This thesis conducts a critical analysis of editorials and columns in mainstream newspapers during Malaysia's 13th General Election (GE13) campaign. In a country that practises parliamentary democracy but simultaneously observes a close cooperation (Mustafa, 2010, p. 51) between the ruling party and the mainstream press, this study explores the links between the two. The thesis demonstrates the continuing power of the mainstream press in the country. It also explores how a so-called parliamentary democracy can lead to authoritarian rule, as well as the role of the press in this process. Adhering to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) principles, the thesis describes and explains how particular relations of power are enacted, reproduced and legitimized within government-owned media, in this case Malaysia where control is institutionalized. This study specifically focuses on the discursive strategies of legitimation in editorials and columns, and how they present particular narratives or arguments in the interests of the powerful. The thesis offers a greater understanding of the deep ideological structures of mainstream newspapers and, in particular, their construction and (de)legitimisation of the government and opposition during the GE13 campaign. This investigation draws on various methods, from quantitative content analysis to the Discourse-historical Approach (DHA), and insights from a range of disciplines, to examine the discursive features of mainstream newspapers discourse during the GE13 campaign. The main contributions of the thesis are on theoretical, methodological and empirical grounds. It contributes to the body of knowledge on political communication research by focusing on the Asian-Malaysian context and moving away from Western-centric models that often overlook the key element of culture. The application of the DHA provides a novel and valuable contribution to the understanding of Malaysian election communication discourse through its interdisciplinary methods and analyses. The empirical investigation provides conclusive evidence that revolves around the issues of the perversion of developmental journalism, race/ethnicity, Islam and its abuses, as well as change and time. This thesis also reviews and reveals the extent to which the press in Malaysia is controlled, dominated and manipulated, thereby challenging those, including the ruling elite, who have claimed that Malaysia is a democratizing nation state.

<p>The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the Swedish debate regarding genetically modified food products. What does the moral disagreements within this debate entail? In which way would it be possible to obtain and maintain a true dialogue? Is consensus a plausible or even a desirable goal? Can communicative ethics contribute? These questions are analysed in this research project.</p><p>The project focuses on three themes of the debate on genetically modified food 1990-2000 in Sweden. The first theme is in relation to the concepts: natural and unnatural. Within the debate on genetically modified food, there have been various wide ranging arguments on whether or not genetic modification is natural or unnatural. </p><p>The second theme concerns the concepts of risk and benefit. Safety questions and possible risks and benefits have been subjects of discussion and debate for a long time. This analysis highlights the way risks or benefits are valued. What does it mean if something is a risk? </p><p>The third theme concerns the argumentations regarding democracy, mostlyin relation to labelling discussions. Democracy is used to describe freedom of choice, another argumentation focuses on the right to be a part of the decision making process.</p><p>The last part of the thesis discusses the question whether communicative ethics can contribute to obtain dialogue between various parties, and whether consensus is possible or even a desirable as a goal. How would this function in a debate where there is an ethical disagreement based on divergent ethical standpoints? </p>

<p>Sweden's government says in the bill 2008/09: 140 that military service should be suspended and replaced with a system based on voluntary recruitment. In the essay, I will make an argument analysis of the parliamentary debate on the bill from the 12th of June 2009 with the following questions: On what is the different side’s argument based on? Are the arguments essentially and factually substantiated? Is there a clear political party tendency among the for-/counter arguments? The method is a "Pro et contra" analysis, a logical systematization of the arguments. The analysis will take start in the headline; Conscription should be suspended in favour of a voluntary system based on contract employed soldiers. The presentation of arguments in the analysis will be guided by the chronological order. The main argument against the bill is a belief that this system will generate greater costs. Furthermore, results from studies performed on other countries that have recently changed from compulsory military service to contract employed soldiers shows difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff in a voluntary system. Moreover it is noted that the increase in battle readiness that this new system means, would be completely unjustified in view of prevailing threats against Sweden. Finally, it is argued that the common support is at risk when Sweden's defence affairs no longer become an obligation for every individual to contribute. The arguments for the bill believe that we need forces that are fit to use and available, to meet the new threats that is emerging and in which Sweden's participation in international missions is the focal point. The conflict in the debate is based mostly in the ideological distinctions and as a result of these also economic contradictions. As a direct consequence of this, most of the arguments are not substantiated with facts. However, there is traceability to arguments that historically have been used to justify the introduction of either of the systems. There is a clear party political tendency in the debate. Government parties stay united and the opposition parties are slightly more dispersed in their argumentation but still against the bill.</p>

The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the Swedish debate regarding genetically modified food products. What does the moral disagreements within this debate entail? In which way would it be possible to obtain and maintain a true dialogue? Is consensus a plausible or even a desirable goal? Can communicative ethics contribute? These questions are analysed in this research project. The project focuses on three themes of the debate on genetically modified food 1990-2000 in Sweden. The first theme is in relation to the concepts: natural and unnatural. Within the debate on genetically modified food, there have been various wide ranging arguments on whether or not genetic modification is natural or unnatural. The second theme concerns the concepts of risk and benefit. Safety questions and possible risks and benefits have been subjects of discussion and debate for a long time. This analysis highlights the way risks or benefits are valued. What does it mean if something is a risk? The third theme concerns the argumentations regarding democracy, mostlyin relation to labelling discussions. Democracy is used to describe freedom of choice, another argumentation focuses on the right to be a part of the decision making process. The last part of the thesis discusses the question whether communicative ethics can contribute to obtain dialogue between various parties, and whether consensus is possible or even a desirable as a goal. How would this function in a debate where there is an ethical disagreement based on divergent ethical standpoints?

Sweden's government says in the bill 2008/09: 140 that military service should be suspended and replaced with a system based on voluntary recruitment. In the essay, I will make an argument analysis of the parliamentary debate on the bill from the 12th of June 2009 with the following questions: On what is the different side’s argument based on? Are the arguments essentially and factually substantiated? Is there a clear political party tendency among the for-/counter arguments? The method is a "Pro et contra" analysis, a logical systematization of the arguments. The analysis will take start in the headline; Conscription should be suspended in favour of a voluntary system based on contract employed soldiers. The presentation of arguments in the analysis will be guided by the chronological order. The main argument against the bill is a belief that this system will generate greater costs. Furthermore, results from studies performed on other countries that have recently changed from compulsory military service to contract employed soldiers shows difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff in a voluntary system. Moreover it is noted that the increase in battle readiness that this new system means, would be completely unjustified in view of prevailing threats against Sweden. Finally, it is argued that the common support is at risk when Sweden's defence affairs no longer become an obligation for every individual to contribute. The arguments for the bill believe that we need forces that are fit to use and available, to meet the new threats that is emerging and in which Sweden's participation in international missions is the focal point. The conflict in the debate is based mostly in the ideological distinctions and as a result of these also economic contradictions. As a direct consequence of this, most of the arguments are not substantiated with facts. However, there is traceability to arguments that historically have been used to justify the introduction of either of the systems. There is a clear party political tendency in the debate. Government parties stay united and the opposition parties are slightly more dispersed in their argumentation but still against the bill.

A chamada hermenêutica tradicional tem se mostrado impotente desde a Constituição de Weimar em acompanhar e explicar a transformação por que passaram as Constituições no século XX. Por outro lado, a moderna metodologia de interpretação da Constituição ampliou demasiadamente a importância do fator político, empobrecendo a consistência jurídica da Constituição, conduzindo a sua concretização a um estado de crise. Porém, não é possível desprezar as novas metodologias, especialmente naqueles países onde a democracia está longe de resolver as questões sociais. A Metódica Estruturante de Friedrich Müller, inserindo-se no rol das novas metodologias, intenta superar a deficiência verificada nas modernas teorias, assim como nas teorias tradicionais. Desenvolveu-se ela com base na experiência constitucional alemã e tratou de inúmeros temas da teoria jurídica, aproveitando o presente trabalho apenas o núcleo metodológico principal dessa teoria, a sua metódica jurídica, que consiste precisamente em uma particular concepção de estrutura da norma, que se revela num processo de concreção normativa. Pretende-se realizar o estudo dessa metódica, aplicando-a às decisões proferidas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal no âmbito da ordem econômica, de modo a verificar conclusivamente a conformidade ou não dessa teoria com o modo como os magistrados da Corte Suprema estruturam seus votos. Assim, o objeto de trabalho da análise é a argumentação jurídica e a pergunta que se fará é, por um lado, em que medida a metódica estruturante descreve a organização argumentativa das decisões do STF e, de outro lado, em que medida apresenta-se estruturada a argumentação jurídica das decisões do STF à luz da metódica. Ao final, conclui-se que as decisões proferidas pelo Supremo não adotam um padrão de organização que siga um modelo estruturado como aquele erigido pela Metódica Estruturante / Since the Weimar Constitution, the so called Traditional Hermeneutics has been incapable of dealing with the changes occurred in the XX century constitutions. On the other hand, the modern theories have excessively enlarged the boundaries of interpretation, leading to a critical situation in this sector. Friedrich Müller theory, in spite of being a modern theory, intends to overcome these mentioned deficiencies. It was developed within the German constitutional experience and only the main core of it, the law methodic, will be important for the purposes of this work. Therefore, the objective of this work is to apply Müllers law methodic to the decisions taken by the Brazilian Supreme Court in the field of constitutional economic order. At the end, the work concluded that the Brazilian Supreme Court decisions, in the field of the constitutional economic order, do not comply with a structural model of decisions like the one developed by Friedrich Müller.

A case study of the conservative and allegedly climate denying think tank American Enterprise Institute and its usage of climate policy delaying discourse. By applying William Lamb et al.'s model of the discourse climate delay, this essay seeks to describe and analyse if and how American Enterpise Institute uses climate delaying discourse. The study is based on published texts from the American Enterprise Institute and the analysis is performed in two steps. Firstly, by conducting an argumentation analysis using the Toulmin model on the material to discern the main arguments of the texts. Secondly, by applying Lamb et al.'s model on the arguments to discern if any of the climate policy delaying discourses are used. This study finds that almost all of Lamb et al.'s described discourses are used by the think tank and that they are used in several different ways and with different implications. This study can expand the understanding of how climate denial focused on climate policy manifests and how climate delaying discourse is used. Moreover, the results of this study further proves what previous research has indicated: That climate denialists are changing tactics and are focusing on how to affect climate policy for their own benefit.

Internet has created an opportunity for people to communicate with a larger audience and some internet users have become famous based on what they share on social media. These people are defined as influencers which includes people with a large group of followers on different social media platforms. The rise of influencers has created new marketing opportunities for brands. While being exposed in influencers pictures or videos they can reach out to their target group. However, this new situation has created a rhetoric problem. The influencers must maintain their own personal brand while marketing another brand simultaneously. This study therefore aims to investigate which rhetoric techniques influencers, more specific YouTubers, use to maintain their own personal brand in the new context. While studying a marketing campaign created by United Screens for the brand Bic Soleil Bella, I did a rhetoric analysis of the YouTubers content where the product was exposed. The result showed that the YouTubers within the study use the same rhetoric techniques as in videos where no paid marketing collaboration was involved. Some of the YouTubers also created a situation where the product becomes relevant to their own personal brand.

Abortlagen är en fråga som väcker diskussion världen över. Irland har länge haft en av världens strängaste abortlagar men efter en folkomröstning 2018 kom lagen att ändras och är nu ersatt med vad som kallas en mer liberal abortlag. I Sverige har den allmänna diskursen kring nyheten på Irland, genom de etablerade medierna, rapporterats som ett steg i rätt riktning mot ett mer jämställt samhälle (Wendick, 2018). Bland många av de länder i Europa som har stränga abortlagar präglas både politiken och medierna av värdekonservativa ideologier (UI, 2016; UI, 2017). Vi vill därför forska i hur Världen idag, ett värdekonservativt kristet alternativmedium, framställer Irlands beslut att avskaffa abortlagen och hur de förhåller sig till journalistiska ideal. Det teoretiska ramverket för studien presenteras under kapitel två där vi redogör för de teorier och den forskning som ligger till grund för vår undersökning. Vi använder Foucaults diskursteori som förklarar de outtalade regler som finns i sociala sammanhang för att studera diskursen kring lagändringen om abort. Tidigare forskning inom området rörande medier och journalistik tas också upp. Genom att analysera det empiriska materialet med kritisk diskursanalys på textnivå har vi kunnat identifiera tre delteman hos texterna, vilka är: “Kvinnans perspektiv”, “Kyrkornas minskade inflytande” samt “Generationsskiftet”. Dessa delteman har hjälpt oss redogöra för texternas huvudsakliga innehåll. Med argumentationsanalys har vi urskilt tre teser utifrån de identifierade delteman för att sedan studera vilka argument som varit för eller mot teserna. Vi kunde med hjälp av metoden redogöra för vilka påståenden som ingår i artiklarna och studera dess underliggande mening och värderingar. När vi undersökt hur Irlands beslut att avskaffa abortlagen framställs i nyhetsmediet Världen idag har vi genom våra metoder funnit tecken som tyder på att tidningen ställer sig emot lagändringen. Rapporteringen kring den ändrade abortlagen genomsyras av att det är en negativ utveckling för landet. Genom att studera texterna med diskursanalys på textnivå och se till ordval och formuleringar har vi kommit fram till att abort omnämns i en negativt laddad språklig kontext och frågan utifrån kvinnans perspektiv är frånvarande. Generationsskiftet och kyrkornas minskade inflytande beskrivs som anledningar till att abortlagen röstades igenom. Genom att studera texterna med argumentationsanalys kunde vi se hur nej-sidan till abort fått mer utrymme att komma till tals och att argumenten förts till deras fördel. Världen idags ställningstagande i frågan om lagändringen blir tydlig. Det visar sig på det sätt texterna är formulerade och till hur mycket talutrymme ja- respektive nej-sidan får. / The abortion law is an issue that raises discussion worldwide. Ireland has been one of the most conservative nations in the world concerning abortion laws. After a referendum in 2018 the law was reformed and now serves as liberal abortion law. The mainstream media discourse in Sweden has been reporting the law reform as a step towards a more equal society (Wendick, 2018). Among other European nations with strict abortion laws both the politics and the media is characterized by value conservative ideologies (UI, 2016; UI, 2017). Therefore, we want to investigate how Världen idag, a value conservative Christian alternative media, report and features Ireland's decision to abolish the abortion law and how this can be related to the journalistic ideals. The theoretical framework in this study is presented in chapter two whereas we describe a various of theories and researches that is central for our issue. We are using Foucault's discourse theory which explains the unspoken rules we are reproducing in social contexts, this to highlight the discourses concerning the abortion law reform on Ireland. Previous research that has been made regarding media and journalism is also presented in our study. By analyzing the empirical material with a critical discourse analysis (CDA) on text level we have been able to identify three sub-themes in the texts which are: “woman’s perspective”, ”the church diminished influence” and “the generational shift”. The sub-themes helped us describe the main content of the texts. By applying argumentation analysis we have distinguished three theses based on the identified sub-themes. We could then identify what statements that has been made to understand the underlying values of the texts. In our research on how Världen idag frames Ireland’s decision to abolish their abortion law we have found signs that indicates on that the news media is against the law change. The reporting concerning the reformed abortion law permeated by insinuating values claiming it to be a negative development for the nation. By analyzing the articles with CDA on text level we been able to conclude that abortion is mentioned in a negatively context whereas woman’s perspective is absent. The generational shift and the reduced influence of the churches visualizes the main reasons why the new abortion law was voted for. The argumentation analysis indicated that the abortion opponents had more access to express themselves and their argumentation was presented in their favor in the texts. The stance taken by Världen idag is clear partly by the formulations of the texts and also by the varying opportunity to speak for the yes- and the no- side.

The aim of this study was to, through an analyze of court orders, gain a more profound understanding of how the Swedish Migration Courts argue and relate to credibility and reliability in the decision assessment for asylum-seeking LGBTQ people. The court orders used in the study was all rejected by the Swedish Migration Court and appealed to the Swedish Migration Supreme Court. The study is of an hermeneutic and qualitative perspective and an argumentation analysis of the court orders was conducted. The results show that the Swedish Migration Courts use both international-and Swedish law and guidelines as support and basis when they argue in the asylum assessments. They also use value-added words to reinforce their arguments. The critical perception of the asylum process presented by previous research can be understood to some extent. It is also possible to see that some criticism is unfounded, as more perspectives should be taken into consideration. Some gaps in knowledge about LGBTQ issues can be seen and therefore better guidelines may be necessary.