In Sweden there is scepticism if there really is a difference between the two biggest political parties, the Moderate/Conservative party and the Swedish Social Democrats. The voters feels that the arguments used by both parties are more or less the same and that it does not matter on whom you vote. Hence I am going to compare the parties’ policy programs, developed by the members in each party, by an analysis of ideas to see if the two parties are so similar that they hardly are two different options, or if there is a divergence between the two.   My choosing of the parties’ policy programs comes from a decision to look at the members’ party, they are the authors of the programs, the core. I have to admit I am not unbiased in this work. Since December 2005 I have been active in the Swedish Social Democratic Youth, and later on the Swedish Social Democrats where I had a seat in the municipal council in Kalmar between 2010 and 2014. In February this year I changed party to the Left Party, and now am solely a member. This may affect my presentation of the parties, so read critically, but since my work is not about interpretation but presentation, my political background should have minimal effect on this work.   For over 100 years the Social Democrats more or less had power in Sweden, and the Moderate/Conservative party were in opposition. This changed in 2006, and the bourgeois government got a new mandate to govern in the general election 2010.  Looking at the political subjects of work, economy, welfare, education, the EU, immigration and environment; I found out that the parties often share the same goals, but differ in how to get there. Some core differences could be found, the moderate/conservative party both has lowered taxes as a goal as well as a meaning to get to the goal, and they argue warm heartily about more private corporations in the welfare sector.  The Social Democrats on the other hand argues for investments in the welfare sector (and hence higher taxation) and the rights of the labourers.   This results in a conclusion that when the parties are discussing goals, they are fairly similar. But if you look at the means to reach the goals, they do have their differences and it does matter on which party you vote.

The purpose with this study is to investigate how the two biggest political parties, the Social Democrats and the Moderate/Conservative Party, looks at a membership in the defense alliance North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The question have the illegal annexation of Crimea affected how the parties look at a membership in Nato will be answered and analyzed. How they discuss, how they believe that a membership can affect the Swedish foreign policy will be examined in this paper.   Nato is a topic that during the last century’s have divided the Swedish population into two groups: one that advocates a membership and one that fight’s against a Swedish membership in the alliance. The debate about Nato has, since the illegal annexation of the Crimea, changed and are now more relevant than ever to discuss. This paper illustrates how the Moderate/Conservative Party and the Social Democrats argues in the debate regarding a membership in Nato.   Since 2003 the Moderate/Conservative Party are in favor of a membership in the defense alliance Nato, what this paper will find out is why they want Sweden to become a member in Nato and how they argue for a membership. The Social Democrats are not in favor of a membership in the defense alliance, they advocates the defense line Sweden have had since the mid 1900s, the Non-alignment.