En kritisk diskursanalys av riksdagsdebatt om den svenska regeringens förhållningssätt till Turkiets ockupation av Afrin

Sammanfattning: The interpellation debate on Turkey's invasion of Afrin has been mentioned and circulated in the Swedish parliamentary debate. It is debated and discussed why the Foreign Minister Margot Wallström has not yet condemned the invasion, although Turkey's actions clearly show that the attack on the city has mainly hit Kurdish goals and groups in the city. The purpose of this study is to critically analyze a parliamentary debate focusing on power and dominance, which is done using Teun van Dijks methodological tools and theoretical starting points. Focusing on how the language has been used as a means of creating a "we" and "them" perspective, I have been able to identify power and dominance in the language's discursive framework and discourse strategies. The members of parliament advocate condemnation and are more free in their way of addressing and commenting on the issue while the Foreign Minister has specific premises to assume her position. Therefore, the view of the condemnation can be seen as a main battle that maintains and reproduces a power structure, where the general responsibility is fixed by principles of when the condemnation can be actualized. Keywords: Swedish Parliament, Swedish political debate, responsibility, minorities, kurds, Turkey, actions