The purpose of this study is to analyze the Swedish debate about integrity represented by the GDPR regulation. The study focuses on and compares the debate within the parliament and the debate within the media. Critical discourse analysis has been the method used to discover how the debate about GDPR in Sweden has developed and shaped. To interpret the result of the study the political science theories public choice and normative institutionalism have been used. The three most dominant discourses in the debate were the relationship between GDPR and Swedish law, how GDPR affects innovation and economic growth and also insight in how actors collect and handles personal data. It can also be concluded that the debate within the parliament is rather absent due to lack of disagreement. The debate that occurred within the media contains a higher level of conflict and appears to be more dynamic. Both theories used to interpret the result can be, to some extent, useful when trying to understand why the debate turned out the way it did. To gain more understanding about political conflicts concerning integrity within the information society more studies need to be accomplished.