”Poliser ska göra polisarbete och specialister ska göra specialistarbete. Var och en ska göra det den är bäst på.”

Sammanfattning: In 2015, a new police regulation was enacted in Sweden, which gave civilian police officers increased authority. Prior to the enactment of the law, a departmental memorandum suggested the legislative changes as a means to increase the effectiveness of the Swedish Police without risking the rule of law. Four unions that represent police employees were asked to deliver statements of opinion in which they argued for or against the legislative changes, with different unions revealing competing views. In this paper, a critical text analysis of the union’s responses is conducted, and their arguments regarding public values, legitimacy, professionalism and jurisdiction are examined from a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives. The qualitative Narrative Policy Framework, Max Weber’s legal bureaucratic ideal type, Keith M Macdonald’s professional sub-goals, Pierre Bourdieu’s field perspective and Thomas Gieryn’s boundary work theory are used to identify and reach an understanding of the conflict and struggle between the unions. The material is complemented by a survey of Swedish police employees which generated 692 responses. The unions use the same public values to express their competing policy proposals and they struggle for legitimacy and the jurisdiction over the field (the Swedish Police) using boundary work in order to gain authoritative power over it.