Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been forced to redefine its purpose in order to survive the end of the Soviet Union while the EU has developed its own defense policy. With the presumption that ideas change as a response to external factors, the aim of this study is to investigate if and how the ideas behind the security policies of NATO and the EU has changed since the beginning of the 90’s. The study uses the methodics of an idea analysis with the help of liberal and realistic ideal types to analyse the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty as well as NATO’s Security Concepts from 1991, 1999 and 2010. The study makes the conclusion that NATO to some extent today has a more realistic view on the world than after the end of the Cold War, at the same time as showing a greater will to promote Euro-Atlantic security and introducing more European democracies into the organisation. The EU has introduced more realistic policies which has developed the organisation towards looking more like a military alliance. Today, NATO and the EU do not only have political connections but they also share many of the same ideas.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka den svenska utrikes- och säkerhetspolitiken i skenet av ett allt mer spänt omvärldsläge. Vi vill undersöka de bakomliggande faktorerna till den svenska alliansfria hållningen i perioden 2008-2017, där Sverige ingår militära samarbeten och gör tydliga solidaritetsförklaringar men samtidigt stint håller fast vid alliansfriheten. Vilket ger två forskningsfrågor. Hur har svensk syn på militära samarbeten och allianser i utrikes- och säkerhetspolitiken utvecklats i perioden 2008-2017? och Hur förklaras å ena sidan Sveriges officiella och strikta militära alliansfrihet samt å andra sidan Sveriges ökade militära samarbeten? För att finna svar på forskningsfrågorna har vi genomfört en enfallsstudie där fallet utgörs av allianspolitik och analysenheten är Sverige. Undersökning är gjord i två steg med beskrivande analys av det empiriska underlaget och en förklarande analys som är hypotesprövande. De hypoteser som prövas är två realistiska hypoteser ur teorier kring makt- och hotbalansering samt en socialpsykologisk hypotes ur teori kring perceptioner. Undersökningsmaterielat är avgränsat till utrikesdeklarationer samt debattartiklar, tal, uttalanden och pressmedelande från sittande regerings stats- utrikes- och försvarsminister i perioden 2008-2017. I undersökningen har vi kommit fram till att farhågan att tappa sin handlingsfrihet och sin oberoende röst i världen gör att Sverige gärna ingår militära samarbeten, men fortsätter kalla sig alliansfria. / The purpose of this essay is to analyze the Swedish foreign and security policy in the light of an increasingly tense regional situation. We want to analyze the underlying factors for the Swedish alliance-free stance in the period 2008-2017, where Sweden is part of military cooperation and makes clear statements of solidarity, while at the same time maintaining the freedom of alliance. Which gives two research questions. How has Swedish view of military cooperation and alliances in foreign and security policy developed in the period 2008-2017? and How is Sweden's official and strict military alliance freedom and Sweden's increased military cooperation, on the one hand, explained? To answer the research questions we have conducted a single case study where the case is alliance policy and the analysis unit is Sweden. Analysis is divided in two steps with descriptive analysis of the empirical basis and an explanatory analysis that is hypothesis testing. The hypotheses being tested are two realistic hypotheses from theories of power and threat balancing, as well as a social psychological hypothesis from the theory of perceptions. Investigation material is limited to foreign declarations, as well as debate articles, speeches, statements and press releases from the seat minister of state, foreign affairs and defense in the period 2008-2017.In the study we have come to the conclusion that daring to lose its freedom of action and its independent voice in the world makes Sweden happy to join military cooperation, but continues to call itself alliance free.