For the last few years, the question of legal abortion has been a big topic in USpolitics. With the two major US parties, Democrats and Republicans, havingdifferent opinions about the subject, and with a new abortion law introduced inJune of 2022.This study goes over the latest party platforms and different statements fromboth parties to get an understanding about how the both parties view abortionas a problem. With the use of critical discourse analysis as a methodology and“what’s the problem represented to be?” as an analytical framework, the studydoes not aim to present a solution to a problem, but instead show how the twoparties present the problem. Thereafter the ideologies feminism, conservatismand liberalism will be applied to see if it can be connected to how the partiespresent abortion as a problem. The results of the study reveal that theDemocratic party views abortion as a necessity for women's health and rights.The Democratic party does show signs of the ideologies feminism andliberalism in how they represent abortion. The Republicans view abortion assomething morally wrong and shows signs of conservatism.

This study explores how presidential candidates during the 2020 American election were tied to external others, taking the shape of China and Russia. The study argues that an identity perspective becomes fruitful for addressing the research problem, as it becomes a matter of who "we" as a nation are. In general, identity studies tend to focus on the external other, while this study aims to contribute with an understanding of how the internal and external other can be interconnected.  American exceptionalism - the notion that the US has a unique role to play on the world stage - is a prominent part of American political identity. Nonetheless, the concept of exceptionalism also implies that being an American is an act of choice and not exclusively a birthright, thus individuals and values can be labeled as "un-American". Drawing on and combining the theoretical insights from Michel Foucault, Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, and Ty Solomon, politics in itself becomes a narrative war to fill nodal points with a hegemonic substance based on a wish for identity-fulfillment. The study finds that the other candidate is separated from the idea of what constitutes the US by reference to foreign and threatening powers. The other candidate is framed as unfit to be president, and since he does not correspond with the identity of the nation itself, he can not lead and personify the US. Thus, the other candidate is narratively constructed as unable to grant the wish for national identity fulfillment. The substance of the nodal points also does not exhibit a value in themselves but has to be contrasted against something or someone - in this case, an Other.

This essay aims to analyse the motives behind President Donald Trump’s choice to remove Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), a provision of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The true motives are analysed through the lens of Rational Choice theory. The choice of theoretical framework can account as an explanation as to why the law was removed. The essay is moreover based upon drafts originating from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The public has since the removal of the AFFH doubted the motives presented by the President, thus giving room for further scientifical exploration on the subject. The author has chosen to conduct a quantitative text analysis to present the given arguments by the administration and the Republican party and furthermore to present alternative motives. The analysis presents an argumentation analysis to further explore the strength in the arguments presented from the relevant actors. The theoretical framework provides an explanation of the choices made, namely by offering a new dimension in which to examine the true motives behind the choice to remove AFFH.