SMALL STATE BEHAVIOR TOWARDS AUTOCRACIES A study of Sweden’s criticism of autocratic Gulf states between 2010-2023

Abstract

In international politics Sweden is considered a moral frontrunner and a strong advocate of democratic values. However, there are instances that suggest that this image is not always consistent, as Sweden, as a small state, must balance normative commitments with strategic interests. This thesis examines Sweden’s public criticism of democratic shortcomings in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain between 2010 and 2023, and whether the content and intensity of such criticism vary depending on the level of bilateral trade. The empirical material consists of Swedish parliamentary interpellations, which are analyzed using both a qualitative and quantitative content analysis. The findings suggest that Sweden’s criticism toward the four Gulf states is limited and generally low in intensity, with human rights constituting the dominant category of criticism. The results do not support the expectation that lower trade levels lead to stronger criticism, as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates received comparatively more attention. Instead, criticism appears to be largely event-driven pointing towards a more reactive rather than proactive foreign policy.