It can, depending on the agreement. The route requires the investor to be in a position to develop and direct the enterprise, ordinarily through at least half the ownership or equivalent operational control. A franchisee typically owns and operates the business, but the agreement's terms determine how much genuine direction remains.
The answer is in the clauses, not in the brand
Two franchise agreements in the same industry can distribute control very differently, so the question cannot be answered by reference to franchising in general. Go through the agreement and list what the franchisee decides alone: hiring, pricing within any permitted range, local marketing, hours, capital spending, choice of suppliers where allowed. Then list what requires approval or is dictated by the system. That list is the honest answer, and it is also the material an adviser needs. If the balance leaves the franchisee executing a system rather than directing a business, that is worth knowing before signing. If it leaves real operational responsibility with the owner, the file has a clear basis to describe.
Hypothetical example: Farid plans to buy a specialty bicycle-repair studio and wants the seller to keep the purchase money available for return if a visa is denied. An opening assessment reads the purchase, lease, and escrow terms to determine whether the capital is genuinely committed and exposed to loss. Signed contracts, payment records, and the business plan settle the point. Sequence the transaction so a proper contingency protects against denial without leaving the investor free to walk away at will. Problems arise when funds remain parked in a personal account or when a refundable arrangement is mistaken for an operating commitment. The enterprise also needs to be real, active, and capable of more than supporting the investor's household.