In the last ten years several violent protests have emerged in Sweden´s largest cities. Some of them have developed into real riots, resulting in burned cars and large police operations. These violent events, or ‘urban riots’, are a relatively new phenomenon in Sweden. The aim of this qualitative study is to investigate the structure of the discourse among the Swedish political elite in power. I will observe if the political discourse on disadvantaged areas in Sweden is characterized by continuity or change after urban riots. This study examines four urban riot cases, between 2005 and 2013.    To study how the political discourse is constructed, framing theory elements are combined with elements from discourse analysis. The characteristic features of the two framing dimensions are outlined which gives me a framework to categorize the political discourse. The two dimensions are; diagnostic and prognostic frames. The discourse analytical elements are used in order to systemize who is included in the political discourse by the political elite in power. A discourse analysis is then conducted on the collected empirical material, which consists of newspaper articles and parliamentarian debates from the Swedish parliament.   The results from the analysis suggest that the disadvantaged districts are not salient both before and after the riots among the political elite in power, except for the last case. In this case the riot as such has no observable ‘effect’ on political discourse about disadvantaged districts. The political actors tend to separate riots as events from the disadvantaged districts. The last riot did not change how the government defined the problem in the suburbs and how it should be solved. In all cases the political discourse has a strong divide between the state and the inhabitants in the suburbs. The state acts and residents are acted upon.

L’objet de la recherche consiste à mettre en évidence que la prise en compte des violences émeutières requiert une évolution de l’environnement juridique et des méthodes de maintien de la paix publique hérités de notre histoire. Notre dispositif de gestion de l’ordre public est particulièrement adapté au modèle français de manifestation. C’est considérable et exemplaire à beaucoup d’égards mais cela ne peut clore le débat sur les formes de la réaction sociale nécessaires pour répondre aux différentes formes du répertoire de la protestation en particulier à la dynamique complexe des désordres émeutiers.Alors que la manifestation, son encadrement par les forces de sécurité intérieure et son environnement juridique ressortissent à la culture de l’organisation et de l’ordre, les violences émeutières relèvent, quant à elles, de comportements colériques naturels. Elles constituent un objet et un enjeu différents que traduisent notamment la récurrence des crises en milieu urbain et la difficulté d’y faire face de façon satisfaisante.Sur le plan opérationnel comme sur le plan juridique, l’éventail de la réponse aux désordres est particulièrement large, mais il traduit également un double embarras :• Les violences émeutières sont le plus souvent des violences d’expression. Qu’ils en soient conscients ou non, face à ces comportements, le juge et le politique se sont montrés fréquemment indulgents dans un contexte juridique où la liberté d’expression est un droit fondamental et la manifestation une conquête sans équivalent dans notre pays. Les réponses sociale et judiciaire se caractérisent donc par une mansuétude parfois légitime, parfois inadaptée mais souvent mal comprise.• Les modes d’action policiers et les outils du Droit façonnés par l’environnement juridique et la culture de la manifestation, peuvent se révéler inadaptés pour répondre aux émeutes urbaines et conduire à des évolutions aussi variées qu’inappropriées comme la banalisation du recours à des régimes juridiques d’exception et la sédimentation d’une culture d’affrontement entre police et population.Le concept retentissement / identification et l’analyse des colères rebelles et insoumises ouvrent la voie à une adaptation du droit et de la réponse sociale conciliant le respect des droits fondamentaux et le maintien de la paix publique dans l’espace urbain. Tel est l’enjeu de la dialectique « Libertés - Droit - désordres ». / The object of the research is to highlight that rioting violence cannot be dealt with without an evolution of the legal framework and public-order policing inherited from our History. Our way to manage public-order policing is particularly suitable to our French traditional demonstration pattern. It is significant and exemplary in many respects but that alone cannot close the debate about the forms of social reaction that would be necessary to answer the various forms of the repertoire of protest especially the complex dynamics of rioting disorders.Even though the demonstration, its framing by the police and its legal framework are both an order issue and a cultural issue, rioting acts of violence are a natural irascible behaviour of the human nature. Riots are an object and an issue which translate into in recurring urban crises and the difficulty to satisfactorily deal with them.From an operational point of view and from a judicial one, there is a wide range of answers to the disorders but this results in a double embarrassment:• Riots are very often a means of expression. Consciously or not, the judge and the policy-maker have frequently been indulgent with these behaviours in a legal context in which freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and demonstrating a conquest without equivalent in our country. Social and judicial answers are characterized by indulgence, sometimes legitimate, sometimes inadequate and often ill-understood.• Policing and the tools of the law that were shaped by the legal framework and the culture of demonstration can prove to be inadequate to cope with urban riots and they can result in various as well as inappropriate answers like the trivialization of emergency legal schemes and the sedimentation of a culture of clash between people and the police.The repercussion and identification concept and the analysis of the rebel and unsubdued bouts of anger pave the way to an adaptation of the law and the social response aiming at balancing both the expression of the basic rights and the preservation of public peace in urban areas. This is what is at stake with the dialectics « Liberties – Law – Disorder ».