Jämställdhet i politisk debatt : en argumentationsanalys av riksdagsdebatt

This study involves an analysis of arguments on parental allowance debates and sex legislation debates. The debates that will be analyzed are the following; allowance, equality bonus, stricter punishment for the purchase of sexual services and men's violence against women, violence and oppression, and violence in same-sex relationships. This empirical research is a qualitative study in its entirety, as for the method is an argumentation analysis. The arguments which the debates contain will be analyzed from a gender perspective. The theoretical question is: What is considered equality as a gender perspective? The empirical question is: How did parliament debates the issue of parental and prostitution laws issue from a gender perspective? The debates about genus and gender equality perspective have been a crucial issue in the Swedish Parliament. That women and men are equal or unequal has been heavily emphasized in the debates. My study aims at an in depth investigation in these debates based on an analysis of arguments. Moreover, I have evaluated what gender combined with democracy and democratic self-determination entails. I have structured my analysis up by various arguments and analyzed these arguments on the basis of the perspectives above. My conclusion is that the first two debates were treated particularly in the genus and the gender equality perspective and there was a possibility to connect the theories in relevant argumentations/discussions. However, complex problems emerged in the last two debates, stricter penalty regarding the purchase of sexual services, violence against women, violence and oppression, and violence in same-sex relationships where gender and equality issues have been avoided to be treated. Generally occurring from the bourgeois side than from the opposition