This study examines perceptions of threats and the actors in the Swedish Nato-debate. The particular sequence of debate which is investigated took place in Swedish media during the summer of 2015. The objects examined in this study are the actors involved in the debate and the perceptions of threats formed by these actors. Lack of knowledge regarding how debates are formed by actors, through their perceptions of threats, makes us unable to fully comprehend how and why these perceptions are formed. This lack of knowledge makes us unable to evaluate the debate beyond the claims of the participating actors. This study seeks to explain how perceptions of threats in the chosen debate-sequence were formed through filtration. Theory considering filtration of perceived threats states that the actors forming perceived threats does this through psychological-, bureaucratic-, political- and medial processes. Actors and their perceived threats can also exercise power. Whether the actors and their discourses have exercised power in the Swedish Nato-debate is examined through a relational- and productive power perspective. Results show that the participating actors examined, scientists, journalists and politicians, have all formed perceived threats through different forms of filtration, and all actors have in some way exercised relational or productive power in the debate.

The debate concerning if Sweden should move closer to NATO or even apply for membership is not entirely new. Due to Russia´s annexation of the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine in the spring of 2014, and due to Russians violations of national territory, Swedish political actors have discussed the NATO membership energetically. The purpose of this essay is to map out the Swedish debate about NATO membership. By applying a Pro-Contra analysis this essay will also examine arguments from the swedish parties, members of parliament, debaters, researchers and former Secretary of State. Furthermore, the arguments will also be analyzed through theories of realism and liberalism. The debate for a NATO membership shows that arguments are based on a combination of both realism and liberalism, although there are more arguments influenced by liberalism. The arguments against a NATO membership are mainly characterized by realism rather than liberalism.