“On This Issue, We More or Less Agree” – An analysis of how the Sweden Democrats fixate the parliamentary discourse on immigration – and the other parties’ role in this

Through Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, I analyse how the Sweden Democrats fixate the parliamentary discourse on immigration. Also, I investigate what the other parties’ role are is in this fixation, and how they can limit the Sweden Democrats’ influence over the discourse. My material consists of parliamentary debates from 2010 to 2012. My main conclusions are that the Sweden Democrats destabilise the discourse through criticising former immigration policies. After this, they establish their own views by connecting employment, alienation, ethnicity and criminality to immigration. The other parties facilitate the fixation by agreeing with the Sweden Democrats’ criticism on former policies, and also by speaking of unemployment and alienation in the same way as the Sweden Democrats. The other parties hamper the fixation by creating a strong barrier between themselves and the Sweden Democrats, making the party stand out as an antagonism in the discourse. More effective ways for the other parties to deal with the Sweden Democrats would be to avoid articulating the same elements as them, and to utilise more hegemonic interventions. Instead of repeating and criticising the Sweden Democrats’ statements, the other parties should present their own beliefs on immigration and focus on the elements they wish to include in the discourse.