En Diskursanalys Av Politikers Användning Av Statliga Förmåner : En studie av regelverkets tolkningsutrymme och politikers legitimeringsstrategier vid granskning och kritik

Sammanfattning

Sweden is often ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. At the same time, Transparency International's latest index shows a declining trend, and surveys from the SOM Institute indicate that public trust in politicians remains consistently low. This study looks at the gap between what is formally legal and what is seen as legitimate. It does so through a critical discourse analysis of two cases where Swedish politicians have been criticised for using state benefits, even though their actions were legal. The cases are Minister of Finance Elisabeth Svantesson's housing allowance and Speaker Andreas Norlén's official travel with chartered private aircraft. The analysis uses Norman Fairclough's three-dimensional model. It is combined with Bo Rothstein's and Oskar Kurer's principle of impartiality, which is used to assess the regulatory framework, and with Theo van Leeuwen's categories, which are used to analyse how the politicians justify themselves. The results show that the regulations leave a lot of room for subjective interpretation. They also show that the politicians use clear patterns when defending themselves. The study argues that the way the regulations are written and the way the politicians speak are part of the same problem, and that being legal is not the same as being seen as legitimate.