The legality of abortion has been a subject of discussion for many years, and it became even more relevant after the overturn of the constitutional right to abortion in the United States - the appeal of Roe v. Wade. It created turmoil internationally and women began to fear that their right to abortion would be diminished or taken away completely. It meant that parliamentary debates became highly focused on abortion - but how was the discussion framed? Especially in countries such as Sweden and the UK where they often consider abortion to be a necessity? In this thesis we examine how the parliaments in these two countries have framed the debate after and in relation to the overturn of Roe v. Wade using a comparative qualitative content analysis.

The single case small-n study uses the framing theory by Robert Entman (1993) applying four concepts to attempt to answer the research question: Problem definition, Causal interpretation, Moral evaluation and Treatment Recommendation. The aim is to understand the differences and the impact US law has on the international debate using 2 motions from the Westminster parliament and 6 motions from the Swedish parliament. The results show a much more objective view of abortion in Sweden whilst the UK demonstrates emotional language and imagery, demonstrating a clear impact the US has on the international debate.