No description available.

The purpose of this study has been to find out if the Christian Democratic Party of Sweden have changed their policy in their fundamental questions of value. In order to do this, I have based my study upon the following two questions: 1. How did the Christian Democracy's view and politics look at the issue of abortion? 2. How did Christian Democracy's family policy and view of family look like? The reason for choosing these two issues – the Christian Democratic Party’s abortion stance and family policy – is because these two issues are the founding core of the ideology that is known as Christian democracy – family and dignity. In order to answer my questions, I have chosen to go through parliamentary bills at the website of the swedish parliament. There I found bills from the Christian Democratic Party in the issues of abortion and family between the years 1985 and 1998. I have chosen a qualitative method and with that method dived into the archives of the swedish parliament. The reason for chosing a qualitative method has been because that method relies on the possibility of reaching results by analyzing words rather than numbers, which is preferable as this study intends to analyze and interpret what Christian Democratic MPs have written in their parliamentary bills. With the qualitative method, I have gone through the motions and focused on writing about abortion legislation and the right to life when it comes to abortion, and staying in daycare versus children in home care when it comes to family policy. The study shows that the Christian Democratic Party of Sweden did infact radically change in some core issues like the abortion stance when, for example, they supported the abortion legislation. They have also increasingly come to focus on the abortion and pregnancy prevention work. The Christian Democratic family policy, however, has proved to be more consistent, although here too, some pragmatism has been shown, for example when it comes to testing the need for child allowance for certain groups.

<p>This paper concerns the freedom of speech in our democracy and the principles underlying the restrictions. The study is aimed at using a descriptive theory to provide a useful basis for analyzing a justification of the role behind freedom of speech and its limitations. The analysis is made on the basis of the Swedish parliament debate in the form of motions and the non-governmental organization Swedish Helsinki Committee's report. The study has a focus on the law of hate speech and will be done with an idea centred analysis. On the basis of democratic theory, the central role of freedom of speech was clarified on the basis of a clear need for a reliable communication. An absence of this process could disrupt the democratic order. The theoretical function of restrictions is to maintain that reliable communication process where, for example, special circumstances, threats of violence and certain types of information were seen as examples of situations where the process could be in danger.</p><p>The empirical result was largely in line with the theoretical conclusions. The ability to argue and keep open debates was seen as important building blocks in a democratic society and therefore implies the benefits of a reliable communication process. Justification for the restrictions was made with regard to harmful information, threatening circumstances and xenophobic organizations, who were examples of counter-productive expressions to the democratic order. However, the study showed that parliamentary motions and the Swedish Helsinki Committee often focused their justifications on different fundamental views which partly could be explained by the concepts of positive and negative freedom and the perception of minority rights. The findings indicated that the issue of restrictions on freedom of speech is extremely complex because of the varied opinions in the drafting of the law of hate speech. The dilemma of freedom of expression can therefore be seen as relevant up to this day.</p>

Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att beskriva riksdagsledamöternas twittrande och försöka lyfta framnågot av det som kännetecknar Twittermediet. Det uppfylls genom att besvara frågorna: • Vilken typ av interpersonella språkhandlingar utförs i riksdagsledamöternas twittrande? • Hur kan man kategorisera och beskriva de interpersonella språkhandlingarna? • Skiljer sig språkhandlingarna åt beroende på parti-, blocktillhörighet eller kön? • Finns det några språkliga särdrag som är typiska för riksdagsledamöternas användande avTwittermediet? Frågorna besvaras genom att undersöka alla tweets som skrevs av någon ledamot av Sverigesriksdag den 5 mars 2013. Uppsatsen beskriver flera aspekter av riksdagsledamöternas twittrande. Vanligaste allmänna språkhandling är ett påstående, ibland följt av en fråga. Både beröm och kritikutdelas men följer då alltid mönstret kritik åt politisk motståndare och beröm åt politisk vän. Sverigedemokraterna uttalar sig oftare med tvärsäkerhet och mer sällan med garderingar än övrigapartier. Inga stora skillnader mellan könen och Alliansen respektive de Rödgröna står att finna. Twittermediet är ofta informellt och snabbt vilket ger upphov till nya språkliga konstruktioner ochibland rena fel.

This study looks at the development in policy towards homosexuals in Sweden from criminalization to constitutional protection. A study on the ideational development in parliament has yet to be conducted. By studying the frames expressed in the official documents between 1933 and 2010 the study analyses ideas in terms of problems and solutions to describe how change occurred. The result is that Swedish policy towards homosexuals has been determined by two frames of understanding: a sexual frame  and an emotional frame. The policy process of the frames developed similarly in terms of institutionalization. Initially both frames saw homosexuals as dangerous which resulted in a different legal status. The frames gradually harmonized with a new scientific understanding that reinterpreted homosexuality as harmless and the different legal status problematic.

No description available.

In Sweden, Parliament debates regarding EU politics was held in 2021 and 2022. The aim of this paper is to examine the degree, form and type of opposition in the debates and to analyse if mainstream parties express opposition to a lesser degree. Using a quantitative content analy-sis, speeches made by the party representatives have been categorized by applying an analysis scheme developed by Karlsson, Mårtensson &amp; Persson (2018). In terms of results, the study shows that debates contain a high degree of opposition. When it comes to forms of opposition and we scope into criticism and alternatives, both form of opposition was found among speeches made by representatives from all political parties. In relation to support, opposition is what characterizes the debates. The strongest opposition was addressed against the content, but to a lesser degree, some of the opposition was also directed against the procedure and EU as a system. In contrast to the cartel party theory developed by Katz and Mair (1995;2009), Moder-aterna is the party that, to the highest degree, expresses opposition. Analysing the results, the conclusion is that opposition is present in the investigated Parliament debates.

Via internet har allmänheten fått en ny arena för kommunikativ interaktion, inte minst på sociala medier. I takt med detta har potentiella baksidor visat sig och fått människor att ifrågasätta sociala mediers effekt på demokratin. Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka skillnaden i graden av demokrati i offentlig debatt på sociala medier jämfört med i riksdagen. Parlamentsdebatter kan tyckas vara det mest civiliserade och formella debatter ett samhälle erbjuder medan sociala medier på många sätt är en oreglerad och ohämmad plattform. Denna undersökning kommer att titta närmare på hur dessa två debattforum uppfyller de deliberativa kriterierna rationalitet och inkludering och vilka skillnaderna är för att få svar på hur oroliga vi egentligen behöver vara över sociala mediers inverkan på demokrati. Undersökningen använder sig av både kvalitativa och kvantitativa metoder för att undersöka rationalitet och inkludering. Resultaten visar att parlamentsdebattens styrkor är att hålla en hetsig debatt i god ton medan Facebook agerar som en plattform för människors uttryck av subjektiva erfarenheter och ståndpunkter genom personliga berättelser och bekräftande retorik. Resultat visar även att vi inte behöver vara oroliga för sociala mediers inverkan på deliberativ demokrati om vi låter sociala medier som Facebook vara just det dem är, en plattform för människor att uttrycka sina åsikter och resonemang genom berättelser och skildringar ur sina egna liv.

This paper concerns the freedom of speech in our democracy and the principles underlying the restrictions. The study is aimed at using a descriptive theory to provide a useful basis for analyzing a justification of the role behind freedom of speech and its limitations. The analysis is made on the basis of the Swedish parliament debate in the form of motions and the non-governmental organization Swedish Helsinki Committee's report. The study has a focus on the law of hate speech and will be done with an idea centred analysis. On the basis of democratic theory, the central role of freedom of speech was clarified on the basis of a clear need for a reliable communication. An absence of this process could disrupt the democratic order. The theoretical function of restrictions is to maintain that reliable communication process where, for example, special circumstances, threats of violence and certain types of information were seen as examples of situations where the process could be in danger. The empirical result was largely in line with the theoretical conclusions. The ability to argue and keep open debates was seen as important building blocks in a democratic society and therefore implies the benefits of a reliable communication process. Justification for the restrictions was made with regard to harmful information, threatening circumstances and xenophobic organizations, who were examples of counter-productive expressions to the democratic order. However, the study showed that parliamentary motions and the Swedish Helsinki Committee often focused their justifications on different fundamental views which partly could be explained by the concepts of positive and negative freedom and the perception of minority rights. The findings indicated that the issue of restrictions on freedom of speech is extremely complex because of the varied opinions in the drafting of the law of hate speech. The dilemma of freedom of expression can therefore be seen as relevant up to this day.

Many studies have focused on whether or not different kinds of strategies used towards radical right parties give them more or less electoral support and power. This study, however, sets out to center the MP’s subjective views on how the strategies and different approaches are being used and experienced in parliamentary committees in the Swedish Riksdag. The purpose of the study is to gain new and more detailed information of the motivations used for the strategies from the MPs subjective views of the Swedish Democrats (SD). The different types of strategies studied are excluding strategies such as ignore, cordon sanitaire, demonise and defuse. The including strategies which are examined are adapt and collaborate. Vote technical disidentification is a theoretical contribution to strategies being used from this study and shows how MPs blame other parties for voting more on SD than their own. Semi- structured interviews with MPs from five parties, including SD, in three different parliamentary committees with a total number of 15 participants, which are used as the material. The result of the study suggests that there are some differences in the approaches of the different MPs, and the difference lies mostly in between and within parties and not so much among the different committees. The MPs have some differences in their subjective conception of the SD where some have a tough approach against them while others have a softer understanding to them socially but none except for one MP want formal collaboration with them. In broad terms, the political right has some tendencies to use inclusion strategies and the political left uses the exclusion strategies more broadly and not the inclusion at all, according to the result. Informal approaches to take distance from SD, used more by the political left. The perception of the strategies and approaches being used differs a lot from between the MPs from SD and the rest of the MPs in the study. A more hard, unfair and undemocratic is the perceptions of the MPs from SD of the strategy and approaches while the others do not see them as commonly used.