Sveriges vapenexport till diktaturer

An ongoing debate in Sweden is whether or not to export arms to dictatorships. Despite recent opinion polls showing a clear majority in favor of withdrawing exports to dictatorships the parliamentary parties cannot contemplate an agreement. This essay will analyze the difference in argumentation between Miljöpartiet, who wants arms export to dictatorships to seize, and Moderaterna, who, wants to maintain Sweden’s current situation. The argumentation of both instances will be analyzed using a descriptive analysis of argumentation to clarify how the two parties argue and how their argumentations differ from each other. An analysis focusing on the coherence of the parties´ argumentations will also be performed. This is due to the fact that a theory suggests that a lack of incoherence can lead to loss of legitimacy. The conclusion is that argumentations being made mostly differ when it comes to Sweden’s international reputation, UN by-laws, Swedish laws on export of arms and Swedish jobs. The conclusion is also that the argumentation being presented by the respective parties suffer from lack of coherence to a varying degree. The incoherence of Miljöpartiet can be justified to a greater extent than the incoherence of Moderaterna by following a few measures proposed in this essay