Boxing and prohibition in deadly earnest : A rhetorical analysis of Sweden’s ban on professional boxing in 1969

The aim is to perform a rhetorical analysis of the debate about the ban on boxing that contributes to the understanding of why amateur boxing was allowed to continue when professional boxing was banned in Sweden in 1969. The aim is based on the discourses medical harm, a devastating effect on its audience and that boxing favoured unhealthy economic interests. The material consists of Bill 1969: 118 referral statements from government institutions and sports organizations, as well as debate articles and letters to the editor in SvD in 1969. The method consists of a qualitative inductive rhetorical analysis, where logos, ethos and pathos are used as tools to identify how different actors in the boxing debate tried to legitimize their positions. Within the three discourses, medical harm, a devistating effect on its audience, and boxing favoured unhealthy economic interests. The results show that the medical discourse was the most dominant and long-lived. In the bill, the argumentation was characterized by logos and ethos, while SvD showed a greater variety with elements of pathos. Amateur boxing was defended by fact-based arguments about safety, while professional boxing lacked corresponding defensive argumentation. The discourse on the devastating influence of the public appeared only in a limited form, and the discourse on unhealthy economic interests appeared only in the bill. Overall, the study shows that the medical discourse was crucial for the impact of the ban, while the other discourses had a limited significance.