Given the recent interest in arguably accurate yet non-interpretable neural models, even with textual features, for document ranking we try to answer questions relating to how to interpret rankings. In this paper we take first steps towards a framework for the interpretability of retrieval models with the aim of answering 3 main questions "What is the intent of the query according to the ranker?", "Why is a document ranked higher than another for the query?" and "Why is a document relevant to the query?" Our framework is predicated on the assumption that text based retrieval model behavior can be estimated using query expansions in conjunction with a simpler retrieval model irrespective of the underlying ranker. We conducted experiments with the Clueweb test collection. We show how our approach performs for both simpler models with a closed form notation (which allows us to measure the accuracy of the interpretation) and neural ranking models. Our results indicate that we can indeed interpret more complex models with reasonable accuracy under certain simplifying assumptions. In a case study we also show our framework can be employed to interpret the results of the DRMM neural retrieval model in various scenarios.