This study examines how authorial stance is expressed in academic writing by native English speakers (L1) and non-native English speakers (L2), with a focus on the use of discourse markers such as hedges (markers of mitigation), boosters (markers of epistemic strengthening), attitude markers, and self-mentions. The aim of the study is to identify cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary differences and evaluate how rhetorical and institutional conventions influence L2 authors’ stance strategies. A comparative corpus-based methodology was employed. The analysis drew on two corpora: the British Academic Written English and the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers, supplemented by original academic texts written by students at the Azerbaijan Medical University. Using Hyland’s metadiscourse model, stance markers were extracted through lexicon-based queries and manually verified in context. Data were compared across disciplines (engineering vs business) and author status (L1 vs L2). The findings reveal that L2 authors, especially in technical disciplines, tend to overuse hedging and avoid self-mentions, often due to rhetorical traditions that discourage personal voice. In contrast, L1 authors exhibit greater lexical diversity and a balanced use of stance markers. In business-related texts, L2 authors show more assertive and expressive stance, though still limited in range compared to native speakers. Stance in academic writing is not only a linguistic but also a culturally and institutionally mediated phenomenon. The study underscores the need for targeted instruction in metadiscourse to enhance L2 authors’ rhetorical awareness and help them align with academic norms of different disciplines.