ABSTRACT The study is an analysis of the politic debate about the decentralising of the public school between the years 1946 and 1990. The problem that the essay is about to study is which reason made the decentralising take place. The texts that have been read, interpreted and reconstructed are propositions, motions and written debates in the parliament. The purpose of the study is to examine the discussion about the schools decentralising in 1946-1990. The aim is also to examine what kind of pro- and contra arguments that are shown in the debate and who the interveners are and why they made a statement. The result is divided into three parts where education, organisation and financial questions categorize the arguments.   An analysis model, performed by setting pro arguments and contra argument for themselves as Arne Naess model, carries out the model of the analysis.  The results that the study has come up with is that the Government and the Education Committee was the proposal to municipalize school, while the other parties were not in complete agreement. No party clearly said no to the proposal but felt that the proportion was sloppily done and very ambiguous. The reasons that existed for the decentralization was financial, educational and organizational.

<h1>ABSTRACT</h1><p>The study is an analysis of the politic debate about the decentralising of the public school between the years 1946 and 1990. The problem that the essay is about to study is which reason made the decentralising take place. The texts that have been read, interpreted and reconstructed are propositions, motions and written debates in the parliament. The purpose of the study is to examine the discussion about the schools decentralising in 1946-1990. The aim is also to examine what kind of pro- and contra arguments that are shown in the debate and who the interveners are and why they made a statement. The result is divided into three parts where education, organisation and financial questions categorize the arguments.   An analysis model, performed by setting pro arguments and contra argument for themselves as Arne Naess model, carries out the model of the analysis. </p><p>The results that the study has come up with is that the Government and the Education Committee was the proposal to municipalize school, while the other parties were not in complete agreement. No party clearly said no to the proposal but felt that the proportion was sloppily done and very ambiguous. The reasons that existed for the decentralization was financial, educational and organizational.</p>

The debate concerning if Sweden should move closer to NATO or even apply for membership is not entirely new. Due to Russia´s annexation of the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine in the spring of 2014, and due to Russians violations of national territory, Swedish political actors have discussed the NATO membership energetically. The purpose of this essay is to map out the Swedish debate about NATO membership. By applying a Pro-Contra analysis this essay will also examine arguments from the swedish parties, members of parliament, debaters, researchers and former Secretary of State. Furthermore, the arguments will also be analyzed through theories of realism and liberalism. The debate for a NATO membership shows that arguments are based on a combination of both realism and liberalism, although there are more arguments influenced by liberalism. The arguments against a NATO membership are mainly characterized by realism rather than liberalism.

The debate concerning if United Kingdom should leave or stay in European Union is not entirely new. Due to political, economy and moral reasons have the debate been popular in the country. The purpose of this paper is to map the UK debate on the European Union. By using a Pro-Contrast analysis, this paper will also investigate arguments from Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron who have been prime minister for the country and party leader for the conservative party, Tories. Furthermore, the arguments will also be analyzed through theories of liberalism and realism. The debate for a European Union shows that arguments are based on liberalism and realism. The arguments also show that there here has been a change over two different times with two different political actors.