This study examines the debates that were held in the LIBE committee between 2018 - 2020 in relation to Polands judicial reforms. EU claims that the reforms are incompliant with the treaty of the european union but Poland have so far not backed down. The situation have exposed problems in how the EU should act when a member state won’t act according to the treaty. And also exposed problems with the practical implementation of article 7. The study utilizes an inductive argumentation analysis and seeks to weigh the evidence, sustainability and relevence of the arguments made by the participants in those debates. The results from this initial analysis will then be analysed from two theoretical standpoints. On Arguments put forward from the EU:s standpoint the theory of normative power will be used. The theory has its focus on EU as a normative power who spreads their values by other means than force or threat of military force. Rather through trade and legally binding agreements that often include human rights commitments. The arguments from Polands standpoint will be analysed using the theory of neoclassical realism. Which goes beyond traditional realism by seeking to explain irrational behavior that don’t correlate with simple utility maximizing theories. The analysis shows that both standpoints of the debate corralates to a large degree with the theories used to analyse them. In doing so it pinpoints a growing problem inside the EU when the big bang expansion of 2004 together with the growing presence of populist opinion makes for a more diversified union compared to the earlier more homogenous one deeply roted in liberal values.