NÄR TRAGEDIN FÅR EN AGENDA En kvalitativ studie om ideologiska skillnader i inramningen av politiskt våld

Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to examine how Republican and Democratic politicians use rhetoric to frame political violence. The study uses a qualitative text analysis to compare statements made by JD Vance following the death of Charlie Kirk with statements made by Tim Walz after the death of Melissa Hortman. The analysis seeks to identify how each politician rhetorically frames the crisis and to identify similarities and differences in their respective framing strategies. Previous research suggests that political actors often use crises to benefit their own political agendas, for example through scapegoating or by emphasizing victimhood and collective mourning. To analyze the framing of political violence in the selected cases, Semetko and Valkenburg’s (2000) four frames are applied: the responsibility frame, the moral frame, the conflict frame and the human-interest frame. The findings indicate that JD Vance predominantly uses conflict and moral framing, emphasizing political divisions, societal polarization, and religious references. In contrast, Tim Walz primarily uses the human-interest frame, focusing on grief, loss and Melissa Hortman as a person rather than on political conflict.