In recent studies of Scandinavian Populist Radical Right (PRR) parties, a convergence of their socioeconomic and sociocultural politics have been emphasized. This evidence points towards them having tempered their more radical agenda as they have moved towards the mainstream. But the description of the Sweden Democrats, the Progress Party and the Danish People’s Party as a homogenous entity doesn’t fit their own perception. Across different channels, like printed media and debates, the Scandinavian parties have made clear statements about how they should not be equated with one another. Through comparative method this study wants to shed light on the Scandinavian PRR-parties dividing and uniting ideological features to discuss if they should be described as homogenous - or can we find divergence? Drawing on Cas Muddes theory of populism as a thin ideology, together with Benedict Anderson's theory of nationalism as an ‘imagined community’, this study demonstrates how we can cover the full range of ideas that PRR-parties represent, and thereby present a more nuanced description of them.

This thesis examines and explains how the three Scandinavian populist radical right parties, the Sweden Democrats, the Danish People’s Party and the Progress Party approaches the climate issue in their latest manifesto, and how it has changed over a period of ten years. By means of a content analysis and categorisations of climate scepticism, climate omission and climate measures, this thesis finds explicit evidence of climate scepticism in the Progress Party whereas there is no such evidence for the Sweden Democrats and the Danish People’s Party completely omits the issue. On the other hand, there is evidence of measures to fight climate change in the Progress Party, and the same goes for the Sweden Democrats. However, the only relevant difference when comparing the manifestos over a ten-year period is a decreased usage of statement connected to both climate scepticism and climate action in the Progress Party’s manifestos.

The purpose of this thesis aimed at trying to find out why the Sweden Democrats have increased their support, to become the second largest party in the Swedish parliament, while, the Danish People’s Party, has lost the majority of their support after being the second largest party in the Danish parliament to almost falling out a few years later. Is it possible for the Sweden Democrats to share the same fate? To find this out, we’ve decided to conduct this study using a qualitative comparative method, with a Most Similar System Design. The analysis mainly consists of two concepts to explain this phenomenon which are “Cordon Sanitaire” and “Normalization”.  The results of the analysis show that in Denmark, the Danish People’s Party’s views and policies on migration, have gotten normalized across the political spectrum. As such, they can no longer argue that they are anti-establishment, but instead, they have become a part of the establishment themselves. In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats have been kept out of power, with a “cordon sanitaire”, and thus their view and policies have not gotten normalized and adopted by other parties, and therefore they have continued to grow. An interesting aspect of this is that recently, the Sweden Democrats have gotten normalized and they are now a support party for a right-wing government, which we argue might lead to a similar situation as in Denmark, meaning that the Sweden Democrats might lose support in the future.