This essay is about the importance of discussing ethics in political debates. I chose to analyse three of the parliamentary parties in Sweden: Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats), Socialdemokraterna (the Social Democrats) and Liberalerna (the Liberals). I chose to ask the questions:{ Do the three parties’ ethical perspectives correlate to the discussions of one or more of the chosen theories?{   Is one of the theories more common?{  Is there a difference between the parties, if so: what is the differences? By using qualitative classification I studied the party programme and some other documents from each party. I also analysed two parliamentary debates. One was between the leaders of the parties when discussion immigration and the other was about the Panama papers. The ethical theories I chose as a theoretical base were utilitarism, ethics of duty, rights ethics and contractual ethics. In order to get an eassier way of comparing them I also chose four areas of comparison: view on humanity, preferred culture in society, method of governing and hierarchy of values.During the essay I discovered that all three parties had at least part of their ethics in common with each theory. Contractual and rights ethics were the most reoccurring ones for all three. Sverigedemokraterna and Liberalerna had slightly more in common with rights ethics, while Socialdemokraterna had a preference towards contractual ethics.