When history is written is often concluded to most people that the version that is being told is the only frame that’s exist, but not only that most readers don´t reflect that the story they reading could have more than one cause and effect. This paper is trying to answer if and if so why seven different authors have different conclusions when they are describing the right to vote reform in Sweden during the period between 1880 and 1918. The papers source material will be from seven books from and they will range from a neutral standpoint to the history by trying to tell the story in a neutral manner to some books witch clearly has a specific angle when describing the process. The specific angle is that they focus on a single organisation or a specific group of people, which could change how the author describe the voting history. The most important conclusion that could be drawn from this study is that most authors have in most cases framed the same narrative when it comes to the voting right history. The story they tell will differentiate a bit, because that the focus they have when writing the book will not be the same, but still some portion of the story will remain the same. Some parts of the voting right history will be excluded and forgotten by most authors and this paper has tried to answer the question why that’s the case.