This dissertation examines how we construct security threats. Theoretically, it contributes to the literature on securitization and threat construction, which has hitherto overlooked how influential bureaucracies that – in contrast to the police and the military – have little to gain from widened threat perceptions, may still contribute to threat construction. The dissertation studies the European Commission and the issue of irregular immigration. By using frame analysis, it firstly explores what constructions of irregular immigration that the Commission generates and to what extent these contribute to threat construction. Using the Bourdieusian concepts of field, capital and habitus, it secondly analyzes how certain constructions of irregular immigration are authorized at the expense of others, due to the inner bureaucratic logic of the Commission. The empirical result reveals that the Commission mostly defines irregular immigrants as victims, yet simultaneously favors policy solutions that mainly seek to avert immigration. The Commission thus contributes to threat construction primarily through its policy solutions. Studying the inner logic of the Commission field highlights how informal routines and tacit power relations between Commission departments authorize certain frames over others. Importantly, the analysis shows how the naming of irregular immigrants as victims tends not to cost the officials anything in terms of symbolic capital, whereas the suggesting of less restrictive solutions tends to do so. Definitions and policy solutions thus follow different bureaucratic logics, which enables a mismatch between them. Moreover, the threat construction appears not because Commission officials believe that restrictive measures are the only way to solve problems linked to irregular immigration. On the contrary, officials believe that a multitude of solutions are needed. Instead, the threat construction is an unintended consequence of the logic of the field.

This dissertation examines how we construct security threats. Theoretically, it contributes to the literature on securitization and threat construction, which has hitherto overlooked how influential bureaucracies that – in contrast to the police and the military – have little to gain from widened threat perceptions, may still contribute to threat construction. The dissertation studies the European Commission and the issue of irregular immigration. By using frame analysis, it firstly explores what constructions of irregular immigration that the Commission generates and to what extent these contribute to threat construction. Using the Bourdieusian concepts of field, capital and habitus, it secondly analyzes how certain constructions of irregular immigration are authorized at the expense of others, due to the inner bureaucratic logic of the Commission. The empirical result reveals that the Commission mostly defines irregular immigrants as victims, yet simultaneously favors policy solutions that mainly seek to avert immigration. The Commission thus contributes to threat construction primarily through its policy solutions. Studying the inner logic of the Commission field highlights how informal routines and tacit power relations between Commission departments authorize certain frames over others. Importantly, the analysis shows how the naming of irregular immigrants as victims tends not to cost the officials anything in terms of symbolic capital, whereas the suggesting of less restrictive solutions tends to do so. Definitions and policy solutions thus follow different bureaucratic logics, which enables a mismatch between them. Moreover, the threat construction appears not because Commission officials believe that restrictive measures are the only way to solve problems linked to irregular immigration. On the contrary, officials believe that a multitude of solutions are needed. Instead, the threat construction is an unintended consequence of the logic of the field. / <p>Författaren är verksam både vid Statsvetenskapliga institutionen på Stockholms universitet och vid Statsvetenskapliga avdelningen på Försvarshögskolan.</p>

In order for a democracy to fulfill its function, it requires access for information transmission where an exchange of information and opinions occur between citizens and decision-makers. Security and framing correlate with each other since medias’ framing are crucial to understand whether something is considered a threat or a problem. The news media is thus seen as an actor that possesses a certain power through the presentation of threats as it shapes public opinion. This study examines how the Russian threat-images towards Sweden are produced during different time periods and what differences have arisen. In addition, this study aims to investigate how the news medias’ presentation of threat images can influence citizens and decision-makers. This essay consists of a qualitative thematic case study and media analysis where news articles are analyzed in relation to the essays’ chosen theories, which consists of the framing-theory and the agenda-setting-theory. In summary, this study concludes that news media reported on an increased threat picture against Sweden in 2013. However, the focus was mainly on preventive measures and discussions regarding possible measures if the threat would escalate in the future. In 2023, the media changed its tone to emphasize the seriousness and urgency of the situation by using words related to war and danger. The differences between 2013 and 2023 is a more urgent presentation of the threat in 2023. According to the chosen theories, the news medias’ way of presenting the security situation as threatening can result in citizens and decision-makers prioritizing the issue to a greater extent. Based on the material, the news media have mainly focused on the military threat both in 2013 and 2023 but have not to the same extent prioritized reporting regarding other threats that previous research performs. This can result in citizens and decision makers not prioritizing the other threats equally and accordingly not taking sufficient measures.

This thesis investigates conservative social movements’ discursive strategies and the ways in which discourse is used depending on a constructed threat. This is done through a discourse analysis on online published material by pro-life groups in Latin America, using the case of abortion. The research question is “How does the construction of threats influence discursive adaptation among pro-life actors in Latin America?” It is divided into sub-questions, asking (a) how pro-life actors perceive and construct threats, and (b) how do pro-life activists in Latin America use religious argumentation, pro-women discourse, and law and legal-based arguments respectively, to oppose a decriminalization of abortion? The study finds that arguments centered on rights and the national constitutions dominate. The most common threats are the real or hypothetical legalization of abortion, its increased access or increased normalization, as well as the threat of the international community and gender ideology, and what I refer to above as the hypothetical threat, in which the case of abortion serves as a gateway. The central findings are that the unit or phenomenon perceived as threatened is often the same as what constitutes a node of familiarity, i.e., appeals to individuals based on an experience shared by a community, and that the discourse used in response often reflects that of the constructed threat itself. The thesis illustrates the many ways that the pro-life movements use a combination of discourse based on religious values, gender, and rights to construct arguments, and thereby, the adaptability and creativity displayed by the organization.

Drawing on a theoretical framework based on securitization and threat construction, the attempt in this study was to broaden the understanding of how the perception of a Russian threat in the Baltic Sea is influencing Swedish defence and security policy. The method used was based on Bacchis WPR-approach. Three questions were asked at the beginning of this study, regardning how Russia is viewed in Sweden, how the representation of Russia has changed from the war in Georgia in 2008 until 2018, as well as how Sweden is to strengthen it's defence capacity, nationally and through cooperation, to tacle the Russian threat. Four key aspects of Russian behaviour that is considered threatening were identified. Russia is viewed as a country with power ambitions and expansionist tendencies; characterised as tactically unpredictable; looked upon as a risk calculating actor; and considered misstrusting in its views of the West. The perception of Russia is complex which creates difficulties regarding how the threat is to be met. Policy makers have urged the strengthening of Swedish national defence capacity to create a conflict threshold in the region. To further strengthen this threshold, the bilateral defence cooperation with Finland has deepened. In addition, the question of military non-alignment has been raised in relation to a possible Swedish membership in Nato. The answer to whether or not Sweden should join depends on political affiliation. This underlines the theoretical assumptions; security and defence policy is not merely a response to an external circumstance, but rather the result of an interplay between circumstance and actor.

This Master Thesis called "The Securitization of Immigration. An Assessment of the Extent of Securitization of Immigration in the German Political Discourse in the aftermath of the 2015 European Refugee Crisis" aims to identify the influence of the 2015 European refugee crisis on the German political discourse in reference to immigration and asylum. Since immigration became one of the greatest security concerns in the post-Cold War era, it appears plausible that the unprecedented high-numbers of asylum applications in 2015/16 triggered securitization in Germany. This impression is reinforced in reference to the increasing popularity of the anti-Islam, far-right PEGIDA movement and the right-wing populist party AfD. However, the merely welcoming attitude towards refugees among the German population, which attracted attention all over the world, challenges the securitization thesis, because the political discourse is assumed to be oriented towards public opinion. Thus, the political discourse in the aftermath of the 2015 European Refugee Crisis is assumed to be torn between fear (securitization discourse) and optimism (humanitarian discourse) in regard to immigration and asylum. By conducting a discourse analysis, contextualized speech-acts based on a generic structure used by Holger Stritzel were...

When Sweden 2017 changed the risk valuation of an armed attack against Sweden from not likely to that it can’t be ruled out, it got the swedish peoples and medias attention. Russia has during the last centuries had an extensive impact in Swedish security and defense politics. This study examine if there has been any change in the Swedish representation of Russia and as a consequence may have affected the risk assessment. By analyze the discourse in four reports by the Swedish Defence Commission with the method of framing this study will use the theory of securitization developed by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde as it advocates a wide concept of security. Securitization is the process in which an actor turns a subject into a matter of security. The study finds evidence that the representation of Russia in the Swedish discourse has changed for the worse and it is possible that it has affected the changed risk assessment.