The purpose of this paper is to examine and to analyze the arguments about a possible Swedish law against the veil. I have therefore highlighted how notions about the veil creates and reproduces power-structures and meaning-systems. I structured the arguments in a pro et contra schedule and then analyzed them by using a theoretical framework consisting post-colonial feminism, orientalism, multi-culture and intersectionality together with research produced by Joan Wallach Scott (2010), Pia Karlsson Minganti (2007) and Anne Sofie Roald (2003). The results of the study shows that the people who either argue for or against a veil-law agree that the veil is an oppression of women and that it must be resisted. To be objective in the discussion of the veil seems to be impossible and the women it affects deprived voice. A piece of cloth has never been as controversial as the veil and the question is whether it is possible to reach consensus on its symbolism, the arguments that I analyzed contradicts it.

There’s a growing number of trans-related bills in the US and states are divided amongst themselves with some taking a strong pro-trans stance and others a strong anti-trans stance. This study analyses the arguments of six different political debates on the US state-level. These debates all concern either pro-trans or anti-trans bills. The purpose of this study is to provide an understanding of the trans-debate and its ideological underpinnings. Our study shows that how one views the trans identity is fundamental to the trans debate. The study also shows a clear ideological divide in the arguments used by both sides with many republican arguments aligning with conservatism and conversely many democratic arguments aligning with liberalism. The republican arguments revolve around the themes of parental right, the value of the family and the need to protect children from the dangers of gender affirming care. The democrat's argumentation has its basis in their view of trans people as a persecuted minority with many arguments revolving around the suffering this community endures. They argue that the anti-trans bills are dangerous for trans people as many trans people already suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts. Some democrats go as far as accusing the republicans of having near genocidal intensions for the trans community. The democrats instead argue that trans people should be free to express themself and that they deserve to feel safe, respected and affirmed. Contrary to the republicans the democrats see gender affirming care as a lifesaving solution to trans peoples suffering.

This thesis consists of an argument analysis of three columns published in the Indian newspaper The Indian Express in the aftermath of the gangrape and murder of a young woman in Delhi in December 2012, and the following debate about glorification of rape in Indian popular culture. One of the columnists is arguing in favour of including gender as a category in the Indian law on hate speech, thereby banning an artist called Honey Singh and his lyrics about rape. The two other columnists are arguing against new restrictions on free speech in India. The analysis of the columns shows that there are several relevant arguments for and against including gender in the Indian hate speech legislation. The argumentation against a new law is similar to argumentation found in Western liberal theory, and the argumentation in favour of a new law is similar to argumentation found in Western radical feminist and critical race theory. However, both strands of philosophy are contested by postcolonial theorists, arguing that no Western theory is applicable in a non-Western context, such as India. Indian postcolonial feminists argue in favour of a third approach to sexist speech in India; a counter-speech approach. Counter-speech theorists agree with liberals about the importance of freedom of speech, and with feminists about the harm in hate speech. According to counter-speech theory, hate speech shall thus not be outlawed, but the state shall try to counter the harmful effects of hate speech, for example by strengthening groups targeted by hate speech so that they can speak back to hatemongers. The conclusion of this thesis is that a counter-speech approach is the most sustainable regarding freedom of speech and gender in India. Such an approach does not only appeal to Indian postcolonial theorists, it is also a middle way in-between a liberal and a radical feminist approach. In the conclusion, the relevance of hate speech legislation as a whole is also questioned. Laws such as in India, that protect only racial and religious groups from being targeted by hate speech while categories such as gender, sexual orientation and disability are not included, can be deemed discriminatory. An abolishment of hate speech prohibitions and an adoption of a counter-speech approach to all forms of hate speech is discussed.

It is rather often assumed that Swedish foreign policy debate is largely characterized by consensus and that foreign policy goals often are material (for example security or economic welfare). Despite this, it is possible to identify disagreement among political parties about ideological goals – i.e. the promotion of values – in Swedish foreign policy debates. This raises questions about the nature and importance of these ideological goals in such debates. To study this closer I investigate foreign policy debates about the military conflicts in Vietnam and Iraq. The purpose of the dissertation is to describe and explain the content and relative importance of the ideological goals expressed by Swedish parliamentary parties in both party and public arenas. Four parties are included in the study: the Left, the Social Democrats, the Liberals and the Conservatives. The theoretical framework is made up of two main parts. First, I develop a classification scheme to identify and sort the goals found in the empirical material. This scheme includes four goal types: ideological, security, economic, and other. Second, insights from literatures on foreign policy and the behaviour of political parties are used to analyze the content and importance of ideological goals. The research design used in the dissertation is comparative case studies. The empirical material is composed of documents from the internal party arena (meeting minutes, congress material, etc), the parliamentary arena (debate material) and the official arena (press material). The material has been analyzed mainly qualitatively with the help of ideational and argument analysis. In order to estimate the relative importance of ideological goals quantitative content analysis has also been used. As regards the content of ideological goals during debates about Vietnam, the empirical results show all parties discussed the promotion of humanity, democracy and states’ rights to national independence. In the Iraq conflict, all parties expressed goals about humanity, human rights, internal security/safety, democracy and states’ rights to national independence. Beyond these goals, individual or a few parties also expressed other ideological goals. However, a central result is that the parties have linked the ideological goals – which they often agree about – to different ways of reasoning. The empirical analysis also revealed that ideological goals have generally been more important than other types of goals (with the exception of the Conservative Party in the debate about Vietnam). Regarding developments over time, the importance of ideological goals was unchanged for the Social Democrats and the Liberal Party. For the Left there was a slight decrease, and for the Conservatives a significant increase. The overall conclusion about what explains the content and importance of ideological goals in the foreign policy debates studied here is that explanations at the systemic level are inadequate. Variables like the international political structure (polarity) and institutional mechanisms in the EU and the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy had little explanatory power. Instead, explanations like type of foreign policy issue, party ideology and party strategy were more useful. Differences in parties’ fundamental ideological views were also discussed as an important source of difference as regards the positions and arguments that expressed ideological goals.

Introduction: The aim of the present thesis is to determine the line of argument presented by the clergy of the Swedish State Church in the parliamentary debates regarding the forms of census registrations during the years 1723-1812. This discussion resulted in a new form of census registration in 1812, according to which the parish registration was accorded a greater importance than before. As a result of vast tax evasion, demands were put forth by the authorities that the clergy should be compelled to hand over the parish catechetical registries. The clergy was here faced with a conflict of loyalty between the state and their parishes. To structurally examine the line of argument of the clergy may not only clarify how this conflict was met by the clergy, but also serve as an illustration of the relationship between church and state in 18th century Sweden. The effects of the form of census registration of 1812 on the parish catechetical registries are also touched briefly upon.    Method: To fullfill this aim, the parliamentary records of the clergy have been examined and analysed in accordance with the methods of argumentation analysis presented in Vedung (1971). Secondary sources regarding the historical circumstances surrounding the parliamentary debates of 1723-1812 have been utilized as well.           Analysis: In the analysis the individual arguments presented by the clergy have been distinguished according to three levels: description, evaluation and recommended course of action. These levels are furthermore presented schematically, so as to comprehensively illustrate the line of argumentation.   Results: The results of the endeavour show that the representatives of the church and state did not agree as to the legitimate extent of the state’s influence in church matters. The clergy defended the Lutheran idea of separation between church and state power, despite the fact that contemporary canon law asserted an almost unbreakable bond between church and state authority. This is a two years master’s thesis in Archival Science.

Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att analysera hur förskolan, barn och familjen uppfattas i den mediala debatten om obligatorisk förskola. Studien lägger ett särskilt fokus på argumenten som är centrala i debatten som förs i svenska dagstidningar. Med verktyg från argumentationsanalysen som teoretiskt och metodologisk utgångspunkt kommer aktörernas argument att analyseras utifrån en pro et contra perspektiv. Det empiriska underlaget som är utgångspunkt för denna studie är debattartiklar som publicerats i svenska dagstidningar som debatterar obligatorisk förskolas vara eller icke vara. Empirin har analyserats genom en argumentationsanalys som presenteras tematiskt i resultatet. En betydelsefull teoretisk utgångspunkt i studien har varit argumentationsteoretiska idéer om hur en kan aktör kan använda argumenterande strategier för att påverka en mottagare.Resultatet pekar på att det finns en allmän uppfattning i debattartiklarna att barn behöver skydd, sociala sammanhang, utveckling och lärande och trygga vuxna. Hur och var barnens behov tillgodoses är argumentationens kontrovers. Det framkommer även att aktörer på båda sidorna i debatten upplever att förskolans brister måste åtgärdas samt att familjens position i samhället utmanas av förslaget om obligatorisk förskola. Resultatet pekar även mot att barn till nyanlända anses ha behov av statliga instanser och resurser som staten bör besluta om, men att det inte bör påverka svenska barn eller barn med autismdiagnoser och deras familjer. / The aim of this essay is to analyze how preschool, children and the family are perceived in the media debate on compulsory preschool. The study places a special focus on the arguments that are dominant in the debate conducted in Swedish newspapers. With tools from the argument analysis as a theoretical and methodological starting point, the agents arguments will be analyzed from a pro et contra perspective.The empirical material that is the basis for this study is debate articles published in Swedish newspapers that debate compulsory preschools being or not being. The empiric has been analyzed through an argumentation analysis that is presented thematically in the result. An important theoretical basis of the study has been the argument theoretical ideas about how an agent can use argumentative strategies to influence a recipient.The results indicate that there is a general perception in debate articles that children need safety, social contexts, development and learning and adults present. How and where the children's needs are met is the controversy of the debate. It also emerges that agents on both sides of the debate feel that the preschool's shortcomings must be remedied and that the family's position in society is challenged by the proposal for compulsory preschool. The results also indicate that children of immigrants are considered to need government agencies and resources that the state should decide on, but the government agencies should not affect the Swedish children or children with autism diagnoses and their families.

Vilka teman och argument blir centrala i det politiska talet vid en krissituation? Vilka retoriska grepp tillämpas? Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka detta genom en argumentationsanalys av Hosni Mubaraks tre sista tal som president under den arabiska våren i Egypten 2011. Tillsammans med en teoretisk utgångspunkt i propagandastudier och retorik studeras tre centrala teman i talen; ansvarsutkrävande, fredlig maktöverföring och talarens etos. För att sätta dessa teman i sitt sammanhang har demonstranternas slagord använts som utgångspunkt för att illustrera motargument. Resultatet av denna undersökning visar att beviskraften i Mubaraks argument är genomgående svag på grund av att de propagandastrategier och retoriska grepp som tillämpas inte anpassas efter situationen. / What themes and arguments gain importance in political discourse at times of crisis? What kind of rethorics are applied? This thesis aims to study these issues through an argument analysis of Hosni Mubarak's last three speeches as the president of Egypt during the Arabic Spring in 2011. With the use of a theoretical framework based in rethorics and propaganda the thesis analyzes three central themes in the speeches; the demand for accountability, the peaceful transition of power and the speaker's ethos. In order to position theses themes in the wider debate the slogans of the protesters have been used to create counter arguments. The thesis finds that the overall probative in Mubarak's theses and arguments is very weak due to lack of adaption of propaganda strategies and rethorical measures to the requirments of the situation.