Är den svenska spelreklamen etisk? - En etisk analys av svensk spel- och bettingreklam i ljuset av den offentliga debatten

Sammanfattning

Title: Is Swedish gambling advertising ethical? Seminar date: 2025-06-03. Course: FEKH29, Bachelor’s Degree Project in Marketing, 15 Credits. Authors: Erik Malmgren, Lucas Friberg, Hussin Alyassiry, Jakob Stigsson. Advisor: Peter Svensson. Keywords: Gambling Advertising, Rawls, Nozick, Debate, Ethical Marketing. Research question: How can Swedish gambling and betting advertising be understood from an ethical perspective through an analysis of the public debate? Purpose: The study aims to analyze the Swedish debate on gambling and betting advertising in order to highlight how the advertising is perceived from an ethical perspective, with a focus on the moral conceptions of justice expressed in the Swedish public debate. Methodology: The study was conducted as a document analysis based on 50 opinion and newspaper articles published between 2019 and 2025. Using a qualitative content analysis, the empirical material was examined to highlight moral reasoning in the debate on gambling and betting advertising. The analysis was based on the stakeholder typology model and the theories of justice by Rawls and Nozick. Theoretical perspectives: The thesis is based on two theoretical frameworks: the stakeholder typology model, which is used to analyze how different stakeholders are portrayed and categorized in the debate, and the moral philosophical theories of justice by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Result: The debate on gambling and betting advertising centers around a conflict between the protection of vulnerable consumers and the freedom of enterprises. Individuals with gambling addictions are viewed as vulnerable, while gambling companies and non-profit organizations emphasize the regulatory and societal benefits of advertising. At the same time, government oversight is perceived as both important and insufficient. Conclusions: The study demonstrates that the ethical legitimacy of gambling and betting advertising depends on the moral-philosophical framework applied. Rawls emphasizes the protection of vulnerable individuals, whereas Nozick defends market freedom. Given that gambling addiction entails impaired rationality, it appears more reasonable - particularly in light of the Rawls-inspired rhetoric that dominates the public debate - to regard such advertising as unethical rather than ethical.