The aim of this study was to examine differences and similarities in the news coverage among the presidential candidates Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the presidential election 2020. We also examined how the candidates are framed in the different newspapers. In this study, similarities and differences regarding national variances in news articles from Swedish and American newspapers, also where a important part of the research. We did a qualitative text analysis based on 48 online articles from 6 different newspapers, the 3 largest from each country. The newspapers in question are USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times from USA and Aftonbladet, Dagens Nyheter and Expressen from Sweden. The result showed that there were more differences between the two candidates than similarities, in the way they were presented in news media. Donald Trump was often portrayed as the president that had a very harsh tone in his statements, and he was throwing out accusations towards Biden and the Democrats without having any facts to back them up. This made him look rather ignorant and sometimes even dumb. Biden, on the other hand, was portrayed as the one who is more fitting for the role as president, based on the writings about his previous experience, and many of the articles in the analysis portrayed him as a friendly family man. The focus point on both candidates during the election was who was leading the election, who was leading in which state, and how much that specific candidate was winning by. This was a topic that frequently showed up in articles from both countries and they often portrayed the whole election as some kind of contest or game, instead of focusing on what the candidates wanted to do and change about the country. The American newspapers more frequently wrote about the statistics when it came to who was leading the election, and their news coverage wasn't as clear as the Swedish news coverage. The Swedish newspaper often used secondary sources, for example from American newspapers, since they weren't able to be where the election takes place, which means they are re-telling the things that happened during the election. Other than that, there weren't that many differences between the news coverage in the US and Sweden.

2020 was the year of the American presidential election. Joe Biden, the former senator and vice president won against the incumbent president and business magnate Donald Trump. Because of the coronavirus it was an unusual election. Vote counting was not over on election night but continued a few more days and Donald Trump claimed the result to be false.  The study aims to understand what Swedish newspapers focused on under the American election 2020 and what they choose to frame from a political journalist perspective. We focused on four of the biggest Swedish newspapers to see how they differ and relate. To do that we used 29 articles from every newspaper, 116 in total and with help of framing theory and a quantitative content analysis we could find correlations between the four newspapers. Thanks to earlier studies we could compare how Donald Trump was portrayed in 2016 and what both Swedish and American media framed last election.  The study concluded that Donald Trump was mentioned more in the Swedish press than his opponent Joe Biden. None of the vice presidents were ever mentioned as much as the presidential candidates. The study also concluded that more articles focused on the political game more than the political issues, that the articles were more often neutral or negative than positive and that politicians were the most quoted.

To analyse the war in Afghanistan from different theories is nothing new to the studies of international relations. However, one aspect that yet has been studied regarding the Afghan war is the withdrawal of troops and civilian personnel and why it occurred in August 2021 and not earlier or later. This lack of knowledge creates a research gap which needs to be filled to explain why President Biden went through with the withdrawal, even though the president knew that the Taliban would seize power in Afghanistan. This thesis will therefore explain the Biden administration's decision to continue the military and civilian withdrawal from Afghanistan even though the threat of Taliban takeover was imminent. The method chosen for this thesis is a qualitative content analysis which will be used to analyse the material with the help of leadership trait analysis and the bureaucratic politics model theories. The material which was used war press statements, speeches, and committee hearings. As the analysis shows, the decision to withdraw was a compromise between actors which was possible due to Joe Bidens openness to information. In summary, this thesis offers one explanation to why the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan.

On Nov. 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law. The purpose of this legislation is evident in its name as it encompasses funding for “roads, bridges, railroads, airports, public transportation, access to broadband internet, and clean water” (Stradling, 2021). The revenue to support the $1.2 trillion Act will mainly result from “repurposing COVID-19 relief funds and unused unemployment benefits, delaying a Medicare rebate, and enacting stronger cryptocurrency reporting requirements" (Stradling, 2021). Although there are few provisions in this Act that will affect the average taxpayer, there are some that tax preparers should note.

For the last few years, the question of legal abortion has been a big topic in USpolitics. With the two major US parties, Democrats and Republicans, havingdifferent opinions about the subject, and with a new abortion law introduced inJune of 2022.This study goes over the latest party platforms and different statements fromboth parties to get an understanding about how the both parties view abortionas a problem. With the use of critical discourse analysis as a methodology and“what’s the problem represented to be?” as an analytical framework, the studydoes not aim to present a solution to a problem, but instead show how the twoparties present the problem. Thereafter the ideologies feminism, conservatismand liberalism will be applied to see if it can be connected to how the partiespresent abortion as a problem. The results of the study reveal that theDemocratic party views abortion as a necessity for women's health and rights.The Democratic party does show signs of the ideologies feminism andliberalism in how they represent abortion. The Republicans view abortion assomething morally wrong and shows signs of conservatism.

On assiste depuis 2020 à une riposte politique concertée et sophistiquée contre les Big Tech et leurs dérives. Plusieurs dirigeants mondiaux, de Bruxelles à Canberra, tentent de rependre contrôle de leur environnement numérique – et par le fait même de leur marché – en assujettissant ces grandes entreprises du numérique à des lois rigoureuses en matière de concurrence, de modération des contenus en ligne et de respect de la vie privée. Après avoir fait preuve pendant longtemps de permissivité et de laisser-aller face à la montée en puissance des Big Tech, les décideurs politiques occidentaux sont aujourd’hui beaucoup plus interventionnistes et incisifs envers ce qu’ils perçoivent être une domination de multinationales – américaines pour la plupart – qui nuisent à la concurrence et à la démocratie. Ce changement de paradigme dans la régulation du numérique soulève des enjeux importants quant à l’origine de cet élan politique contre le pouvoir des Big Tech ainsi qu’à sa diffusion. D’où provient-il? Comment ce cadre réglementaire centré sur le triptyque des contenus (content), des données (data) et du pouvoir de marché (market power) s’est-il façonné et propagé? À partir d’une étude de cas des projets de réformes américains dans le secteur du numérique depuis le début de la présidence de Joe Biden (2021-2023), notre mémoire démontre que ce récent élan transatlantique s’explique en partie par l’activation d’un «effet Bruxelles» de jure – entendu ici comme l’effet de contagion du modèle réglementaire européen avec sa capacité normative à influencer le reste du monde – et de ses réverbérations (Bradford 2020). / Since 2020, there has been a growing political and regulatory push against Big Tech's power. Numerous world leaders, from Brussels to Canberra, are trying to regain control of their digital environments – and their markets – by subjecting these large digital platforms to stringent laws on competition, content moderation and privacy. After having long shown permissiveness and laisser-aller towards Big Tech's rise, Western policymakers have recently adopted a more interventionist and incisive approach towards what they perceive as a domination of foreign (primarily American) tech companies that harm competition and democracy. This surge in policymaking raises important questions regarding the origin of this transatlantic backlash against Big Tech's power. Where does it come from? How has this regulatory framework centered around content, data, and market power been shaped and disseminated? Our thesis, based on a case study of American reform proposals in the digital field since the beginning of Joe Biden's presidency (2021-2023), demonstrates that this recent transatlantic movement is in part a manifestation of the de jure "Brussels effect" – understood as the contagion effect of the European regulatory model with its normative ability to influence the rest of the world – and its reverberations (Bradford 2020).

This essay will examine the inauguration speech of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. The aim is to analyze how political psychology can affect the design of the speeches and how globalization and nationalism can help understand what they really say in their speeches and what underlaying messages might be found. By doing qualitative ideational analyzes of the speeches, it is found that political psychology may affect the design of the speeches regarding the presidents’ personal backgrounds and the aim to create emotions with the citizens. Globalization and nationalism can be found in different ways in each president’s inauguration speech.

No description available.

Работа посвящена созданию и апробированию исследовательской модели, позволяющей описать языковую личность кандидатов Дональда Трампа и Джозефа Байдена во время предвыборной кампании 2019-2020 гг.. Материалом для исследованиями послужили транскрипты публичных выступлений Джозефа Байдена и Дональда Трампа во временном промежутке президентской кампании 2019-2020 гг. с сайта www.rev.com. Данный ресурс содержит все публичные выступления кандидатов и предоставляет полноценный корпус текстов речей. В первой части работы рассматриваются основные направления в речевом портретировании, риторической критике, концептуальном анализе. Предлагается интегративная методика речевого портретирования, включающая в себя концептуальный и стилистический уровни. Особое внимание уделяется различным аспектам в создании речевого портрета. Во второй части работы выявляются, описываются и классифицируются доминантные концепты и средства стилистической выразительности в речи каждого из кандидатов. Также проводится сопоставительный анализ на каждом уровне исследования. Особое внимание уделяется эмотивному компоненту лингвостилистического анализа. Доминантными концептами Дж. Байдена являются: «коронавирус», «единство», «свой человек». Доминантными концептами Д. Трампа: «демократическая партия», «фэйк ньюс», «военные силы». Доминантными средствами стилистической выразительности кандидата Байдена являются: метафора, повтор, противопоставление, эпитет. Доминантные средства стилистической выразительности кандидата Трампа представлены риторическими вопросами, сослагательными конструкциями и эпитетами. Результаты исследования могут быть использованы в ряде курсов и дисциплин академического цикла: политической лингвистики, лингвоконцептологии, лингвостилистики, лингвистической персонологии, дискурсологии. / The work is devoted to the creation and testing of a research model that allows describing the linguistic personality of candidates Donald Trump and Joseph Biden during the 2019-2020 election campaign. The research material was comprised by transcripts of public speeches by Joseph Biden and Donald Trump during the 2019-2020 presidential campaign from the website www.rev.com. This resource contains all public speeches of candidates and provides a full-fledged corpus of speech texts. In the first part of the work, the main directions in speech portraiture, rhetorical criticism, and conceptual analysis are considered. An integrative method of speech portraiture is proposed, which includes conceptual and stylistic levels. Special attention is paid to various aspects in creating a speech portrait. In the second part of the work, the dominant concepts and means of stylistic expressiveness in the speech of each of the candidates are identified, described and classified. A comparative analysis is also carried out at each level of the study. Special attention is paid to the emotive component of linguistic-stylistic analysis. The dominant concepts of J. Biden's words are: "coronavirus", "unity", "your own person". The dominant concepts of D. Trump are: "the Democratic party", "fake news", "military forces". The dominant means of stylistic expressiveness of candidate Biden are: metaphor, repetition, opposition, epithet. The dominant means of stylistic expressiveness of Candidate Trump are represented by rhetorical questions, subjunctive constructions and epithets. The results of the research can be used in a number of courses and disciplines of the academic cycle: political linguistics, linguistic conceptology, linguistic stylistics, linguistic personology, discursology.

This thesis explores the role of hope within the Biden administration’s biographical narrative during the year after the Capitol attack on January 6th. The thesis provides for both an exploration of the case and how hope within national identity representations can be analyzed, as well as the value of hope after a disruptive event with consequences for the nation’s self-understanding. Previous research has focused mainly on fear of the outside or internal anxiety as drivers of state identity representations while implicitly assuming the occurrence of universality or a stable identity within the state. Instead, the theorizing on hope proposed by the thesis suggests that the American subject is unfinished and incomplete within its identity representations and requires hope to move forward, while also immunizing notions of fear and anxiety. While a complete identity can never be reached, American identity representations are sustained by manifesting hope for the future. Even though the American collective subject may never reach its desired unity, the hope that it someday might allow for the continuation of identity representations of the striving subject.