”Du måste väl också se detta problem, eller är du så blind att du inte gör det?” En studie om personangrepp och det svenska debattklimatet

Abstract

During the past few years, many have experienced a growing virulence in the Swedish political debate. Irrelevant arguments and a hateful tone within the discussions among the political elite risk leading to a normalisation of that type of argumentation style, and thereby increases the polarisation also among the general public. Irrelevant arguments also endanger the possibilities of ensuring a rational and relevant discussion that aims to find the best possible political decision. The ad hominem argument is a form of personal attack where the person replies to an argument not by stating their stand on the issue, but by attacking the character of the other person. An area where the hateful tone has been particularly evident is within the issue of immigration. With this background, this study aims to find whether there has been a change in the number of ad hominem arguments used by the party leaders of Sweden during parliament debates, after the Sweden Democrats entered parliament. The study finds that the number of attacks have not increased in total, but since the Sweden Democrats entered parliament, party leader Jimmie Åkesson has been the most frequent user of them. As this is part of the rhetoric strategy of many anti-immigration parties it proves to show that the Sweden Democrats is no exception. Despite this meaning that the political debate does not include more ad hominem arguments per se, it can still be described as more polarised as a result.