On October 15th, 2017, the American actress Alyssa Milan posted a tweet on the Social Media Platform Twitter which soon would have led to major consequences for people across the globe. Milano urged her followers to comment “#metoo” on the post if they had ever been subjected to sexual harassment or abuse – an action of hers which quickly evolved into a widespread campaign in USA as well as in other countries, there among Sweden. With #metoo's great impact, we now have a unique opportunity to explore today's gender equality debate and feminist discourse based on the new type of networking community. Thus, this study aims – with a comparative as well as a charting intention – to further explore the #metoo phenomenon based on media reporting from the largest daily newspaper in Sweden (Dagens Nyheter) and in the USA (USA Today). The main purpose is to investigate how the journalism takes place in relation to contemporary gender discourse and how it differs between these two countries; which in the long run aims to contribute to increased knowledge about the inherent gender equality issues of #metoo and the discursive image of these problems each media has chosen to reproduce to their fellow residents. The method used in the study is sorted under a qualitative content analysis focusing on the interpretation and understanding of contentive meaningful aspects. Results show that articles from USA Today and Dagens Nyheter differ a lot in how they relate to theoretical concepts of performativity, normalization, power, and a broader understanding of gender structures. Correspondingly, large differences can be identified in how the articles relate – or lack to relate – to a further perception of "a male perpetrator" and "a female victim”. This variation is primarily derived from a lack of structural thinking in relation to perceptions about gender at the expense of a more individual- and celebrity- focused journalistic view but could also be partly correlated to an absent lingua franca within the gender discourse of these two countries.

The main purpose of the dissertation is to describe how four Swedish newspapers construct ethical standpoints and what norms they prescribe. This is done through a characterization of the civil disobedience discourse, in particular the discourse about animal rights activism and militant vegans, around the turn of the millennium (1990-2004). Questions asked are how Swedish newspapers construct civil disobedience, what disobedience is supported and what is condemned, and if the newspapers recognize the complexity of ethical dilemmas and facilitate well-reasoned ethical standpoints. The material studied is gathered from Stockholm-based newspapers: Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Aftonbladet and Expressen. In total 1115 texts. The methods used are a combination of quantitative and qualitative content analysis, where the qualitative analysis is based on rhetorical analysis and narratology. The results show that there are mainly two overarching discourses. One supporting discourse, which is predominant in the representation of campaigns justified by economical issues, human rights, peace/anti-war movement and individual rights. One criminalising or demonising discourse, which is predominant in the constructions of militant vegans, the environmental movement and a campaign justified by democratic reasons in Sweden. In sum, the constructions are characterized by strong polarization, formalisation, ambivalence and a double standard of morality, which risk to circumscribe the understanding of moral dilemmas. The consequence is journalistic constructions where the ends justify the means when the end is a political correct, not defiant norm, or when the end is non political. The dissertation also argues that the concepts, specific words, journalists apply in their representation of social reality risk to set the limits for media representations, as well as for the public's understanding, of the social reality and moral dilemmas.