Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs) encompass both attacks and supports among arguments. We study different semantic interpretations of support in BAFs, particularly necessary and deductive support, as well as argument coalitions and a recent proposal by Gabbay. We analyse the relationship of these different notions of support in BAFs with the semantics of a well established structured argumentation formalism, Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA), which predates BAFs. We propose natural mappings from BAFs into a restricted class of (non-flat) ABA frameworks, which we call bipolar, and prove that the admissible and preferred semantics of these ABA frameworks correspond to the admissible and preferred semantics of the various approaches to BAFs. Motivated by the definition of stable semantics for BAFs, we introduce a novel set-stable semantics for ABA frameworks, and prove that it corresponds to the stable semantics of the various approaches to BAFs. Finally, as a by-product of modelling various approaches to BAFs in bipolar ABA, we identify precise semantic relationships amongst all approaches we consider.