| dc.description.abstract | This master thesis studies the discourse of extremism in the Swedish parliament between the
years 2010-2018. This is done by a discourse analysis inspired by several theories, such as
Chilton’s Political Discourse Analysis, Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory and Saussure’s
signifier and signified. The material covers 287 protocols from the chamber (Kammaren) in the
Swedish parliament (Riksdagen). The analysis shows that three parties dominated the
discussions of extremism: The Liberals, The Sweden Democrats, and The Social Democrats. It
further demonstrates that party members use different verbal strategies to legitimise their
ideological positions on extremism. There are three outcomes of the strategies that actors use,
namely, to get approval for their politics, to discursively form groups, and to delegitimise
opponents. The period’s discourse on extremism is characterised by discussions on violence,
Islamist extremism, far-right extremism, far-left extremism, and terrorism. However, by
deploying the term violence-affirming extremism (våldsbejakande extremism), the
parliamentary debates show how extremism and violence are converging. The conclusion
discusses this convergence as well as how democracy is seen as the opposite of extremism. The
thesis ends with a brief discussion of the concept of extremisation and the risks of
externalisation processes and then suggestions for further research. | sv |
