WELFARE REGIME VOICES: JUSTIFYING UNPOPULAR PENSION REFORMS IN DENMARK, FRANCE, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM.

Sammanfattning

Ageing populations, shrinking labour forces, and public spending pressure have made pensionreform one of the most politically sensitive challenges for advanced welfare states.Governments face the dual task of implementing necessary but unpopular measures andmaintaining public legitimacy.The purpose of this thesis is to examine how political communication differs across welfareregimes when justifying pension-age increases. Using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) andcomparing official discourse in Denmark, France, and the United Kingdom, each representingone of Esping-Andersen’s three welfare-state regimes. The analysis includes one law, oneministerial speech, and one press release per case, capturing both formal and publicjustification. Findings indicate that all governments frame reforms through responsibility andsustainability, but their rhetorical styles differ. These “welfare regime voices” demonstratethat institutions shape not only policy but also the language through which legitimacy is built.