This thesis examines how three leading Swedish newspapers; Aftonbladet, Expressen, and Svenska Dagbladet, frame the wars in Ukraine–Russia and Gaza–Israel, and whether they apply different strategies. Grounded in framing theory (Semetko & Valkenburg; Entman), media logic, and an organisational-learning (WIL) lens, the study treats newsrooms as sites of professional knowledge production and adaptation.

A mixed-methods design combines quantitative content analysis of 180 articles sampled at two time points (conflict onset and then summer 2025) with qualitative frame analysis of 48 articles.

Quantitatively, Conflict, Responsibility and Morality dominate overall; Human Interest is frequent, while Economic Consequences is rare. Cross-conflict patterns show Ukraine coverage pairing accountability with economic/strategic angles, whereas Gaza reporting leans more toward humanitarian and ethical narratives; outlet- and time-based variation is evident (example; Aftonbladet’s stronger human-interest in Gaza; Ukraine’s early shock shifting to strategic stability; Gaza moving from 7 October atrocity/self-defence to systemic humanitarian crisis).

Qualitatively, language and sourcing choices construct asymmetries in agency and certainty: Ukrainians are individualised and legitimated; Gaza harms are often mediated through institutions and verification hedges. Interpreted through WIL, adaptation is mainly single-loop—calibrating routines within existing assumptions—with limited late-period signs of double-loop reconsideration in Gaza (expanded sourcing, stronger legal-normative scrutiny).