The aim of this study is to investigate how frequently religious actors participate in public debates, on what subjects and with what arguments. This is done by studying the debate pages of Sweden’s largest tabloid: Aftonbladet. Furthermore, the aim is also to study what forms of authority and arguments the religious actors use while participating in the public sphere. In order to answer the research ques-tions the author takes an abductive approach and uses the theories of deprivatiza-tion and mediatization to conduct a sequential mixed method study of Af-tonbladet’s debate page between the years 2001 and 2011. The results show that very few religious actors participate in public debates in Sweden, and that the small sample of articles signed by religious actors are dominated by the Church of Sweden. The Christian groups are represented by religious authorities to a much larger extent than the Jewish and Muslim groups. However, the arguments used by all groups are predominately secular, which would indicate an acceptance of the secular norm in the public sphere.

In March 2018 the Swedish Social Democratic Party presented the election promise to ban faith-based schools. This election promise evoked strong reactions and gave rise to a debate about the role of religion in Swedish schools in many Swedish newspapers. The aim of this bachelor thesis is to explore what arguments that have been utilized in the debate about faith-based schools. Debate articles are here examined using argumentation analysis: Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Expressen and Aftonbladet. The results conclude that the most common arguments in favor of a ban on faith-based schools are: segregation, religious indoctrination, and serious shortcomings in said schools. From the other side of the debate, in defense of faith-based schools, the most common arguments are the following: integration, freedom of religion and high-quality education. An additional aim is to study these arguments using Hjelm’s (2014) explanations of the “New Visibility of Religion”. The analysis reveals that the debate is informed by a secular norm where religion is viewed as something unwelcome in the public eye. The debate is informed by a conflict of how religion ought to be valued, and if it should be viewed as a resource or a problem. Advocates in favor of a ban on faith-based schools claim that these schools constitute a social problem in contemporary society. Defenders of faith-based school, on the other hand, view them as a resource and argue that there today is a great need for faith-based schools. Rather than discussing faith, this debate deals mainly with the question of what role religion should play in today’s society. Religion is visible because it can be good or bad, something that Hjelm (2014) refers to as the ”secular return of religion”. Neoliberal reforms have changed the Swedish School system, which in turn affects the debate. This debate ultimately reveals a conflict of aims regarding the purpose of the Swedish school system and where equality is put against freedom of choice.