Denna studie undersöker hur sexuellt utnyttjade kvinnor representeras på sociala medier. Specifikt studeras publikens kommentarer under det live-sända vittnesmålet av Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mot den nominerade domarkandidaten för högsta domstolen i USA, Brett Kavanaugh, den 27 september 2018. Syftet med studien är att bidra till teoretiseringen av representation av kvinnor på sociala medier, samt att öka förståelsen för hur kvinnor som blivit utsatta för sexuellt utnyttjande framställs. För att uppnå syftet används kritisk diskursanalys (CDA) som både teori och metod. Det teoretiska ramverket utgår även från teorier om genus, representation, stereotyper och könsstereotyper samt feministisk teori. Tillvägagångsättet av studien grundar sig i begrepp från CDA och van Leeuwens taxonomi för representationen av sociala aktörer. Tillsammans möjliggör detta för en kvalitativ kritisk studie av publikens språkanvändning under vittnesmålet. Resultatet visar att publikens reaktioner på Fords vittnesmål kan delas in i fyra diskursiva teman. Första temat är att Ford representeras utifrån sin politiska ståndpunkt som demokrat. Fortsättningsvis är två teman att hon representeras som ett offer samt som en förövare. Sista temat är hur Ford representeras utifrån sitt kön som kvinna. Dessa teman visar hur Ford representeras av online-publiken i kommentarsfältet. Representationen av Ford är grundat på stereotyper, hon generaliseras och representationen baseras inte på den enskilda individ hon är.

Red Label is a short ilm, adapted from a one-act play, that will serve as proof of concept for an anthology series. The logline reads as such: A sexual assault survivor is forced to confront his past trauma when he and a family friend seek refuge during a screening of the Kavanaugh TV hearings.

The topic of this thesis is nomination of justices of the Supreme Court, the highest federal court in the United States. The Constitution gives the power to appoint new federal justices to the president, with "advice and consent" of the Senate. This clause is based on one of the primary constitutional principles used in the United States - the system of checks and balances. The first part describes the general aspects of all nominations, from court vacancies to the final vote on Senate floor. The primary roles of the president and the Senate are defined. Focus is also set on the evolution of the nomination process throughout the history, as well as the criteria for selecting new justices, who shape the constitutional development of one of the oldest functioning democracies. The structure of the first part is then applied for a description of the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump in 2018. The course of this nomination was strongly affected by sexual assault accusations against the nominee and fierce partisan battles that resulted in the closest confirmation vote in history. The final part applies quantitative research methods to discover the influence of partisan difference between the president and the Senate majority on the...

Building on Lee Epstein et al. (2006) article “The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees”, this study seeks to explore the representation of ideological questions during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh. As previous studies seek to explore the characteristics and political agenda of confirmation hearings, there is more to be discovered about the representation of ideological questions. In addition, more studies tend to explain the reasons why landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade has managed to be overturned and scholars have demonstrated the need to study ideological polarization in the Supreme Court. To study overrulings and ideological polarization in the Supreme Court, this article explores the very beginning of the issue: the confirmation hearings of justices to the Supreme Court of the United States. By being attentive to the main themes of questions during the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh, this paper explores the representation of ideological questions versus questions of fact. This theoretical perspective facilitates the exploration of further studies regarding upcoming confirmation hearings. This article indicates the reliance on the theory of Lee Epstein et al., and claims that the previous confirmation hearings have a strong representation of ideological questions.