We must talk about the discourse : the changing European landscape : a critical discourse analysis of Danish law amendments from 2015-2018

Abstract

The objective of this research is to gain understanding of the contemporary discursive landscape and the legitimation strategies used, when arguing in favour of laws and amendments which is criticized by the human rights community, or which are directly contesting the human rights. The thesis examines to what extent, the contemporary political discourse has an effect on the justification of three amendments implemented in Denmark from 2015-2018. The aim is to get closer to an understanding of why and how policies, which are openly contesting human rights, are being passed by a parliamentary majority in the Danish parliament. Furthermore, the thesis reflects on how these reproduced discourses are gambling with the reputation of human rights. The research examines the political discourses and the legitimation strategies, through a critical discourse analysis of three parliamentary debates in Denmark, in the time frame 2015-2018. A thematic analysis is conducted, and themes are established by thematic coding. The results helped to gain a better understanding of what has led to the discursive status quo in the Danish political landscape. By concentrating on amendments, the thesis emphasized the importance of the political discourse and the power of the policy makers. The findings suggest, that the discourses and legitimation strategies used in Danish parliament justifies policy making which fundamentally goes against the original intention of the human rights and indirectly justifies human rights abuses.