Background: The growing recognition of person-centered practice as a central element of health systems worldwide is driving reforms and reorienting public health policies. However, its integration into daily clinical practice remains complex and uneven. The Person-Centered Practice Framework underscores the macro context as crucial for sustainability, encompassing the political, structural, and strategic conditions that shape healthcare. Objective: To describe how person-centered practice is outlined in the macro context of the Portuguese healthcare system. Methods: A qualitative, descriptive, and retrospective documentary analysis study was conducted. Documents were retrieved from the official websites of entities responsible for the definition, orientation, and regulation of healthcare in Portugal. The textual analysis was guided by the theoretical conception of the Person-Centered Practice Framework regarding the macro context domain and was conducted using IRAMUTEQ software. Results: The lexicometric analysis allowed the emergence of two thematic clusters, integrating the respective classes: Structural and organizational determinants of person-centered practice, comprised the classes: Systemic vision and integrated response; Organizational culture and participation; Digital transformation and information management; and Political vision and governance structures; and Operationalization of person-centered practice, was represented by the class Care approach, given its thematic specificity. Factorial analysis revealed distinct and weakly connected discursive patterns, associated with different system levels. Similarity analysis identified a central focus on the health–care–person triad, connected with service organization, care integration, and person participation, although with dispersed terminology suggesting a misalignment between policy and practice levels. Conclusions: The Portuguese macro-level discourse demonstrates significant progress in positioning person-centered practice as a political and strategic priority, reflected in commitments to humanized care, health literacy, digitalization, and Integrated Care Pathways. Nevertheless, the absence of structured educational guidelines, the persistence of biomedical dominance, and the lack of evaluation mechanisms sensitive to care experiences continue to restrict translation into practice.