<p>This study deals with Swedish nuclear-energy politics from 1980 to 2006. The purpose is to trace and to explain change and stability in three political parties’ rhetoric concerning the phase-out of Swedish nuclear-energy and the Swedish government’s nuclear politics. Two hypotheses based on path dependency theory are tested to analyze if rhetoric and politics are developing in separate directions. The first hypothesis is based on the idea that earlier promises from the political parties affect what promises they can make later on. The second hypothesis is based on the idea that early investments in Swedish nuclear energy will affect what investments can be made at a later stage. The study shows that there are differences between the political parties’ promises and the government’s politics in the Swedish nuclear-energy debate. The two tested hypotheses seem to be possible explanations to why differences between party rhetoric and governmental politics have appeared. While party rhetoric is formed by a need to earn credibility by showing continuity in made promises, governmental politics is formed by a need to find practical solutions to welfare-, economic- and environmental problems.</p>

This study deals with Swedish nuclear-energy politics from 1980 to 2006. The purpose is to trace and to explain change and stability in three political parties’ rhetoric concerning the phase-out of Swedish nuclear-energy and the Swedish government’s nuclear politics. Two hypotheses based on path dependency theory are tested to analyze if rhetoric and politics are developing in separate directions. The first hypothesis is based on the idea that earlier promises from the political parties affect what promises they can make later on. The second hypothesis is based on the idea that early investments in Swedish nuclear energy will affect what investments can be made at a later stage. The study shows that there are differences between the political parties’ promises and the government’s politics in the Swedish nuclear-energy debate. The two tested hypotheses seem to be possible explanations to why differences between party rhetoric and governmental politics have appeared. While party rhetoric is formed by a need to earn credibility by showing continuity in made promises, governmental politics is formed by a need to find practical solutions to welfare-, economic- and environmental problems.