(De)legitimizing the Migration Court’s Judicial Decision: A Case Study on Social Media Discourses

Sammanfattning: This study aims to explore how the Swedish Migration Court’s decision is legitimized or delegitimized in discourses in civil society, outside the legislative and judicial power. This is explored with a case study on a judicial decision to expel Sonya, a 90-year-old and sick Ukrainian woman. The material is collected from social media platforms where this case has been discussed. Thus, the results only regard the discourses on the Sonya case, and are not representative for the whole civil society. Critical discourse analysis and Theo van Leeuwen’s analytical tool developed for examining discursive legitimation is employed. Parts of Jürgen Habermas’ theoretical system regarding public discourse and legitimacy is utilized as a theoretical framework when interpreting the material. The results of this study show that the Migration Court’s decision to expel Sonya is both legitimized and delegitimized. Comments in social media are referring to morality, rationality, authority and mythopoesis. The discourse also includes ideological features e.g. humanism, nationalism and racism. On this level in the legitimation process yes/no and pro/con attitudes are formed, and consensus is not yet reached, thus whether or not the decision is (de)legitimized cannot fully be answered. Though the discourses explored indicates that the Migration Court’s decision is delegitimized due to the moral concerns of expelling a 90-year-old sick woman.