This study’s main contribution is a theoretical model for analysing parties’ use of deepfakes of their candidates in elections. Research stresses deepfakes’ capacity for disinformation as a challenge for democracies. In the Korean 2022 election, the two main parties used deepfakes of their candidates to communicate with voters. Given deepfakes’ well-studied negative implications, this seems perplexing. Amid this context, this study addresses the question: How can parties ethically use deepfakes of their candidates in elections? Merging AI ethics and deliberative democracy theory, three prerequisites are identified - disclosure of information, civil language, and giving justification - required for adherence to AI ethics and deliberative norms. This model was applied in a content analysis of the deepfake use in the Korean 2022 election. Results indicate strong adherence to the prerequisite of civil language, and partial adherence to disclosure of information and giving justification, and their corresponding AI ethical principles and deliberative norms. The findings suggest AI ethics and deliberative democracy theory are useful for studying the implications of parties' deepfake use. Starting from the premise of deepfakes as morally neutral, this study addresses a gap in the emerging field of deepfake research and highlights areas needing inquiry. If deepfakes become a legitimate communication tool for parties, it raises questions of the implications of such normalisation.

Studien utforskar hur ideal från den deliberativa demokratiteorin speglas i ett svenskt planeringsfall som går att definiera som ett informellt samarbetsnätverk, eller ’soft space in planning’. Syftet med arbetet är att delge en ökad kunskap kring den problematik som kan uppstå när aktörer å ena sidan vill effektivisera planeringsformerna men å andra sidan också måste säkerställa att de demokratiska grunderna vidhålls. Arbetet utgår ifrån deltagandet i och observerandet utav ett exploateringsprojekt i en svensk kommun där kommunen tillsammans med en byggaktör och arkitekt inlett en process utanför den lagstadgade planprocessen för att komma fram till en gemensam vision. Observationerna kompletteras med en intervjustudie där en informant från respektive aktör intervjuats. Sammanfattningsvis visade resultatet att en av grundprinciperna för processen var att skapa en arena för öppen diskussion angående de värden som önskades inkorporeras i platsens utformning. Under processens gång fanns det moment som upprätthöll de deliberativa idealen genom att tillåta alla aktörers representanter en plats i samtalet. Däremot innehöll processen också moment som kunde uppfattas som utmanande för några deltagare vilket riskerade att hämma deras åsiktsutryckande. Sammantaget gav deltagarna en positiv bild av processens genomförande och utfall även om den i vissa aspekter lämnade lite att önska gällande de deliberativa idealens säkerställande. Detta till trots argumenterar arbetet att utfallet kan anses stå på demokratiska grunder även om inte alla deliberativa ideal uppfyllts fullständigt. / The study explores how ideals from deliberative democracy theory are reflected in a Swedish planning case that can be defined as an informal cooperation network, or ‘soft space in planning’. The purpose of the work is to share increased knowledge about the problems that may arise when actors on the one hand want to streamline planning methods, but on the other hand also must maintain the democratic foundations. The work is based on participation in and observation of a development project in a Swedish municipality where the municipality, together with a developer and architect, initiated a process outside the statutory planning process to arrive at a common vision. The observations are supplemented by an interview study in which an informant from each actor was interviewed. In summary, the results showed that one of the basic principles of the process was to create an arena for open discussion regarding the values that were desired to be incorporated into the design of the site. During the process, there were moments that maintained the deliberative ideals by allowing everyone a place in the conversation. However, the process also contained elements that could be perceived as challenging for some participants, which risked inhibiting their expression of opinion. Overall, the participants gave a positive picture of the process's implementation and outcome, even though it left a little to be desired in confirming some aspects of the deliberative ideals. Despite this, the study argues that the outcome can be considered to be on democratic grounds even if not all deliberative ideals were fulfilled completely.