The consequences of securitization: A comparative study of Sweden´s and Denmarks threat construction of the A(H1N1) and Covid-19 epidemics

In 2009, during the outbreak of the A(H1N1) pandemic, Sweden launched its most extensive vaccination campaign ever, and had in a few months vaccinated 60% of the population. Denmark viewed A(H1N1) as a regular influenza and settled for radically different strategy.

During the Covid-19 epidemic in 2020 the policy strategies of the two countries are again fundamentally diametrical, with Denmark pursuing a strict lock-down of the entire society while Sweden´s strategy is based on voluntarily social distancing.

The altering policies are puzzling and begs the questions of how do actors construct and frame threatening issues such a pandemics?; how are the different strategies to handle the same threat made possible? and; why does these processes alter over time and space?

Guided by securitization theory, this project attempts to answer these questions by a comparative study of the securitization processes preceding these four policy strategies.

Securitization concerns the process of how political leaders and other decision-makers frame and construct issues as threats, how these framing strategies are received by the public and/or the broader political elite, and how this process can end up that an issue is viewed as an existential threat to a state or society, demanding extraordinary actions.

An increased knowledge on processes of threat construction and the policy implications of these constructions is of great significance for the handling of future crises.