"Det är ju väldigt polariserat" : – Migrationsverkets kommunikation på Facebook

Sammanfattning: The aim for this study was to research the Swedish migration agencies’ communication on the social platform Facebook, and try to build an understanding of the agencies construction of non-political message to the public. We were also addressing the present discursive struggle in the comment section below the agency’s publications, to get a better understanding of why users are criticizing the agency, and how they are handling the critics.  This is because of the national politics surrounding migration can be seen as a “two-way-split”, where the public opinion is either very positive to the migration, or very negative. The study was conducted by analyzing two months’ worth of Facebook publications from the Swedish migrations agency, and included a total of 280 comments from users to study how struggles form between the “two-way-split”.  Critical discourse analysis and Fairclough's three-dimensional model was used as method to study the problem on a qualitative perspective. The appliance of Foucault's and Faircloughs theories about discourse have been applied on the material consistently throughout the study.  The results of the study show that the Swedish migration agency are using two discursive forms of presenting messages to the public. The first is a governmental discourse, were focus lies on a natural position to the politics with statistics and facts, the second is a storytelling discourse, which is more focused on presenting people and their individual stories to the public, but like the first one, with a natural position. The results also show that the engaging public is using a different, more public, discourse to the subject, and with that forms a lot of negative comments about the agency work and the politics behind it. In conclusion, we form the belief that the agency has adapted the new storytelling discourse as a communicative strategy to raise the trusts of the agencies work to the public, but the critical engaging public still mistrusts the work, and keeps the discursive struggle with the agency alive.