Essay competition for students

Lo Dahlquist Mörkenstam, Department of Political Science at Stockholm University, has written the essay “Democracy is an ideology of opposition – Affective polarization within the political elite in Sweden”.

From the prize committee’s citation: “The essay contributes new knowledge on a topical subject of importance for democracy. The choice of method and materials is commendable and gives depth by dealing with a topical issue from a historical perspective. The conclusions are presented with clarity and are related to previous research.

Read the essay “Democracy is an ideology of opposition – Affective polarization within the political elite in Sweden” by Lo Dahlquist Mörkenstam (pdf, 780 kb)

Benjamin Petersson, Faculty of Law at Lund University, has written the essay “Freedom in obedience – On the scope and limits of the Government’s governance of the public authorities”.

From the prize committee’s citation: The essay highlights a subject of great relevance to both the Riksdag and the Government, using sources connected with the work of the Riksdag such as the Committee on the Constitution’s scrutiny reports. The essay’s assessments are characterised in a commendable way by independence and openness in relation to previous literature.

Read the essay “Freedom in obedience – On the scope and limits of the Government’s governance of the public authorities” by Benjamin Petersson, in Swedish (pdf, 982 kb)

Martin Lindqvist, Department of History at Stockholm University, with the essay “Tack för det Televerket!” (Thanks a bunch, Televerket!). An analysis of the Riksdag debates between 1993 and 2001 leading up to Telia’s introduction on the stock market”.

The essay highlights publicly versus privately run welfare, by examining the transition of the former state-owned telecommunications company Televerket to a private company.

From the prize committee’s citation: The essay highlights the central issue in politics of publicly versus privately run welfare, by examining the transition of the former state-owned telecommunications company Televerket to a private company. The author demonstrates impressive analytical, theoretical and pedagogical skills in his analysis of the political debate, inter alia, in the Chamber.

Read the essay “Tack för det Televerket!” (Thanks a bunch, Televerket!) by Martin Lindqvist (In Swedish, pdf 508 kB)

Jeanette Ohlsson Rian, Department of Political Science at Uppsala University, has written the essay “Descriptive representation during a crisis”.

The essay highlights how representation changes in national parliaments during a crisis and specifically examines how representation changed in the Riksdag during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

From the prize committee’s citation: The essay raises an interesting question with great relevance for representative democracy and the Riksdag, that is, how representation changes in national parliaments during a crisis. Both the choice and the implementation of the multi-method approach, including quantitative and qualitative methods is commendable. The author demonstrates an exemplary understanding of the analytical skills that different methods involve. 

Read the essay “Descriptive representation during a crisis” by Jeanette Ohlsson Rian (In Swedish, pdf 1,2 MB)

Elsa Karlsson Gustafsson, Department of Political Science at Umeå University, with the essay “Oppositions as a Dialogue”. 

Based on discussions of environmental, asylum and migration policies in the Committee on EU Affairs, the essay examines the various forms that the work of the opposition can take in the Riksdag Committee on EU Affairs. 

From the prize committee’s citation: By using the Committee on EU Affairs’ stenographic records, the essay serves as a valuable supplement to previous quantitative research on opposition policy in the Committee on EU Affairs. The author argues well for an analytical focus on environmental, asylum and migration issues. The essay demonstrates good qualities, not least in terms of theory. The essay's qualitative approach contributes commendably to a nuanced and enriching picture of how opposition can be understood in terms of political dialogue.

Read the essay “Oppositions as a Dialogue” by Elsa Karlsson Gustafsson (pdf, 590 kB)

Filippa Werner Sellbjer, Department of Political Science at Gothenburg University, with the essay “Swedish MPs’ perceptions of their ability to act on climate change”. 

Based on interviews with members of the Riksdag, the essay examines how these members perceive their opportunities to implement political proposals designed to combat climate change.

From the prize committee’s citation: The essay contains an impressive qualitative analysis of the members of the Riksdag's perceptions of their ability to act on climate change. The essay is of high quality both in terms of selection of theory and method and of analysis. The essay is also pedagogical and transparent, which, for example, the section on operationalisations clearly demonstrates. The conclusions are formulated with great soundness of judgment. The author thus contributes commendably with valuable knowledge on a subject with political relevance today.

Read the essay “Swedish MPs’ perceptions of their ability to act on climate change”, by Filippa Werner Sellbjer (pdf, 571 kB)

Einar Dernegård, Department of Political Science at Linnaeus University, with the essay "Hur politik beräknas” (“How politics is calculated”).

The essay investigates – based on how the January Agreement came into being and what subsequently happened – the Liberal Party’s and Left Party’s motives and actions in connection with the formation of a government.

From the citation by the prize committee: The essay connects to a current theme in a valuable way. The author demonstrates good awareness of method and his analysis of the reasons and conditions behind the actions of the parties is structured and transparent. His conclusions are well-founded and are related to previous research. The essay contributes commendably to an improved understanding of the political actors of the political process and their motives.

Read the essay "Hur politik beräknas" by Einar Dernegård (pdf, 479 kB)

Valdemar Holt, Department of Political Science at Lund University, with the essay “Utanförskapet misstänkliggjort” (“Exclusion under suspicion”).

The essay investigates the view of the Social Democratic party and the Moderate Party of the concept of “exclusion” – based on debates between party leaders – between 2010 and 2022. 

From the citation by the prize committee: The essay contains an impressive qualitative analysis of how discourse on the concept of exclusion has changed based on a run-through of debates with the party leaders of two large Riksdag parties. The essay is firmly based on earlier research in the area. The essay commendably contributes valuable knowledge to a subject with current political relevance. 

Read the essay "Utanförskapet misstänkliggjort" by Valdemar Holt (pdf, 537 kB)

Lisa Selander, Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism, Stockholm University, with the essay "En partiledardebatt på teckenspråk. Tolkars strategier för att leverera högkvalitativ tolkning” (“A debate between party leaders in sign language. Interpreters’ strategies to provide high-quality interpretation”).

Citation by the prize committee: The essay provides a valuable connection to the Riksdag’s work to make debates accessible – and ultimately democratic decisions. The study provides a commendable insight into an area to which not very much research has previously been devoted.” The essay contributes commendably to an improved understanding of the scope of the democratic process.” 

Markus Sjölén Gustafsson, Department of Political Science at Uppsala University, with the essay "'Fully Acceptable. Policies on Homosexuality in the Swedish Parliament between 1933-2010".

Citation by the prize committee: The essay is firmly based on earlier research, regarding both its theoretical and its analytical framework. The author demonstrates good awareness of method and provides a comprehensive and keen analysis. The essay provides new knowledge on the role of the Riksdag and individual members of the Riksdag in the development of a policy area.”

Thea Ahlgren, Department of Political Science at Uppsala University, with the essay "Att bryta ner och avhumanisera en människa.  En kvalitativ studie om kvinnliga riksdagsledamöters erfarenheter av och strategier för könade kränkningar på sociala medier". (“Breaking down and dehumanising a human being. A qualitative study of the experiences of women members of the Riksdag of gender-based violations on social media and their strategies for dealing with them.”)

Citation by the prize committee: The essay commendably provides new and important knowledge on a little researched area of great significance when it comes to the Riksdag members’ performance of their duties.” The author’s analysis highlights with clear insight members’ vulnerability on the internet and their strategies for dealing with violations. It links its results well to previous research.

Nathalie Gunnarsson, Department of Political Science at Linnaeus University, with the essay "Competitive, Accommodative or Neither? An examination of two Swedish parties’ competitiveness while in opposition and support of party status".

Citation by the prize committee: The essay contributes commendably to an understanding of the actions of parties in the Riksdag in a changing parliamentary landscape. The author carries out a thorough examination of a hypothesis using exhaustive materials spanning a long period of time. The essay is firmly based on political science research on party behaviour.