In 2022, a new law was accepted by the Swedish government, that would enable libraries to apply for an access ban. An access ban would fully limit the access to the public library for those who continuously disturb the libraries every-day function. This study examines the public discussion concerning the law of access ban for libraries, and the visibility of two opposite sides in the debate. The study applies a qualitative approach in the form of content analysis, that was performed on 42 articles from Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Biblioteksbladet and Boktugg. Furthermore, the theoretical framework of media logic was used to deepen the understanding of how the ambition to stand out from the crowd, affects how news producers select events to become news stories, and the use of certain narrative methods. The questions that are posed in this study concern what arguments that speaks for and against the law, who has been given space in the medialised debate and how the theories of media logic appear in the public discourse. The result shows that editorial writers and politicians emphasize the value of issuing an access ban on those who misbehave in libraries, in order to protect those who don’t. The result also shows that library representatives underline the fact that the new law contradicts the Library Act, which warrants everyone’s access to a library, and further emphasize how the social unrest in Swedish libraries requires long-term solutions and cooperation.

This bachelor thesis explores the discussions and discourse in the media concerning the law proposal that makes Swedish public libraries able to temporarily ban patrons from entering the premises, if the patron causes disturbance or harasses library staff or other patrons. To examine this, discourse analysis is used both as a theoretical and methodological framework. Theories from both Michael Foucault’s thoughts on discourse and power and Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory is applied to study the empirical material, consisting of 36 articles both debate and editorial. The analysis reveals three discourses, the conclusion drawn from the analysis is that there is no coherent view on the law proposal on banning patrons. And that the issue is complex when it comes to applying the ban in reality.