This research work aims to analyze why Sweden chose to send military equipment to the Ukrainian army during Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The paper has constructed the following research question to fulfill its purpose: "How can key factors linked to "fear of abandonment theory" and "the the social construction of realism" explain that the Swedish state decided to send military equipment and equipment to the Ukrainian army during the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022?" The theories "fear of abandonment" and "the social construction of realism" have been operationalized to answer the research question. Theoretical key factors have been picked out which were then used to construct indicators. The indicators have then been used as analysis tools to measure whether the theories can explain how representatives of the Swedish government and the Swedish parliament motivated that Sweden should export military equipment to Ukraine in the midst of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. A qualitative content analysis has been applied to two selected analysis units that can most appropriately answer the research question. Firstly, a speech by Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist and Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson has been analysed. Secondly, a parliamentary protocol containing speeches from members of parliament from all parliamentary parties regarding Sweden's arms delivery to Ukraine has been analysed. The result shows that both the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister, as well as Members of Parliament from Sweden's two largest parties (the Social Democrats and the Moderates) claimed that Sweden should send military equipment to Ukraine because the risk that Sweden could be abandoned if an armed attack against Sweden were to occur. Furthermore, the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as Swedish members of the Riksdag from i.a. Sweden's three largest parties (the Social Democrats, the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats) have claimed that Sweden should send military equipment to Ukraine because Russia poses a security threat to Sweden and Europe.

This thesis aims at deepen our understanding of the Swedish arms exports, especially the relationship between the spoken words of politicians and actual policy outcome. The research question for the thesis is “To what extent do specific frames deployed by the media and politicians about the character of the importing state, the type of arms exported, the inter-state relationship and the economic interests lead to a legitimation crisis in an arms exporting nation which ends arms exports and military cooperation?” This thesis is especially looking at Swedish arms deals with Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Thailand. In a content analysis of the Swedish media and politicians, and by using theories of legitimation and framing, the thesis analyses how these frames can affect the legitimation of an arms deal, and explaining different policy outcomes. The analysis shows that the most common frame to use to frame a receiving country or an arms deal negatively is to frame the character of the importing state in negative terms and also connect the arms exports to the regime in the receiving country. On the other side, to defend an arms deal it is most common to frame it as an economic interest that are of national interest. Lastly, the thesis can show that the Swedish arms deal with Saudi Arabia created a legitimation crisis, which was not the case for the deals with Thailand and South Africa, and this can help us understand why the military cooperation agreement between Sweden and Saudi Arabia was ended.

This thesis aims at deepen our understanding of the Swedish arms exports, especially the relationship between the spoken words of politicians and actual policy outcome. The research question for the thesis is “To what extent do specific frames deployed by the media and politicians about the character of the importing state, the type of arms exported, the inter-state relationship and the economic interests lead to a legitimation crisis in an arms exporting nation which ends arms exports and military cooperation?” This thesis is especially looking at Swedish arms deals with Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Thailand. In a content analysis of the Swedish media and politicians, and by using theories of legitimation and framing, the thesis analyses how these frames can affect the legitimation of an arms deal, and explaining different policy outcomes. The analysis shows that the most common frame to use to frame a receiving country or an arms deal negatively is to frame the character of the importing state in negative terms and also connect the arms exports to the regime in the receiving country. On the other side, to defend an arms deal it is most common to frame it as an economic interest that are of national interest. Lastly, the thesis can show that the Swedish arms deal with Saudi Arabia created a legitimation crisis, which was not the case for the deals with Thailand and South Africa, and this can help us understand why the military cooperation agreement between Sweden and Saudi Arabia was ended.

The problem area of the study concerns the Swedish arms export to the United Arab Emirates and if this goes against Swedish legislation regarding weapons export as a rule with the guidelines for human rights and non-armed conflicts, which are also established in law from 2018. These guidelines can be considered important for Swedish foreign policy, with the goal to depict Sweden as a nation that protects human rights, seeks world peace and democratic ideals, which has led to this study that wants to investigate the arms exports to the United Arab Emirates during 2019. The primary goal has been to investigate if these correspond to the Swedish regulations for weapons export as well as how the new Swedish legislation took form and how the discourse around it developed. The study is situated around the theoretic discussion if actors generally are guided by norms (logic of appropriateness) or self-interest (logic of consequences) together with rational choice, and which of these Sweden might have reasoned about when they chose to approve of the exports. The results showed that the Swedish legislation had a loophole that made it possible for earlier approved licence applications to receive sequential deliveries, even though the new legislation made it mandatory to make a new licence application for these as well. / Uppsatsens problemområde behandlar den svenska krigsmaterielexporten till Förenade Arabemiraten och om denna går emot den svenska lagstiftningen för krigsmaterielexport i regel med riktlinjerna för mänskliga rättigheter och icke-väpnade konflikter, vilka också är fastställda i lag från och med 2018. Då dessa kriterier kan anses vara viktiga för Sveriges utlandspolitik, i syfte att skildra Sverige som ett land som värnar om mänskliga rättigheter, världsfred och demokratiska ideal så har denna uppsats velat undersöka krigsmaterielexporten till Förenade Arabemiraten under 2019. Det primära syftet har varit att undersöka om dessa överensstämmer med det svenska regelverket för krigsmaterielexport samt hur den nya svenska lagstiftningen tog form och hur diskursen formats runt denne. Studien är situerad runt den teoretiska diskussionen om aktörer generellt styrs av normer (logic of appropriateness) eller egenintresse (logic of consequences) tillsammans med rational choice och vilken av dessa Sverige kan ha resonerat kring när de valt att godkänna exporten. Resultatet har visat att den svenska lagstiftningen har ett kryphål som öppnar upp för följdleveranser till tidigare godkända tillståndsprövningar, dock ska det enligt ny lagstiftning alltid göras nya prövningar på även dessa.