Att förvägra dömda rösträtten. : En argumentationsanalys av debatten om förvägrandet av rösträtten i USA.

Sammanfattning: The purpose of this study has been to present different arguments regarding felony disenfranchisement. What was also investigated was if the practice could be compatible with Robert A. Dahl and his model of democracy. Finally, the findings were presented and what they meant. The material of the study consisted of texts produced in the purpose of arguing either for or against the practice. The content of these texts was presented through an argument analysis. They were presented fractionated by themes depending on what the argument was stating.  The results of the analysis were that there were some recurring arguments, both for and against the practice. Furthermore, it became obvious through analyzing the arguments that the model of democracy and its five criterias could not be compatible with the practice. Lastly, it could be stated that what it meant was that nothing regarding the practice of felony disenfranchisement could be compatible with Robert A. Dahl’s idea of democracy.