a wave of new plays known as “In-Yer-Face Theatre”. In her second full-length play Phaedra’s Love she did not repeat her previous success, however, still remained controversial. In this work Kane offers her only mythical adaptation, a contemporary version of the Greek myths of Phaedra and Hippolytus. By altering the time, place and storyline of her source text, Seneca’s Phaedra, she makes a mockery of the British royal family. Kane’s urban language, political references and taboo-breaking approach, along with the notes and interviews that reflect on her idea about theater, have made Phaedra’s Love a special case in the realm of adaptation. This paper seeks to answer how did Kane reflect on socio-political concerns of her time in the play? The first half of the article includes an overview about adaptation theory and the research method, followed by an analysis of Blasted, the predecessor of Phaedra’s Love. In the second half, the article focuses on Kane’s source material and her writing skills and strategies. To conclude, the paper summarises and analises the writer’s motives and approach in adapting Greek myths for the British stage. In short, Kane had major political and personal reasons to reframe Seneca’s Phaedra. Firstly, in the original story the theme of corruption in the royal family resembles that of British royal family in late twentieth century. Secondly, the writer’s depression could be represented in the form of the character Hippolytus. Kane provides a contemporary adaptation of an ancient text via changing the plot and dramatic language, adding and removing characters, maintaining the main themes, using sexual metaphors, appropriating the character Hippolytus, and criticising Western consumerism. The article elaborates on the adaptation process as well as the final product, and ends with a brief discussion on the reception of the play.