In this study, I have examined the previous Social Democratic government’s communication with the voters, focusing on its promises during election campaigns, and the presentation of achieved results. The theories used are the mandate- and sanction theory; the first focuses on voters comparing manifestos to find the most agreeable, whilst the latter concentrates on voters evaluation the work of the previous government, to either discharge or support it. For the sanction theory to work, voters must have the necessary information to evaluate the government in progress. The question is; did the previous government provide the voters with such information? This has been done through scrutinizing the Social Democrats’ election manifestos that was used between 1994 and 2006, to examine what the party promised to achieve in economics and the labor market. Furthermore, I have studied the official statistics, provided by Statistiska Centralbyrån, to see whether the government fulfilled these promises, and if they provide the voters with the results of these promises. The study shows that the Social Democrats display a lack of result presentation to the voters; neither the promise that was fulfilled, nor the ones the party failed to achieve were properly accounted for. This makes it more difficult for voters to evaluate the government’s performance, which poses a threat to the representative democracy; voters must be able to assess the governments, so that they may execute sanctions and remove the government from office when unsatisfied.

<p>In this study, I have examined the previous Social Democratic government’s communication with the voters, focusing on its promises during election campaigns, and the presentation of achieved results. The theories used are the mandate- and sanction theory; the first focuses on voters comparing manifestos to find the most agreeable, whilst the latter concentrates on voters evaluation the work of the previous government, to either discharge or support it. For the sanction theory to work, voters must have the necessary information to evaluate the government in progress. The question is; did the previous government provide the voters with such information?</p><p>This has been done through scrutinizing the Social Democrats’ election manifestos that was used between 1994 and 2006, to examine what the party promised to achieve in economics and the labor market. Furthermore, I have studied the official statistics, provided by Statistiska Centralbyrån, to see whether the government fulfilled these promises, and if they provide the voters with the results of these promises.</p><p>The study shows that the Social Democrats display a lack of result presentation to the voters; neither the promise that was fulfilled, nor the ones the party failed to achieve were properly accounted for. This makes it more difficult for voters to evaluate the government’s performance, which poses a threat to the representative democracy; voters must be able to assess the governments, so that they may execute sanctions and remove the government from office when unsatisfied.</p>

The European Parliament elections have for decades been described as 'second-order national elections', meaning that parties tend to have a national focus rather than a European one. Furthermore, the parties are often described as a weak link between the European Union and its citizens. Studies on the parties' election promises have mainly been done on national elections and show that election promises become increasingly important over time. However, no previous studies have looked at election promises in European elections. The purpose of this comparative case study is to compare the election promises that Swedish parliamentary parties present in their election manifestos for the European Parliament elections of 2014 and 2019, in order to contribute to both the discourse on European Parliament elections and the discourse on election promises. Two established fields of research that have not previously met in this way. Based on previous research, this study tests eight hypotheses on the material. By mapping and analyzing 1374 election promises from 16 election manifestos, the result shows a predominant share of election promises with a European focus, rather than national. The election promises are surprisingly specific rather than vague and mainly critical of EU-policy rather than the European Union as a political system. The conclusion of this result is that the European Parliament elections as 'second-order national elections' do not emerge when election promises are studied. The results of this study has shown that there is reason to revise the prevailing picture of European Parliament elections in this field of research.

The European Parliament elections have since the 1980's been described as 'second-order national elections', which, among other things, means that they are less important to both political parties and to voters. Scholars have often described political parties as a weak link between the European Union and its citizens. Previous studies of the fulfillment of election promises have mainly focused on national governments, and not national political parties in the European Parliament. The purpose of this descriptive study is to investigate the level of fulfillment of election promises that Swedish parliamentary parties present in their election manifestos for the European Parliament election 2014. Based on previous research, this study tests five hypotheses on the material. By mapping and analyzing 183 election promises from 8 election manifestos, the results show a lower fulfillment level than Swedish governments usually achieve on the national arena. The result showed one possible covariation between which party groups the political parties belonged to and fulfillment, but no clear patterns between the characteristics of the election promise and fulfillment. The results of this study has shown that there is reason to further investigate and try to better understand election promises that are given ahead of European Parliament elections.

This study intends to study how the Social Democrats' (S) migration policy changed between 2014 and 2018. Comparison is made through a text analysis of election manifestos to describe S's stance after the refugee crisis in 2015 in relation to refugees and migration. S worked up the 'problem' over the years and as solution policy changes were carried out in the economic, social and political contexts in connection with the state's situation, where ideas and beliefs were based on the previous experiences and events. The study will be carried out by describing and following up the change in S migration policy between 2014 and 2018 in Bacchi's constructivist perspective on ideas and problem formulations in what concepts represent. This approach is regarded as a process that is to some extent continuously socially constructed by the exchange of opinions of policy actors. These are ideas that help policy actors create meaning and understanding of the world around them, and thus they form a basis for which interests and action options the policy actors act for and against in the policy process (Ohlsson, et.al, 2019:259). That is, they are ideas that give policy actors a purpose of understanding what the policy problem is and what the solutions are. The idea and ideology analysis method is used in this study to be able to compare, see and understand the importance of ideas in the creation of politics, what interaction and non-interaction between ideas means and why this is important to follow up in connection with the state's situation. To understand how ideas and concepts were problematized and social formulated through time in connection with the state's situation, the three text analytical questions of Bacchi's WPR approach were chosen which enable interpretation of the background knowledge, underlying assumptions made by S all political proposals.

There is a large part of the population today whose perception of Swedish political parties assumes a pronounced distrust. Often, this mistrust is linked to whether politicians act on the election promises made during the election campaigns. This is a view that opposition parties often encourage through negative criticism during election campaigns and media platforms. The paradox that arises then becomes markedly confusing because research actually shows that parties almost fulfill most of the election promises made.   Furthermore, a society characterized by widespread distrust of political activity risks gradually undermining the representative democracy system, which may lead to diminished democratic legitimacy. In the field of research, therefore, there is often talk of making knowledge regarding election promises more accessible to voters, who then may examine political activity more effectively themselves. The study has analyzed the Alliance's and the Social Democrats' election promise fulfillment during the mandate periods 2006-2010 and 2014-2018, through qualitative analysis of the election manifesto and data collection from the Riksdag's website. The aim was to investigate and compare which of these party organizations best achieved good representation during the alternative government periods through clear method choices that could present data in an easily accessible way.   The study arrives at a result that shows a balancing election promise fulfillment between the Alliance and the Social Democrats, with a small statistical advantage for the Alliance. It also shows how the Alliance has achieved a slightly better representation by succeeding in fulfilling more election promises in key policy areas that the party organization has given higher priority to during the election campaigns and election manifestos.

This study aims to investigate the policy focus of Swedish parties in the two most recent European Parliament elections through a quantitative content analysis of the parties' election manifestos. The method for this analysis has been inspired by the well-known Comparative Manifesto Project. The information made available through the method has been analyzed within the framework of relevant theories in the field, namely Second-order Election theory and Issue Ownership theory, to examine whether this policy focus aligns with expected outcomes. Descriptive statistics show significant changes between the elections; for example, the length of the election manifestos has more than doubled on average. Theoretically, the statistical results can be said to align with expected outcomes. Each party places a significant emphasis on the issues in which they already have established credibility, which is the expected outcome according to Issue Ownership research. However, one party stands out in this regard: the Liberals. This is likely due to a combination of the fact that education issues are largely not decided within the European Parliament, while the Liberals have ambitious goals to be the most pro-EU party. This combination potentially affects the Liberals' results in the European Parliament elections negatively, given Second-order Election theories that argue the connection to the national arena is crucial for achieving good election results. The issue of the environment and climate stands out in that all parties, except the Sweden Democrats, place a significant emphasis on it, despite many parties not having high credibility in this area. This contradicts both Issue Ownership theory and Second-order Election theory. Potentially, the cross-border nature of the environment and climate issue is starting to change what we think we know about the connection between national and the European election.

The aim of this study is to analyse the Moderate Party and the Swedish Democrats idea development in the issue of migration in 2010-2018. The inquiry consists of the following two research questions. How has the Moderate Party and the Swedish Democrats positions regarding migration developed in 2010-2018? How can institutional theories explain the Moderate Party and the Swedish Democrats idea development? The study is encompassed by three theoretical perspectives also recognised as rational-choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism and discursive institutionalism. In regard to the methodological approach, the study employs the comparative case study design with the most-similar system and is essentially an idea analytical study. The main results reveal that both the Moderate Party and the Swedish Democrats have adjusted their migration policies but to different degrees. The Swedish Democrats promote similar policies in 2010 as in 2018 with smaller alterations while the Moderate Party has customised larger alterations, distinguishing the party’s migration policy from 2010 and 2018. These policy alterations are primarily explained as a result of rational action, societal discourses and critical junctures.