<p>The purpose with this work is to describe the language that is built around the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in Sweden. Our questions are: What does the professional field look like; who writes, about what and for which kind of readers? How do they describe the expressions and the upcoming of CFS? For which reasons can CFS be considered as a medical diagnosis/illness? How can CFS be understood from a social perspective? Our theoretical starting point is a social constructive theory and also Karin Johannisson's theory about medicalization and Foucault’s theory about power. We have from a literature-exposition of Swedish articles from 1989 to 2006, done a social constructive discourse analysis with help from Laclau & Mouffe's discourse theory, and Fairclough's model of social practices. In our textual analysis we found three dominating discourses: A medical discourse, a social/cultural discourse and a general/popular discourse. Our results showed that the dominating professional category is doctors and those who have medical direction within their work. In most cases they wrote articles that searched for medical explanations of CFS and their common factor was that they looked at CFS as an illness. The articles that had a social constructive, anthropological, idea historical or religious perspective to CFS was in a minority and they often defined the phenomenon as an expression of different kind of public elements and were often critical to medicalization.</p>

The purpose with this work is to describe the language that is built around the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in Sweden. Our questions are: What does the professional field look like; who writes, about what and for which kind of readers? How do they describe the expressions and the upcoming of CFS? For which reasons can CFS be considered as a medical diagnosis/illness? How can CFS be understood from a social perspective? Our theoretical starting point is a social constructive theory and also Karin Johannisson's theory about medicalization and Foucault’s theory about power. We have from a literature-exposition of Swedish articles from 1989 to 2006, done a social constructive discourse analysis with help from Laclau &amp; Mouffe's discourse theory, and Fairclough's model of social practices. In our textual analysis we found three dominating discourses: A medical discourse, a social/cultural discourse and a general/popular discourse. Our results showed that the dominating professional category is doctors and those who have medical direction within their work. In most cases they wrote articles that searched for medical explanations of CFS and their common factor was that they looked at CFS as an illness. The articles that had a social constructive, anthropological, idea historical or religious perspective to CFS was in a minority and they often defined the phenomenon as an expression of different kind of public elements and were often critical to medicalization.