Rättighetsinnehavare eller snålskjutsåkare? En kritisk diskursanalys om konstruktioner av Legimusanvändare i svensk mediedebatt

Sammanfattning

This thesis uses critical discourse analysis as both theory and method to examine how Legimus and its users are constructed in the Swedish public debate in the context of higher education. Drawing on critical disability studies and crip theory, the thesis aims to highlight the norms about ability and disability that these constructions legitimate and reproduce. The empirical material for this thesis includes 13 articles published from 2024 to 2026, covering the whole debate. The results of the analysis show two hegemonic discourses: a medical control and misuse discourse, and a market discourse. These are opposed by a rights and accessibility discourse, with a reading discourse being almost entirely silenced. Three norms in relation to which users of Legimus are constructed as Other can be identified in the debate. The first is the neoliberal norm of the productive and independent citizen and consumer, in opposition to which Legimus users are seen as a burden. The second is the norm of the well-meaning professional, contributing to the construction of Legimus users as passive recipients of benefits. The third is the norm of the “normal” reader, in contrast to Legimus users as anomalous readers. The thesis is part of an ongoing discussion within library and information science about understanding accessible reading as a human right.