After the Cold War, Sweden transformed into a global arms exporter, establishing international defense collaborations with various partners worldwide. The regulations governing Sweden's arms exports are rooted in national values of peace, equality, and democracy, along with specific guidelines for defense exports. Despite the importance of these values, Sweden has continued to export weapons to non-democratic countries, contradicting its professed principles. To limit the arms exports to non-democratic countries, a democracy criterion was implemented in Sweden 2018. However, despite this measure, weapons have continued to be exported to countries that are, according to the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (among other sources), non-democratic. This study applies institutional theory to analyze the motivations of various actors behind the ongoing arms exports despite the introduction of the democracy criterion. It is observed that the criterion proves susceptible to circumvention due to its weak formulation, allowing for loopholes and freedom of interpretation. Through a qualitative content analysis of primary sources, the study delves into understanding how Sweden motivates the continued arms exports to non-democratic countries and why the democracy criterion since 2018 has not been complied with. The study's findings indicate that the democracy criterion has not limited the arms exports to non-democratic countries, such as India and Pakistan. The study concludes that Sweden's reluctance to terminate existing collaborations, reflects a strategic decision to prioritize defense and security interests over professed values. Despite the democracy criterion introduced in 2018, Sweden appears to work against their own professed values by continuing arms exports to non-democratic countries.

This study deals with the quality of democracy, and its purpose is to examine which factors affect the varying levels of the quality of democracy in the stable democracies in the world. The research question posited in the study is: what explains the varying levels of the quality of democracy in the democratic countries in the world, and do political institutions matter? Theoretically, the quality of democracy is distinguished from other similar concepts employed in comparative politics, and what the quality of democracy stands for is clarified. The quality of democracy is defined in this study as: the level of legitimacy in a democratic system with respect to democratic norms such as political participation, political competition, political equality, and rule of law. In total, four dimensions of the quality of democracy are included that are considered to be very important dimensions of the quality of democracy. These dimensions are political participation, political competition, political equality, and the rule of law. To explain the variation in the quality of democracy, an explanatory model has been developed. The explanatory model consists of five different groups of independent variables: political institutional variables, socioeconomic variables, cultural variables, historical variables, and physical variables. Methodologically, a large-n, outcome-centric research design is employed and statistical analysis is used to examine what effect the five groups of independent variables have on the four dimensions of the quality of democracy. Empirically, the results show that cultural variables and political institutional variables outperform socioeconomic, historical, and physical variables in relation to their effect on the quality of democracy. Consequently, cultural and political institutional variables are the two most important groups of variables when explaining the variation in the quality of democracy in the democratic countries in the world. In relation to the other groups of variables, historical variables are slightly more important than socioeconomic variables when explaining the variation in the quality of democracy. The physical variables constitute the group of variables that has the least importance out of the five groups of variables when explaining the variation in the quality of democracy. In summary, the findings from the study show that the best way of increasing the level of the quality of democracy may be to choose political institutions such as parliamentarism as the executive power system and a proportional system as the electoral system. To put this clearly, to increase the possibility of democratic countries achieving a high level of the quality of democracy they should avoid majority electoral systems and presidential or semipresidential executive systems.

The storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, came to shock the entire world. An angry mob of Trump supporters had, after months of encouragement from President Trump, attacked the heart of American democracy in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The attempt failed, when a new president, Joe Biden, was inaugurated on January 20, 2021. The aim of this case study is to create an understanding of how President Donald Trump, his administration and allied Republicans tried to overthrow American democracy in connection with the 2020 presidential election, and why they didn’t succeed. Using Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt's 2018 book “How Democracies Die” as the theoretical framework of the thesis, an ideal-type definition of “how to overthrow a democracy” was formed. Based on this ideal-type definition, the source material, consisting of documents, social media posts, newspaper reports and transcribed speeches, was examined. The results indicate that President Trump largely fulfilled almost all signs and variables of the ideal-type definition, by spreading disinformation to systematically undermine election results, interfering with and pressuring institutions, such as the DOJ, to accept conspiracy theories of election fraud, inciting large-scale protests, refusing to condemn threats against government officials and refusing to stop the attack of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The results also indicate that democracy survived mostly because of the brave civil servants and politicians who, even under threat, secured the election result and protected the democratic institutions during the 2020 presidential election and on January 6, 2021. But even though it's been a year since Trump's attempt to overturn the election results, democracy is still under attack. Trump´s strong hold on the Republican Party has resulted in, for example, the exclusion of Republicans who stood against Trump´s attempt to overthrow American democracy and the introduction of new election laws that make it harder for people to vote.