LGBT people, in Uganda, have since the colonial time been in a vulnerable situation. When the President signed the “Anti-Homosexuality Act” into law 2014 all forms of same-sex relationships became criminalized. The time after the law passed have been characterized by an increased homophobia and further violence against LGBT people. These are seen as deviants since they do not live according to the social norms, that the right thing to be is heterosexual. They are considered “non-African” and by some an “infectious agent” that will destroy the traditional African family, which is one of society’s most important functions. Except from the fact that LGBT people are persecuted and mistreated they are also denied access to health care and information. The purpose of this study is to explain LGBT persons’ situation and rights in Uganda, mainly based on the “Anti-Homosexuality Act”. This law is reviewed against the ratified conventions, charters and similar laws. This is then related to the theory of heteronormativity, which seems to dominate the Ugandan society. The used methods are case study and conceptual analysis, that provided a deeper and surveying understanding of what this study intended to process.

This thesis has strived to analyze how institutionalized frames may affect how another topic is discussed in a political context. This presented framing strategy is referred to as frame bridging. The aim was to analyze whether the framing of homosexuality in Uganda has affected its HIV policy. It is based on the constructivist understanding of policy as something created in dynamic social processes, which can be strategically framed intentionally or have unintentional consequences. Uganda is a compelling case since its homophobia is institutionalized to a degree that makes it difficult for people in to express gay-positive sentiment. Dynamic frame analysis was chosen as method. The material analyzed consisted primarily of statements from key politicians and official policy documents from the Ugandan government between 2009 and 2017. Firstly, the frames that exist upon homosexuality and HIV in Uganda were distinguished. These frames, illustrated tensions between the West and Africa, conflicting roles on masculinity, HIV as consequence of immoral behavior. Secondly, the frames within HIV policy were scrutinized. These frames outlined HIV as a consequence of promiscuity, as a problem especially to those with ‘risky sexual behavior’ or it failed to at all acknowledge e.g. men having sex with men. This thesis demonstrates that a frame bridging is present although it is not overt but rather implicit. The HIV policy is heteronormative and renders sexual minorities invisible. A possible explanation is that the exclusion of men having sex with men in HIV policy is strategic and due to aid dependency from Western donors. Since actors are confined in their social realities, Ugandan politicians may not be explicitly homophobic in HIV policy since they must acknowledge the Western donors’ influence. This thesis has illustrated that the relationship between homophobia and HIV ultimately turns in to a discussion about tensions between an ‘open’ West and a ‘deprived’ Africa.