Värdebaserad vapenhandel - En analys av Sveriges och Kanadas rättfärdiganden för Saudiarabisk vapenexport

This thesis examines how Sweden and Canada justify arms exports to Saudi Arabia despite their self-proclaimed roles as moral superpowers and value-based actors in the international system. Both countries have emphasized the promotion of democracy, human rights and gender equality as central parts of the foreign policy agenda. Saudi Arabia has on the other hand been criticised as one of the worlds worst abusers of human rights. The Swedish and Canadian arms deals with Saudi Arabia show a normative dilemma. The study addresses the following research question: Hur ramar Sverige och Kanada in och rättfärdigar sin vapenexport till Saudiarabien genom politisk framing, trots deras uttalade roller som moraliska supermakter? Using framing as the theoretical and methodological framework, the study applies a qualitative content analysis as the method. The material being analyzed is composed of official statements, parliamentary debates, media interviews and official reports from 2012-2022 that politicians use to justify the arms deals. The analysis uses Entman's four steps of framing to capture how the politicians frame and use their arguments. It's also used to recognise recurring patterns. The findings show that both Sweden and Canada largely avoid pinpointing problem definitions related to human rights violations. Instead they emphasize moral, legal, and solution-oriented frames. The exports are largely justified through references to international responsibility, regulatory compliance, stability and economic or security related benefits. While similarities do exist between the two nations, notable differences emerge in how each country views its international role and moral role in the justifications. Overall, the study highlights how democratic, value-based countries face the dilemma of normative power against actual, real world decisions in today's international community.