Forestry stands for 12% of the global greenhouse emissions which makes forestry an important policy area for sustainable development. On the 16th of July 2021, the EU’s new forest strategy was released. Since 2018 Sweden has its own forest program. Due to the new EU forest strategy receiving a lot of criticism, it is clear that the forest policy in EU and Sweden have different understandings on the forests' role for sustainable development. This thesis aims to explore how different understandings of a policy problem are expressed in a case of multi-level governance, which in this case is forest policy. To investigate this, we use the method of discourse analysis where the analytical tool applied is Carol Bacchi's “What’s the problem represented to be?”- framework. Our approach consists of four interrelated questions that are asked to the policy documents, which lead to an understanding of how problems are represented as well as which discursive effects these problematizations create. The study shows that the EU and Sweden's forest policies have different understandings on how the forest best should contribute to climate change. These differences create certain discursive effects where the Swedish forest policies to a larger extent benefit the forest industry and the EU forest policy to a larger extent sees the intrinsic value of nature as well as incorporates the indigenous perspective.