Diss. Linköping : Linköpings universitet, 2006.

Diss. Linköping : Univ., 2001.

Uppsatsens syfte är att studera förändringar i matematikundervisningen med avseende på problemlösning i samband med införandet av Lgr 80. För att undersöka detta studeras den professionella debatten i lärartidskriften Nämnaren. Det utvalda materialet för studien utgörs av artiklar från denna tidskrift för tidsperioden 1974-1985. För att lyfta fram det mest centrala i dessa texter används temaanalys. Politisk styrning och förändring i texter för matematikundervisningen studeras med utgångspunkt i läroplansteori utgående från Lundgren och tidskriften Nämnaren analyseras med utgångspunkt i Prytz definition av Lindensjö & Lundgrens arenamodell. I denna modell ses lärartidskrifter utgöra en arena av personer inblandade i beslutprocesser. Huvudfrågeställningarna utgörs dels av att undersöka vilka likheter och skillnader det finns i läroplanerna Lgr 69 och Lgr 80 med avseende på problemlösning och dels hur tidskriften Nämnaren behandlar detta område. Andra frågor handlar om Lgr 80:s roll och den professionella debattens funktion, då med hänseende på om debatten är preciserande eller vill förändra Lgr 80:s intentioner. Två arenor i den professionella debatten analyseras fram som nytt forskningsresultat. Dels forskararenan som utgörs av forskare, lärarutbildare och läroboksförfattare och dels stödarenan som utgörs av lärare.  Forskararenans preciserande funktion är att presentera nya forskningsrön och utgör därmed en direkt påverkan av styrdokumentens intentioner. Stödarenan däremot verkar stödjande för lärare. Övriga resultat är att i och med införandet av Lgr 80 blir problemlösning ett helt nytt begrepp och därmed kan Lgr 80 sägas vara med hänseende på problemlösning en nydanande reform. Den professionella debatten är preciserande i alla hänseenden utom vad det gäller problemlösning. Det som debatten följaktligen inte preciserar i Lgr 80 är momentet där elever ska analysera, värdera och dra slutsatser av problemlösningens resultat.

Diss. Umeå : Umeå universitet, 2006.

This thesis aims at investigating the conflict development of Swedish foreign policy debates during 1989-2000. It is rather assumed that the Swedish foreign policy debates have been highly characterized by a large consensus. Despite that, there have been certain occurrences where the political parties have flushed into party struggle and shown disagreements over the party frontiers. This has raised questions about the range of conflict and consensus in such debates where I have studied the political parties' backchats. I have studied situations where the political parties replicate each other in order to investigate the range of consensus and controversy that exists within different foreign policy areas. The purpose has been to determine if Swedish foreign policy has undergone substantial changes during the 1990s and transformed into a more conflict-ridden foreign policy in contrast to earlier post-war era. The empirical analysis reveals that the foreign policy of Sweden has undergone minor changes over time. The period of 1990s consists of a larger amount consensus than conflict and more controversy within internationalistic issues instead of national interests issues during the post-war era. The parties that are most given to politicize within different foreign policy issues are the Social Democrats, the Moderate Party and the Left-wing Party during the 1990s.

Denna uppsats syftar till att med hjälp av en kritisk diskursanalys studera hur invandringsfrågan konstrueras av de journalister och politiker som medverkar i partiledardebatten som sändes i Agenda i Sveriges Television inför riksdagsvalet 2014. Det undersöks också vilka andra ämnen eller teman som invandringsfrågan lyfts fram i relation till. Vidare diskuteras även hur partiledardebatten svarar mot SVT ́s public service-uppdrag.
 Studien utgår från tidigare forskning om den medierade politiken och grundas i teorier om politiska debatter i TV och teorier om rasism. Den analysnivå som rör det rent textuella utgår emellertid från analysredskap sprungna ur framförallt kritisk diskursanalys. 
 Den metod som används för att genomföra studien är kritisk diskursanalys med utgångspunkt i Norman Faircloughs tredimensionella modell, innehållandes de tre analytiska nivåerna: text, diskursiv praktik och social praktik. Denna metod är lämplig eftersom det inom den finns ett grundläggande synsätt att diskurser, såsom den om invandringen, står i dialektisk växelverkan med den större sociala kontext den är en del av och att det därmed finns en ömsesidig påverkan mellan diskurser och samhället. Detta förhållningssätt stämmer överens med studiens utgångspunkt - att invandringsfrågans konstruktion ser olika ut beroende på vilka som talar om den och när och att dess innehåll inte är fastställt utan hela tiden kan skifta. Detta har också betydelse för vilka som har makt över frågan, vilket går hand i hand med det kritisk-diskursanalytiska anspråket att avtäcka och motarbeta makthierarkier i samhället. Med utgångspunkt i detta ämnar vi undersöka hur Agenda står i förbindelse med övriga sociala praktiker och därmed fungerar som en aktör för invandringsfrågans konstruktion. 
 Resultaten visar på att debatten i Agenda tillhandahåller en konstruktion av invandringsfrågan som förknippad med problem och/eller utmaningar. Samtliga aktörer som deltar i debatten bidrar till denna konstruktion, men förhåller sig till problematiken på skilda vis. Det går således att i en bemärkelse identifiera en övergripande konstruktion av invandringsfrågan, men samtidigt skilda konstruktioner så tillvida att aktörerna i debatten har olika förslag på hur Sverige och dess medborgare bör förhålla sig till invandringen. Resultaten visar också att störst fokus riktas mot Sverigedemokraternas Jimmie Åkesson, då invandringsfrågan diskuteras. Delvis rent explicit i form av att han tar plats i frågan genom att själv prata om den och flytta fokus från andra ämnen till den, men också mer indirekt genom att SVT visar hans reaktioner då andra politiker uttrycker sig i frågan. Med anledning av detta diskuteras det huruvida SVT skulle kunna ge en mer mångsidig bild av politiken kring invandringen, genom att förändra sitt journalistiska förhållningssätt.

<p>Abstract</p><p>The topic of the present dissertation is argumentation in the late statesman Olof Palme (1927-1986). One may reasonably think that the fascination for Palme is mainly due to his way of expressing his policy, and therefore also to his argumentation strategy. The theoretical background consists of Lloyd F. Bitzers’s theory on the rhetorical situation, Stephen E. Toulmin’s theory on the description of argumentation structures and on the notion of fallacy, as it appears in pragma-dialectics and informal logic. The rhetorical situation is used to identify vital presuppositions and conditions surrounding the analysed argumentation.Toulmin’s theoretical model is used to analyse structures in the argumentation, and the notion of fallacy is used to discover infringements upon these structures. The object of this analysis is the decisive electoral debates of autumn 1976 between Olof Palme and Thorbjörn Fälldin, held in Scandinavium, Gothenburg, Sweden. Palme had to think of a number of surrounding conditions, such as that the debate was decisive, the composition of the audience. Palme and Fälldin otherwise appeared to be rather equally equipped for the debate. Palme’s task was primarily to gain the number of votes needed to continue to keep social democracy in power. There seem to exist several levels making up his argumentation, grouped under attack and defence. Defence is in most cases based upon a strong connection with the social democrat tradition. The attack is more complicated, linked to Palme’s overall argumentative intention: to depict the non-socialists as a bad governing alternative, and the social democrats as a better one. Fallacies are regarded as instances of breaking the frame of rules that govern a critical discussion. Palme has several fallacy-like features in his argumentation. Among those, most common, are that he attacks the person Thorbjörn Fälldin, instead of the policy or party that he represents. Palme also starts from presupposed premises and tries to link the economic policy of the alliance to an intellectually-thought delimiting between liberal and conservative capitalism and social-democrat solidarity. He strives to portray the liberals and conservatives as money-orientated, whereas social democracy is depicted as people-orientated.Palme goes arguably too far at several moments during the debate,which possibly hurts his own argumentation.</p><p>Keywords: Olof Palme, argumentation, argumentation analysis, rhetoric, rhetorical situation, Toulmin´s argumentative model, fallacy, informal logic, pragma-dialectic, critical discussion, debate, Thorbjörn Fälldin, social democracy, election</p>

Domestic violence around the world increased, especially during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The Swedish Democrats' however state that the increasing violence in Sweden is a result of the migration flow and an import of mediaeval values. The Swedish Democrats' claim they have the solution to develop the prevention of violence further.  The view of the Swedish Democrats' in their agenda is analysed within this thesis. Political statements, debates, and interviews, as well as information about the political party and their ideology is extracted from books, former scientific research reports and newspapers articles. The social construction of gender and men´s violence towards women is investigated using a combination of philosophical assumptions and specifically chosen theories to women´s subordinated position in the gender order in society.  The Swedish Democrats' fear that state feminism is pushing hatred of men that threatens individual Swedish men, nuclear families, and western civilisation. They are also worried about the change of men and masculinity. However, their understanding is influenced by the ideological beliefs on how the gender order should be organised.

In Sweden, Parliament debates regarding EU politics was held in 2021 and 2022. The aim of this paper is to examine the degree, form and type of opposition in the debates and to analyse if mainstream parties express opposition to a lesser degree. Using a quantitative content analy-sis, speeches made by the party representatives have been categorized by applying an analysis scheme developed by Karlsson, Mårtensson &amp; Persson (2018). In terms of results, the study shows that debates contain a high degree of opposition. When it comes to forms of opposition and we scope into criticism and alternatives, both form of opposition was found among speeches made by representatives from all political parties. In relation to support, opposition is what characterizes the debates. The strongest opposition was addressed against the content, but to a lesser degree, some of the opposition was also directed against the procedure and EU as a system. In contrast to the cartel party theory developed by Katz and Mair (1995;2009), Moder-aterna is the party that, to the highest degree, expresses opposition. Analysing the results, the conclusion is that opposition is present in the investigated Parliament debates.

The topic of the present dissertation is argumentation in the late statesman Olof Palme (1927-1986). One may reasonably think that the fascination for Palme is mainly due to his way of expressing his policy, and therefore also to his argumentation strategy. The theoretical background consists of Lloyd F. Bitzers’s theory on the rhetorical situation, Stephen E. Toulmin’s theory on the description of argumentation structures and on the notion of fallacy, as it appears in pragma-dialectics and informal logic. The rhetorical situation is used to identify vital presuppositions and conditions surrounding the analysed argumentation.Toulmin’s theoretical model is used to analyse structures in the argumentation, and the notion of fallacy is used to discover infringements upon these structures. The object of this analysis is the decisive electoral debates of autumn 1976 between Olof Palme and Thorbjörn Fälldin, held in Scandinavium, Gothenburg, Sweden. Palme had to think of a number of surrounding conditions, such as that the debate was decisive, the composition of the audience. Palme and Fälldin otherwise appeared to be rather equally equipped for the debate. Palme’s task was primarily to gain the number of votes needed to continue to keep social democracy in power. There seem to exist several levels making up his argumentation, grouped under attack and defence. Defence is in most cases based upon a strong connection with the social democrat tradition. The attack is more complicated, linked to Palme’s overall argumentative intention: to depict the non-socialists as a bad governing alternative, and the social democrats as a better one. Fallacies are regarded as instances of breaking the frame of rules that govern a critical discussion. Palme has several fallacy-like features in his argumentation. Among those, most common, are that he attacks the person Thorbjörn Fälldin, instead of the policy or party that he represents. Palme also starts from presupposed premises and tries to link the economic policy of the alliance to an intellectually-thought delimiting between liberal and conservative capitalism and social-democrat solidarity. He strives to portray the liberals and conservatives as money-orientated, whereas social democracy is depicted as people-orientated.Palme goes arguably too far at several moments during the debate,which possibly hurts his own argumentation. / Innehåller en 20-sidig utskrift från radions P1 från duellen mellan Palme och Fälldin i Göteborg den 1 sept 1976.