This thesis examines and compares the Swedish media framing of other countries' foreign policies. Specifically, the two chosen cases for comparison are the foreign interventions in the Syrian civil war by the US, which is an ally of Sweden, and Russia, which is in a complicated relationship with Sweden. This study applies a qualitative approach to conduct a small-N case study to compare and analyse the framing of the Swedish media of the US and Russia interventions in Syria. Framing theory and agenda-setting are applied as the theoretical framework. The media’s frames are divided between presenting the US and Russian direct and proxy interventions as legitimate or illegitimate. After assessing if the Swedish media representation of each type of intervention was framed as legitimate or illegitimate, the analysis revealed that the US intervention is framed as legitimate while Russia is framed as an illegitimate intervener in the Syrian conflict. The Swedish media apparent biases correspond to the Swedish states' foreign policy relationships with the intervening nations. This result is in line with and contributes to the literature on the national media framing of other countries’ foreign policy.