At the end of 2016, the Swedish petroleum and biofuel company Preem applied for an environmental permit to convert high-sulfur bunker oil to low-sulfur petrol and diesel at Preemraff Lysekil. Something that required an expansion of the refinery. The process ended abruptly in September 2020 when Preem chose to withdraw their application. In connection with the process, two actor coalitions were formed, with one being for an expansion and the other against. Both coalitions had the explicit goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preventing climate change. The difference, however, was their view on whether this could be achieved thanks to an expansion of Preemraff Lysekil, or if it could only happen without it. Through their actions the coalitions have tried to influence the policy process in a direction that is desirable for them. This study aims to systematically map the coalitions and their actions and contribute to a deeper understanding of their actions and impact on the process of the planned expansion project of Preemraff Lysekil. The study is designed as a qualitative case study and is based on The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which can be used to explain and understand beliefs and policy change when multiple actors are involved in a policy process. According to the ACF, actors who share similar policy core beliefs come together in coalitions to increase the chances of policy change. The study also uses urban regime theory to understand the informal and unspoken agenda between Preemraff Lysekil and Lysekil municipality. The results from previous research show several common denominators with the Preemraff Lysekil case. The analysis shows that the actors who were against an expansion had similar deep core beliefs and consistent policy core beliefs, they also had a consensus on how the policy change should be implemented. They have tried to influence the process by appealing court decisions and tried to get the Swedish government to take over the assessment of the application, which also happened. The analysis shows that the actors who were in favor of an expansion had more dispersed deep core beliefs but were consistent in their policy core beliefs and secondary beliefs. They have made attempts to stop the government from taking over the case from the court. As these attempts have been unsuccessful, they instead tried to get the government to allow an expansion. By using different forms of resources, both coalitions have tried to get the public and decision-makers to support their own proposal for policy change, with varying results. What ultimately led Preem to withdraw the application is not clarified. Maybe the pressure from those who were against an expansion became too powerful, maybe the COVID-19 pandemic left such a big mark on international production chains and the global market that an expansion was no longer profitable. There is also a possibility that Preem's decision is based on both parts, but we will probably never know.

This thesis investigates the role of discourse in our understanding of environmental issues, using an argumentative discourse analytical approach developed by Maarten Hajer. The case under study is the public debate around the Preem refinery expansion in the Swedish town of Lysekil, which mainly took place between 2019–2020. Particularly interesting about this case was the puzzling fact that all actors involved used climate-change mitigation as their main argument, regardless of being for or against the expansion, thus signalling differences in problem perception and representation. The ensuing public debate furthermore provided the opportunity to study Swedish environmental discourse in a non-traditional political arena. The results show the existence of four distinct discourses in the debate: one reformist, one pragmatic, one legalist, and one industrialist. All four refer to climate-change in their arguments but use it to promote different and conflicting actions. Interestingly, the results also show that both the reformist and the industrialist discourses were equally frequent in the debate, indicating the presence of two dominant discourses rather than one. Furthermore, despite the reformist being strictly anti-expansion and the industrialist being for expansion, they showed similarities in their ideological standpoints. Both discourses showed signs of ecomodernism, indicating a diversity within the Swedish ecomodernist discourse. Lastly, I conclude that the different discourses can be understood through the concept of discursive closure, where the ambiguity and simplification of concepts like climate-change lead actors to interpret it differently despite agreeing on the realness and severity of the issue.

Industrisektorn står inför omfattande omställningsutmaningar i samband med dess höga klimat- och miljöpåverkan. Trots att en omställning av fossilintensiva industrier är högst nödvändig är samhället fortfarande beroende av dem på flera sätt eftersom de bidrar till viktiga samhällsfunktioner, arbetstillfällen och produkter. Omställningar är ofta omtvistade, där framför allt klimat- och miljöfördelar ställs mot ekonomiska och sociala nackdelar. Detta har skapat en debatt om hur omställningsarbetet ska genomföras på ett rättvist sätt. Rättvis omställning är ett koncept som ska minimera de negativa effekterna som omställningar kan resultera i och samtidigt maximera de positiva effekterna. Både EU och Sverige har politiska ambitioner för att underlätta genomförandet av en rättvis omställning, exempelvis genom den gröna given, fonden för rättvis omställning och nationella styrmedel. Syftet med denna studie är att utforska hur rättvis omställning speglas i debatten kring omställningen av svensk industri. Mer specifikt kommer åsikter om de två fossilintensiva industrierna Cementa och Preemraff att undersökas genom att analysera delar av mediedebatten. För att undersöka aktörernas åsikter har kvalitativa innehållsanalyser och intervjuer genomförts. Studien visar att motståndarna till industrierna framför allt lyfter argument om den negativa klimat- och miljöpåverkan som industrierna har, medan förespråkarna främst lyfter argument kopplat till negativa ekonomiska och samhällsmässiga effekter som en omställning kan innebära. Även om åsikterna går isär kring hur omställningen av fossilintensiva industrier ska genomföras på ett rättvis sätt belyser vår studie vikten av att beakta olika perspektiv i omställningar. / Deep decarbonization of fossil-intensive industries will be necessary to keep global warming well below 2°C. However, industries play an important role considering their contribution to jobs, local society, and necessary materials. Industries multifaceted advantages and disadvantages often result in infected debates considering how a just transition should be implemented. Just transition is a concept where the negative impacts a transition could result in should be minimized and simultaneously maximize the positive effects. There are political ambitions in both the EU and Sweden to facilitate a just transition, for example through the European Green Deal, the fund for a just transition and national policy instruments. The aim of this study is to explore how a just transition is framed in parts of the media debate concerning transitions of Swedish fossil-intensive industries. More specifically the study investigates the opinions about the two fossil-intensive industries, Cementa and Preemraff. This has been made possible to investigate through qualitative content analysis and interviews. The analysis shows that opponents to the industries mainly highlight the negative climate and environmental impacts while the advocates mostly highlight social and economic concerns. Even though the opinions about how a just transition of industries should be made differs, our study illustrates the importance of implementing justice in the transition process of fossil-intensive industries.