This thesis discusses how to enhance the public discussion of moral and political questions. Enhancing public ‘deliberation’ is desirable since it provides citizens with influence, it enables coming to an understanding, and it ensures legitimacy. The concept of ethico-political judgment, with its two conditions, is elaborated on as an ideal that suggests how we should deliberate. In order to understand how we actually deliberate, an empirical inquiry into the public discourse on prenatal diagnosis and screening in the Netherlands and Sweden is conducted. On the basis of Kant’s ethics and his theory of the faculty of judgment, the two conditions for public deliberation are developed. These conditions are the giving of and asking for normative reasons as well as aiming at impartiality of judgment. Normative reasons are prescriptive, universal, and internal and these are related to Kant’s ethics. Impartiality is related to Kant’s ‘enlarged thought’, to think from the standpoint of others, as well as Kant’s practical philosophy. We need to think from the standpoints of others in order to consider whether or not the principle of our action applies to all. Four thematic foci in the public discourse on prenatal diagnosis are investigated – the unborn life, attitudes toward the disabled, implications of new choices, and the limits of medicine. The conclusion is that – if we wish to enhance public deliberation on the basis of the two conditions of ethico-political judgment – we should deal with both interpretive differences over universal principles (such as respect for autonomy and human dignity) and varying representations of ‘the other’ (such as the fetus, disabled persons, mothers-to-be, and future parents). / I denna avhandling diskuteras hur offentlig diskussion kring moraliska och politiska frågor kan intensifieras. Att intensifiera offentlig diskussion är önskvärt för att ge medborgare inflytande, för att främja förståelse och för att skapa legitimitet. Begreppet etisk-politisk bedömning utvecklas som ett ideal för hur vi bör diskutera. För att undersöka hur vi faktiskt diskuterar görs en empirisk undersökning av det offentliga samtalet om fosterdiagnostik i Nederländerna och Sverige. Med utgångspunkt i Kants etik och hans teori om omdömesförmågan utvecklas två villkor för offentlig diskussion. Dessa villkor är att ge och efterfråga normativa skäl och att sträva efter opartiskhet av omdömesförmågan. Normativa skäl är preskriptiva, universella och interna. Begreppet utvecklas utifrån Kants etik. Opartiskhet baseras på Kants ’utvidgade tänkande’: att tänka utifrån andras perspektiv. Denna idé relateras till Kants praktiska filosofi. Det ’utvidgade tänkandet’ innebär att vi tar ställning till om principen som vi väljer för en handling gäller alla. Fyra teman i det offentliga samtalet om fosterdiagnostik analyseras – det ofödda livet, attityder gentemot handikappade, implikationer av nya val och den medicinska praktikens gränser. Slutsatsen är att om vi önskar intensifiera offentlig diskussion med utgångspunkt i de två villkor som utvecklas, bör vi ta itu med tolkningsskillnader när det gäller universella principer (som respekt för autonomi och människovärde) samt olika representationer av ’den andra’ (som fostret, handikappade, gravida kvinnor och blivande föräldrar).

The present study has a threefold aim: First, the theoretical aim is to give a contribution to refinement of the theory of dialogue based feminist ethics, concerning the understanding of judgment and narration within such an ethics.  The study also has an empirical aim, defined as to clarify what kind of knowledge, relevant to the moral judgment of an engaged outsider actor, can be received from dialogical interpretation and analysis of a limited selection of critically reflecting life stories. Third, a methodological aim is defined as to develop an approach to interpretation and analysis of reflecting life stories, which renders the storyteller visible as a reflecting moral subject, and makes the story accessible as a source of knowledge for the moral judgment of an engaged outsider actor. The thesis combines philosophical reflection and argumentation, with a narrative-hermeneutic method for interpretation of life stories, relating the two to each other in a hermeneutic process.  The theoretical reflection draws on Seyla Benhabibs theory of communicative ethics. A dialogue based model for moral justification and a likewise dialogue based model for political legitimacy are at the heart of this universalistic theory, although in combination with a conception of a narratively and hermeneutically constituted context sensitive moral judgment, based on Hannah Arendt’s concept “enlarged thought”. In the reflection, this model is related to other feminist theorizing within the tradition of dialogue based feminist ethics, as found in the works of Iris M. Young, Georgia Warnke and Shari Stone-Mediatore. The empirical study draws on three critically reflecting life stories from Israeli-Palestinian women activists for a just peace. The methodology for interpretation and analysis that is worked out combines dialogical interpretation as presented in Arthur W. Frank’s socio-narratology with a method for structural analysis derived from Shari Stone-Mediatores theory of storytelling as an expression of political resistance struggle. The results show that some stories drawing on marginalized experiences have a potential­ to stimulate further public debate through their capacity to enable a stereoscopic seeing, elucidating a tension between ideologically structured discourse and non-linguistic experience; implying that narrative-hermeneutic competence should be considered crucial for public debate.