This essay examines how responsibility and actions related to climate-related issues are framed inthe media. There is a gap between the public’s attitudes and their actions on climate issues, and this essay aims to broaden the understanding of said gap. The goal is to contribute to the understanding of the public’s reasoning and doxa regarding the responsibility for action on climate issues. The essay is comparative and analyses articles from 2018 and 2021 in four of Sweden’s biggest newspapers. The articles were published on the same day the IPCC reports were published. The IPCC reports are of critical importance to highlight the extent of the current climate crisis. Therefore, the reports contain actual news value and could both influence and contribute to the understanding of how we collectively reason around the necessary actions and responsibilities we bear in regard to the climate. The essay is based on framing theory, topostheory, and theory on doxa. The methods used are framing analysis and close textual reading. Theresults of this study give insight into the fact that the actors assigned responsibility are many and ambiguous. The ambiguous collective “we”, “Sweden” and “the rest of the world”, are the threeagents assigned most responsibility to act. The actions they are assigned are broad and mostly on a global scale, while there is a change of framing in the newspapers from 2018 to 2021. The impact of the framing on the collective doxa and the gap between attitudes and action arediscussed in the essay but more research is needed on the topic. The conclusion of this essay is that we as individuals tend to put a great deal of responsibility on others and the actions to be taken are too challenging for individuals to manage. This along with vague calls for action and a lack of connection between different agents’ actions and how they affect each other couldcontribute to an understanding of why we do not do more about climate-related issues.

I den här uppsatsen görs en jämförelse mellan två aktörer på den klimatpolitiska arenan, den svenska staten och miljörörelsen. Syftet är att jämföra och analysera aktörernas syn på klimatfrågan med särskilt fokus på säkerhetisering och klimaträttvisa i ljuset av ekologisk modernisering som dominerande diskurs i det klimatpolitiska samtalet. Genom en diskursanalys av Sveriges första klimatpolitiska handlingsplan samt textmaterial från Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen och Extinction Rebellion visar denna studie på hur frågor om säkerhet och rättvisa nedprioriteras i statens sätt att prata om klimatfrågan. Detta förstås utifrån att ekologisk modernisering alltmer blivit den dominerande diskursen i svensk klimatpolitik. Det är i jämförelsen med miljörörelsens sätt att prata om klimatfrågan som detta blir som tydligast. / In this thesis, a comparison is made between two actors in the climate policy arena, the Swedish state and the environmental movement. The purpose is to compare and analyze the actors’ perspectives on the climate issue, with a particular focus on securitization and climate justice in the context of ecological modernization as the dominant discourse in the climate policy conversation. Through a discourse analysis of Sweden’s first climate policy action plan, as well as textual material from two different environmental groups in Sweden, Naturskyddsföreningen and Extinction Rebellion, this study demonstrates how issues of security and justice are deprioritized in the state’s discourse of climate issue. This finding is understood in the light of ecological modernization as the dominant discourse in Swedish climate policy. It is in the comparison with the environmental movement’s way of talking about the climate issue that this becomes most evident.