ATT TALA OM ELDEN : Koranbränningar: rättighet eller risk?

Sammanfattning

During 2023, several Quran burnings were carried out in Sweden, attracting significant global attention and provoking strong reactions both nationally and internationally. These events took place in parallel with Sweden’s ongoing process of joining NATO, at a time when the country was undergoing a reorientation of its security policy in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Quran burnings brought to the fore tensions between freedom of expression, public order, and security, as well as Sweden’s relations with other states. The aim of this study is to examine, through a discourse analysis, how the Swedish governing parties and the Sweden Democrats, during the NATO accession process in 2023, constructed the Quran burnings as a political problem, and whether these problem representations can be linked to the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization. The study is conducted as a qualitative case study based on a textual analysis of 20 public political statements made by representatives of the governing parties and the Sweden Democrats. The analysis combines Carol Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to Be” (WPR) approach with securitization theory and a narrative triadic analytical tool inspired by Jeanne Prades (2022). Two distinct narratives have been identified as dominant discourses. Government actors place the Quran burnings within an international security context in which the state’s responsibility for public order, diplomatic relations, and political room for maneuver is emphasized, while freedom of expression is presented as one of the constitutional pillars upon which Sweden rests. The Sweden Democrats argue that it is the reactions to the Quran burnings, as well as external pressure from the international community to impose restrictions on Swedish legislation, that constitute the problem. The Quran burnings became a central construction for rights, but also a risk linked to the consequences associated with internal and external threats to Sweden and the friction that has arisen in relations with other states. At the same time, distance is taken from the actions, and a distinction is communicated: what is legally permissible is not always morally appropriate.