Är elden som hetast när den är blå eller röd? Hets mot folkgrupp eller yttrandefrihet? En kritisk diskursanalys om hur opinionsbildare till höger kontra vänster gestaltade koranbränningarna 2022-2023

Sammanfattning

This study examines how Quran burnings were discursively constructed in Swedish editorial pages (Aftonbladet, Svenska Dagbladet, Dagens Nyheter and Expressen) and how different understandings of democracy, freedom of speech/expression, and minority protection were produced through language by opinion leaders belonging to the left versus right ideologically. Using critical discourse analysis (CDA), the study analyzes how meanings were framed, legitimized, and contested in the public debate, and how these discourses contributed to shaping social reality rather than merely reflecting it. The empirical material consists of eight opinion pieces published in traditional Swedish online media. The reason for only analysing eight different pieces was that there were only a few different arguments used in everything that we found/ read. After researching we did not find any other nuances to the phenomenon of how the quran burnings were discussed, other than the ones that are brought up in this paper. The analysis follows Norman Fairclough´s three-dimensional model and is conducted in three stages, based on Berglez work on critical discourse analysis. First, a close textual analysis focuses on linguistic choices, actor representation, modality, and evaluative language. Second, these findings are synthesized to identify recurring discursive patterns and interpretive frames. Third, the texts are compared and contextualised in relation to theory and societal conditions. The study combines Fairclough´s (2010) discourse theory with Entman´s (1993) framing theory to examine how problems are defined, causes are attributed, moral evaluations are activated, and solutions are implied. The findings show that the debate on Quran burnings were structured around two dominant and competing discursive positions. The ideologically right side constructed freedom of speech (expression as a primary and absolute democratic principle, framing the Quran burnings as legitimate expressions and restrictions as threats to democracy). While the ideologically left constructed freedom of speech/ expression as normatively conditional and embedded within a broader rights framework, framing Quran burnings as acts of hate directed at a vulnerable minority and emphasizing state responsibility to ensure equal participation in the public sphere. Despite these differences, the texts share several underlying assumptions. All position themselves as defenders of democracy and legitimize their arguments through references to law, human rights, history, or democratic principles. The debate thus reflects not a conflict between democratic and anti-democratic positions, but competing interpretations of what democracy entails and should protect. In addition, almost all of the opinion leaders (that we found) position the state as an important actor in the conflict, only with the difference in opinion of what the state should or should not do. The analysis demonstrates how these discourses construct different versions of social reality by normalizing certain understandings of freedom of speech/ expression and state responsibility/ protection of minorities while marginalising others. Overall, the study highlights how opinion leaders function as a central arena for ideological struggle and plays an active role in shaping democratic norms and boundaries.