Differing Anti-disinformation Approaches Between the United Kingdom and Sweden

This paper investigates the methods that Sweden and the UK take to combat disinformation. Leaving disinformation to spread and not acting against it can manipulate public opinion, but also undermine trust in governing institutions. Countering disinformation is therefore central to protect democracy and preserve truth. However, countries diverge in how they might frame this problem, which then impacts how they act on it. The research question of this paper asks “In what way do the anti-disinformation approaches of Sweden and the UK differ?” As there is a major research gap in anti-disinformation measures, there is only scarce research on the applicability of theories to this topic. Therefore, two theories of international relations, namely realism and liberalism, were used as a lens to try and explain the influence that state framing can have on state behaviour in anti-disinformation. Out of this, three hypotheses were formulated, focusing on the impact that perceiving an external threat can have on how a government might restrict free speech. However, there was no significant correlation between the perceiving of threats and how governments acted towards freedom of speech. Still, differences between framing and behaviour of the two cases, as well as structural differences were identified.