I hate that we have to consider there to be a "power struggle" in the first place. I mean, yeah, there's a system of giving and taking and gestures that are offered and then reciprocated. But perceiving not only power, but a struggle for that power just seems to create arbitrary competition over something that no one can win anyway.

Well . . . we don't have to consider a situation to be a "power struggle" if we throw out the notion that power is something that is won. Power is dynamic and fluid. Negotiating power dynamics is something we do all the time on the small scale. Many languages deal with abstract concepts kind of sloppily (no surprise). For example, in English many of these concepts are expressed in a way that implies permanence or a static state. Furthermore, this lends itself to the idea of "winning" and "losing".

If we consider power to be something that is dynamic and that must be continually negotiated for, then we can get out of this mindset that when we don't have power that we have somehow "lost" instead of found an opportunity to renegotiate our position. By imposing rules, we then resort to the mindset of, "what rights do I have?" vs. "what rights do you have?" In a rights-based frame, we are again confronted with the "win/lose" dynamic, which of course means that if one side wins, then the other loses. That's a pretty shitty way to relate to someone, in my opinion.

Another frame we might resort to is a relational frame, wherein the people involved try to collaborate in order to foster the relationship. In this sense, I'm using "relationship" in a greater context than "a romantic relationship". For example, you might be familiar with this frame in the context of friendships. Let's say that you and your buddy agree that you are hungry. Your buddy wants to go to his favorite place and you want to go to your favorite place. It might turn out that your buddy really just wants a burger and you want a slice. Therefore, you might decide to go to a place that has good (or good enough) burgers and slices. Or, through conversation, you might find that you both want to try that new place, or could go for nachos instead. Note that this is not a compromise, but a renegotiation. A compromise implies that at least one party must lose something, which often does not have to be the case.

The thing is, the relational frame only works if all the people involved are willing to play. That said, this is something that people only use when they're interested in maintaining or continuing the relationship. If that's not the case, then an interest-based frame might be the way to go.