The framework isn't repeating the lit review. Your framework shouldn't be in your lit review. The framework is the lens through which you are conducting your study. The lit review is what everyone else has published on that narrow topic, and your framework is a different study you are including in the mix, and the framework presents a unique angle that other scholars have not considered. I suppose the same study could be in your lit review and your framework, but there's no real reason to do that. One thing I've done before is use a philosophical theory to guide a study I was conducting. I publish mostly in finance/financial planning, which has very little to do with philosophy. There is no philosophical articles that I will ever include in the literature review because philosophy has nothing to do with finance and vice versa. However, if I'm studying the misconduct of financial advisors, there are other studies published on this subject, which will go in my lit review. Then, if I want to study advisor misconduct from a Utilitarian perspective, then I will write about J.S. Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Utilitarianism in my framework section, which has nothing to do (really) with my lit review. You can also think of this as a conversation. Suppose we are brainstorming a new avenue we want to explore to solve a problem. We first consider all the other attempts other people have made that have failed. That's the lit review. Then, we take an idea that has worked on an unrelated problem, and that idea is our framework because we are going to see if that idea, which worked on a different problem, will work on our problem. Hope this clarifies.
