Följande undersökning ställer sig frågan hur män i Sverige, jämfört med kvinnor i Sverige, ändrar sina politiska preferenser i samband med en förändring i civilstånd. Med förändring i civilstånd menas att en individ går från en situation där denne delar boende och/eller ekonomi med någon annan till att leva ensam, eller en förändring åt det motsatta hållet. Frågeställningen undersöks via enkätdata om var respondenten ställer sig på en politisk vänster/höger-skala samt information om civilstånd, kön och andra bakgrundsvariabler. Metoden som används för att genomföra undersökningen är fixed effects-regression. Ingen av de olika estimeringarna som har utförts tyder på att politiska preferenser ändras i samband med förändring i civilstånd.

No description available.

No description available.

The aim of this thesis is to investigate how Bahamas, a magazine belonging to the antideutsche current in German left-wing politics, acted during a two year period between the summer 2001 and 2003. When explaining the anti-deutsche phenomena and the editors’ politics it is common to take the currents own history-writing as a fact, thus presenting the development of the current as a reaction to outside factors and impulses outside. In this thesis it is stressed that the editors are far from only passively reacting, rather the opposite is true. I claim that the editors have a fixed ideology that they strive to implant in to certain parts of the radical left. This thesis hypothesizes that the editors do this through something that I call ideological intervention. Ideological intervention differs from the common approach, which I call influence, in that it’s focused, timed and directed to achieve as much result as possible. To test the hypothesis, the thesis strives to answer the following questions: When do the editors choose to intervene? Who are they trying to appeal to with these interventions? Who is the target of the editors’ critic and how is it formulated? How is the interventions formulated, is there a pattern?, A jargon? What do they say and what do they not say? The analysis shows that the editors choose to intervene when they think the situation will be as favourable as possible for the intervention. In specific terms this means that they choose to intervene in the context of events that already in themselves bring about attention and discussion. In this way the editors assure that their controversial interventions have the best possibility to spark a controversy and a heated discussion. The interventions are directed to a small segment of the radical left. This segmentmainly identifies itself as anti-fascist and it is interested in theory. They also have some, or a lot of resentment towards the rest of the radical left. The critic the editors formulate mainly directed against the radical left. This implies that the editors are trying to create a rending in the ideological environment that the radical left constitutes. Other phenomena’s that editors direct major critic against is Germany, Nazis and Islam. This critic is, with some exceptions when it comes to Islam, always a critic that appears in relation to the critic of the radical left. In other words, the editors use these phenomena’s to criticize the radical left for its claimed similarities with, and relation to, these phenomena. Things that the editors claim that these phenomena have in common, and that are considered to be negative include collectivism, strive towards equality and anti-global thinking. The texts are written in a unique jargon consisting of a highly academic and philosophic language, often mixed with irrelevant non intellectual arguments based for example on the proposed antagonist mental abilities and personal hygiene. I claim that the jargon is meant to create feelings of exclusiveness among its readers, and thus make them more responsive to the ideology put forward by the editors. In conclusion the analysis supports my hypothesis.

This paper studied if the year 2015 in France, which was characterized by a strongly politicized immigration debate as a result of the terrorist attacks and migration crises, had any consequences on attitudes towards immigrants. With this in mind this paper examined whether people on the right/conservatives, who traditionally have been less tolerant towards immigrants, have had an increase in negative attitudes towards immigrants. To examine this a logistic regression analysis was used with a focus on the main study variable being the left-right scale in addition with control variables to analyze the effect they had on attitudes towards immigrants. The results showed no statistically significant difference between people on the right/conservatives who were negative towards immigrants before the terrorist attacks/migration crises and afterwards. This also meant that symbolic politics theory that was used to test the hypothesis this paper was arguing for didn’t show evidence for people on the right/conservatives feeling that immigrants are a bigger threat towards their culture, traditions and values. To conclude, the results showed no empirical evidence that people on the right/conservatives had showed an increase in negative attitudes towards immigrants in 2016.

No description available.

Abstract Identity politics is about who you identify as and which group you choose to belong to. The left is often said to be using identity politics. The purpose of this essay is to analyze two Scandinavian countries, Norway and Sweden’s, left parties and see if they use identity politics in their election manifestos. To analyze them I’ve chosen to do both a bigger qualitative idea- and ideology analysis and a smaller quantitative content analysis. I found the most common definition of identity politics and used this for my analysis. The theory I choose for my essay is Vivian A. Schmidts Discursive institutionalism where she talks about the importance of idées and discourse to explain change in institution and lawmaking. I also looked at previous research about party change and idea impact. My essay shows that both parties use identity politics, although the Swedish party uses it a little more than the Norwegian one. It also shows that it has not been a steady increase over the years, it has gone up and down for both parties.

<p>Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att undersöka om det finns en så kallad “vänstervridning” i Sveriges televisions nyhetsprogram. Det vill säga en favorisering av vänstern gentemot högern. Detta genom att undersöka nyhetsrapporteringen, i Rapport och Aktuellt, av i förväg valda ämnen.</p>

Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att undersöka om det finns en så kallad “vänstervridning” i Sveriges televisions nyhetsprogram. Det vill säga en favorisering av vänstern gentemot högern. Detta genom att undersöka nyhetsrapporteringen, i Rapport och Aktuellt, av i förväg valda ämnen.

The Voices of Parliament Congruence between party and person The purpose of this study is to determine the congruence between the opinions of members of parliament and their respective party policies, in order to further determine the cause of poor voter-party congruence and whether or not the individualization of the parliament could affect the character of legislation. To do so, the study asks two primary research questions; - "Are the communicated party policies representative of the opinions of the members of parliament?" - "Is the discrepancy between party policies and the opinions of the members of parliament sufficient for the individualization of parliament to substantially affect the parliament's decisions?" The study answers these questions by comparing the average of self-described left-right stances of members of parliament with the average of voter-described left-right stances of party policies, using existing survey data and a constructed left-right dimension. The lower average is then subtracted from the higher average, creating a value of congruence that is then inserted into a constructed congruence dimension. The primary findings of the study suggest that there is substantial congruence between party policies and the opinions of the members of parliament, and that the discrepancy between them is unlikely to substantially affect the parliament's decisions. / Rösterna i Riksdagen Samstämmighet mellan parti och person Syftet med denna studie är att avgöra vilken grad av samstämmighet som kan återfinnas mellan åsikterna hos riksdagsledamöterna och deras respektive partilinjer, för att vidare avgöra orsaken till undermålig åsiktsrepresentativitet och huruvida riksdagens individualisering kan komma att påverka lagstiftningens utformning. För att göra detta ställs två primära forskningsfrågor; - "Är de kommunicerade partilinjerna representativa för vad partiernas respektive riksdagsledamöter tycker?" - "Är diskrepansen mellan partilinjernas och deras respektive riksdagsledamöters åsikter tillräcklig för att riksdagspolitikens individualisering skall kunna göra ett substantiellt avtryck på riksdagens beslut?" Studien besvarar dessa frågor genom att jämföra medelvärdet av riksdagsledamöternas självbeskrivna vänster-högerpositioner med medelvärdet av partilinjernas väljarbeskrivna vänster-högerpositioner, användande existerande enkätdata och en konstruerad vänster-högerdimension. Det lägre medelvärdet subtraheras sedan från det högre medelvärdet, vilket skapar ett samstämmighetsvärde som sedan inlemmas i en konstruerad samstämmighetsdimension. Studiens primära resultat antyder att samstämmigheten mellan riksdagsledamöterna och deras partilinjer är omfattande, och att det förefaller osannolikt att diskrepansen mellan dem skulle kunna substantiellt påverka riksdagens beslut.