Moral Foundations Theory möter svenska partier: bär den eller brister den? : En jämförande textanalys av skillnad i moraliska grunder mellan Centerpartiet och Kristdemokraternas argumentation för väljarna.

Sammanfattning

Swedish politics appear to be seeing heightened affective polarization alongside realignment along a dimension contesting left-right dominance. GAL-TAN captures this divide, but what factors and motifs drive sympathizers to accept or reject – engage, identify with and become polarized towards – each side remains less clear. The divide seemingly matches Moral Foundations Theory’s progressives/conservatives, which offers potential insights into these differences and appears to lack wider, text-based or party-based testing in Sweden. We therefore analyze texts from opening arguments of two similar right-leaning parties from different sides in party leader debates January 2025, September 2025 and January 2026 to determine how well their use of moral foundations match the theory’s expected difference. We find the main expectation applicable: progressive Centerpartiet shows clear higher preference for “Care”/”Fairness”-argumentation in January 2025/2026, while less clear difference September 2025 seems explained by time-specific circumstances heightening Kristdemokraternas Care-use. Given party selection and consistency across debates, this likely applies broadly. Some deviations seem integral to the contexts of parties and Sweden however. Higher general use of “Ingroup”/”Authority”-argumentation is traced to the purpose of arguing: collective leadership. Lower, highly virtue-based Purity-use, especially for Centerpartiet, seems national. These findings allow us to better understand and predict what is deemed relevant and repulsive in situations and messaging, design the latter to incentivize true engagement with positions and their holders, as well as choose fruitful avenues for further research.