<p>Human rights and solidarity, as well as moral and legal responsibilities to protect people in need of refuge, seem to be principles of secondary importance within international migratory policies today. Instead, the predominant view seems to focus more and more on the protection of territorial borders, the welfare state and national identity. This international change in discourse can also be seen in the political trends of individual states. There are reasons to believe that this is a development that is also perceptible in the political rhetoric that is used in parliamentary debates, which constitute the main focus of this thesis. The aim of this study has therefore been to increase the understanding of this change in migratory policies by analyzing Swedish parliamentary debates between 1975 and 2002, using a theoretical framework focused on two different perspectives on security: First, the Copenhagen School and securitization of migration, and second, human security and human rights. The method consists of an interpretative and reflective method, together with a critical discourse analysis approach. The main results of the thesis show a possibility to distinguish four sets of discourses with close ties to the contemporary societal context during this period of almost three decades. However, the main arguments for such a change in discourse are first, that although the migration policies have developed in a more restrictive way since the 1980’s, the arguments and rhetoric in parliamentary debates have not changed much even though the tendencies are harder tones simultaneously with such restrictions. Second, in spite of this similarity, there have been people in parliament who have raised their voices and protested during this period when, in their view, the politics has moved outside of the ordinary framework. Finally, this thesis argues that it is possible to place the two debating sides in what could be named the security/rights- nexus, depending on each side’s point of departure according to the security framework of this thesis.</p>

<p>När det sker förändringar på det samhälleliga planet, vad gäller normer och värderingar, måste även de lagar samhället följer utvecklas för att på så sätt bli tillämpbara i den nya samhällsordningen. Den svenska sexualbrottslagen är en lag som tydligt visar den utveckling som såväl det svenska samhället som rättsväsendet genomgått under de senaste seklerna. Lagen i sig påvisar hur normer och värderingar vad gäller kvinnans och mannens sexualitet över tid förändrats, samt hur det kvinnliga könet successivt integrerats i det svenska rättsväsendet som rättsligt subjekt. Då det är i den politiska arenan de svenska lagarna förnyas och omarbetas bygger således denna uppsats på de debatter vilka uppstår i riksdagen under en lagändringsprocess. Syftet med uppsatsen är att belysa hur sexualbrott konstrueras och rekonstrueras i riksdagsdebatter. Uppsatsen vilar på en syn om könets betydelse i samhället, då det är svårt när det talas om sexualbrott att inte ta hänsyn till dess påverkan och betydelse.</p>

När det sker förändringar på det samhälleliga planet, vad gäller normer och värderingar, måste även de lagar samhället följer utvecklas för att på så sätt bli tillämpbara i den nya samhällsordningen. Den svenska sexualbrottslagen är en lag som tydligt visar den utveckling som såväl det svenska samhället som rättsväsendet genomgått under de senaste seklerna. Lagen i sig påvisar hur normer och värderingar vad gäller kvinnans och mannens sexualitet över tid förändrats, samt hur det kvinnliga könet successivt integrerats i det svenska rättsväsendet som rättsligt subjekt. Då det är i den politiska arenan de svenska lagarna förnyas och omarbetas bygger således denna uppsats på de debatter vilka uppstår i riksdagen under en lagändringsprocess. Syftet med uppsatsen är att belysa hur sexualbrott konstrueras och rekonstrueras i riksdagsdebatter. Uppsatsen vilar på en syn om könets betydelse i samhället, då det är svårt när det talas om sexualbrott att inte ta hänsyn till dess påverkan och betydelse.

Human rights and solidarity, as well as moral and legal responsibilities to protect people in need of refuge, seem to be principles of secondary importance within international migratory policies today. Instead, the predominant view seems to focus more and more on the protection of territorial borders, the welfare state and national identity. This international change in discourse can also be seen in the political trends of individual states. There are reasons to believe that this is a development that is also perceptible in the political rhetoric that is used in parliamentary debates, which constitute the main focus of this thesis. The aim of this study has therefore been to increase the understanding of this change in migratory policies by analyzing Swedish parliamentary debates between 1975 and 2002, using a theoretical framework focused on two different perspectives on security: First, the Copenhagen School and securitization of migration, and second, human security and human rights. The method consists of an interpretative and reflective method, together with a critical discourse analysis approach. The main results of the thesis show a possibility to distinguish four sets of discourses with close ties to the contemporary societal context during this period of almost three decades. However, the main arguments for such a change in discourse are first, that although the migration policies have developed in a more restrictive way since the 1980’s, the arguments and rhetoric in parliamentary debates have not changed much even though the tendencies are harder tones simultaneously with such restrictions. Second, in spite of this similarity, there have been people in parliament who have raised their voices and protested during this period when, in their view, the politics has moved outside of the ordinary framework. Finally, this thesis argues that it is possible to place the two debating sides in what could be named the security/rights- nexus, depending on each side’s point of departure according to the security framework of this thesis.

During the nineteenth century the liberal ideals were spreading across large parts of mainland Europe, and the Swedish parliament of 1840-41 is sometimes considered to be the first one embossed by the ideology. Liberal ideas such as the prison reform, the poor relief reform and the school reform were all on the agenda. The state was composed of the king and four political orders tasked to represent each respective social group, the peasantry, the town folks, the clergy and the nobility. All of these with different rates of representation and policies. Sweden had also for the last decades experienced an increase in crime, poverty and drunkenness. The before mentioned reforms were all made in an attempt to better the situation and make way for a better future. In this study we will look at the parliamentary debates of two of the four political orders, the peasantry and the clergy for the parliament previously mentioned. Our goal is to find out what the two orders thought about the establishment of the first national grade school, that would mean considerable changes for both parties which is partly why they are specifically chosen for this study. The two sides frequently had their differences and would not often cooperate with one another. Although liberalismen was a big part of the reason the king proposed the changes, we will instead focus mostly on Michel Foucault’s theory of biopower (or biopouvoir in French) and social discipline. What general themes can be found in the debates? What was the purpose of the grade school? And lastly, are there any similarities and differences between the reviewed orders? What we can see at the end of the study is that the two orders have different focuses. While the peasantry mainly focused on implementing a school to steer the younglings in the “right” way, the clergy emphasised a spiritual teaching that would foster the individual.

The overall purpose of this paper is to investigate how the concept of democracy was used in Swedish parliamentary debates before the great franchise reform 1919-1921. To use conceptual history to study parliamentary debates is a relatively recent phenomenon and when it comes to Sweden it has mostly been about the period around and after the mentioned great reform. This paper therefore takes a step back and concentrates on the years 1902, 1907 and 1912 when bills and motions were presented that advocated more inclusive voting rights. It is not only a period that has been less researched but an inquiry into these years also complete and enhance the understanding of the later great reform. Since the concept of democracy rarely appears in the parliamentary debates during the first years studied the paper also investigates the context in which the concept was used with a special focus on who were to be allowed to take part in an enlarged franchise. The final analysis shows that the concept of democracy went through substantial change during the period in question. Not only did it become used more frequently in the debates, but most politicians also accepted the future-oriented quality of the concept. The context of the debates shifted during the period but most importantly the view of who among the people were supposed to be included in a democratic society changed. Some of the uses of the concept of democracy that was to reverberate during the debates leading up to the great franchise reform 1919-1921 can also be found during the period here studied.

Denna avhandling undersöker hur omställningen av energisystemet har konstruerats i den riksdagspolitiska debatten, med fokus på förnybara energikällor. Utgångspunkten är det riksdagsbeslut som fattades 1980 och som innebar en omställning till förnybara energikällor. Studien bygger på textanalys av framför allt riksdagsprotokoll. Energipolitik är en ständig dragkamp kring definitioner och kategoriseringar och vilka ideal som bör utgöra politikens mål. I den riksdagspolitiska energidebatten om omställningen av energisystemet är det långt ifrån självklart vad som betraktas som problem, lösning och mål. Aktörer interagerar och förhandlar och skapar på så vis mening. Tre teoretiska begrepp är centrala i analysen av denna process: problematisering, obligatorisk passagepunkt och gränsobjekt. Den riksdagspolitiska debatten handlar om mer än bara vilka energikällor som är bäst lämpade. Livsavgörande framtidsfrågor har knutits till energiproduktionen. I den energipolitiska debatten väcks också frågor om kunskapsproduktion, hur energikällor och olika tekniska lösningar ställs mot varandra och blir argument i debatten om rationalitet och sanning. Förnybara energikällor har varit del av såväl utopiska som dystopiska framtidsbilder. De kan vara ett argument för det lilla och småskaliga, mot tillbakagång och det antimodernistiska, eller för utveckling, modernisering och det framtidsorienterade. Således handlar debatten om omställningen av energisystemet också om vad som utgör ”det goda samhället”. / This thesis examines how the energy system transformation has been constructed in the Swedish parliamentary debate, with a focus on renewable energy sources. The study is based on text analysis and the primarily material is parliamentary protocols. Energy politics is a constant tug-of-war over how to classify things, what categorizations to make and what ideals to turn into goals. Actors interact and negotiate, creating meaning and definitions. I draw upon three theoretical concepts to describe this process: problematization, obligatory passage point and boundary object. The decision to transform the energy system has been decisive for Swedish politics. In addition, it raises questions concerning knowledge production, pitting various energy sources and technical solutions against each other and making them into arguments in the debate on rationality and truth. Renewable energy sources serve as a basis for both utopian and dystopian visions of the future. Renewable energy sources can be used in multiple ways rhetorically, to advocate the local and small scale, to caution against regression and the anti-modern, and to uphold development, modernization and an orientation towards the future. Thus, the debate on what energy sources should be chosen also becomes a debate about the future and what constitutes “the good society”.Energy politics is a constant tug-of-war over how to classify things, what categorizations to make and what ideals to turn into goals. Actors interact and negotiate, creating meaning and definitions. I draw upon three theoretical concepts to describe this process: problematization, obligatory passage point and boundary object.

The aim of this study is to examine how the political change in the migration policy has changed since the migration crisis in 2015. The premise to analyse this change will be how four political parties in Sweden; the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Liberals and the Center Party, have expressed their political opinion about migration policy in two different parliamentary debates. The method for this study is a qualitative text analysis and with the help of this method, key concepts have been identified. Additionally, relevant information has been selected from the parliamentary debates and have been included in this study.The results of this study have been analysed by previous research and theories in order to reach a conclusion. The study concludes that the migration policy in Sweden has gone from being generous to being more coarse. Further, it is revealed that the Swedish Democrats entry to the Swedish Parliament was an external stimuli which probably was an underlying factor to the change in migration policy in Sweden.

Uppsatsens syfte är att söka förklaring till varför den svenska regeringen valde att inte erkänna folkmordet på armenier/Seyfo samt undersöka på vilket sätt politiker använder sig av historia när de ska ta beslut i frågor som dels skett i en annan tid och som dels är obekväma att hantera. För att få svar på denna fråga har en kvalitativ metod använts. Argumentationsanalys samt kritisk diskursanalys har använts för att tolka de politiska argumentationerna och nyckelorden i den politiska debatten. Den utredning som regeringen beställde som underlag för sitt beslut har varit ett viktigt undersökningsmaterial. Vidare har intervjuer använts för att få en ökad förståelse av undersökningen. Syftet med uppsatsen har uppnåtts och förklaringen till varför den svenska regeringen valde att inte erkänna folkmordet på armenier/Seyfo är också en slutsats. Det fanns flera bakomliggande faktorer så som att inte stöta sig med en stor väljargrupp, inte riskera handelsrelationer dvs. ekonomiska intressen, dels flyktingfrågan mm. Dessa faktorer var dock inte de största utan den absolut största och även viktigaste orsaken var den som de inte tordes nämna. Denna faktor var att de var rädda för att ett erkännande skulle leda till påtryckningar och hot från Turkiet samt från olika intressenter i Sverige. / The purpose of the thesis is to seek an explanation as to why the Swedish government chose not to acknowledge the Armenian/Seyfo genocide and to investigate how politicians make use of history when making decisions on issues that have happened in another time and which are partly uncomfortable to manage. A qualitative method has been used to answer this question. Argumentation analysis and critical discourse analysis have been used to interpret the political arguments and keywords in the political debate. The investigation that the government ordered as a basis for its decision has been an important investigative material. Furthermore, interviews were used to gain a better understanding of the study. The purpose of the thesis has been achieved and the explanation as to why the Swedish government chose not to acknowledge the Armenian/Seyfo genocide is also a conclusion. There were several different underlying factors such as not clashing with a larger voter group, not risking trade relations i.e. financial interests, partly the refugee issue, etc. However, these factors were not the greatest, but the absolute greatest and also the most important reason was the one they did not dare mention. This factor was that they were afraid that recognition would lead to pressure and threats from Turkey as well as from various stakeholders in Sweden.