What´s the ‘problem’ represented to be?
An intersectional, critical WPR policy analysis on the preparatory work and government bill from the Swedish government regarding changes to the parental leave policy.
Author: Frida Jaeger Tronde
Åsa-Karin Engstrand, Gender Studies, LiU
Master’s Programme
Gender Studies – Intersectionality and Change
Master’s thesis 15 ECTS credits
Abstract
The aim with this case study was to do an intersectional, critical WPR (What’s the ‘problem’ represented to be) policy analysis of the Swedish governments preparatory work and
government bill to achieve a more even distribution of parental leave between parents. In order to analyse the material, I used Carol Bacchi´s critical WPR approach to policy analysis. I critically examined how the preparatory work and government bill, that was later followed by the choice to introduce an additional reserved month for each parent, construct the ‘problem’, what presuppositions underlie the representation of the ‘problem’, what was left silenced and unproblematic and what effects and implications the representation of the ‘problem’ produces. Overall, the analysis showed that the problem is represented to be that the uneven distribution of parental leave is not gender-equal which could have negative effects for women. The underlying assumptions mainly focused on women, their participation in the labour market and other aspects that is connected to traditional gender norms and our doing of gender. Little, or non, attention has been put on intersectionality and therefore, something that is left unproblematic and silenced in the problem representation. The documents mainly talk about men and women, mothers and fathers which show that the preparatory work and the government bill did not adopt a clear intersectional approach and can, therefore, be at risk of being gendering and heteronorming in its effect.
Acknowledgements
I would like to start by thanking my supervisor, Åsa-Karin Engstrand, who has been
extremely helpful and encouraging during this process. I would also like to thank my family for their ongoing support and love – without you I would be nothing.
Table of content
INTRODUCTION ... 5
AIM WITH THIS STUDY ... 6
RESEARCH QUESTIONS: ... 6
BACKGROUND ... 8
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ... 9
PARENTAL LEAVE POLICY ... 9
HINDERS FOR AN EQUAL SHARE OF PARENTAL LEAVE ... 10
FATHER´S QUOTA ... 11
THEORY ... 13
POSTSTRUCTURAL APPROACH TO POLICY ANALYSIS ... 13
DOING GENDER AND INTERSECTIONALITY ... 14
METHOD ... 16
CASE STUDY AND THE WPR APPROACH ... 16
EMPIRICAL MATERIAL ... 18
LIMITATIONS ... 19
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ... 20
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ... 21
WHAT IS THE ‘PROBLEM’ REPRESENTED TO BE? - PREPARATORY WORK ... 21
WHAT´S THE ‘PROBLEM’ REPRESENTED TO BE? - GOVERNMENT BILL ... 22
WHAT PRESUPPOSITIONS OR ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLIE THIS REPRESENTATION OF THE ‘PROBLEM’? - PREPARATORY WORK ... 22
WHAT PRESUPPOSITIONS OR ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLIE THIS REPRESENTATION OF THE ‘PROBLEM’? - GOVERNMENT BILL ... 25
WHAT IS LEFT UNPROBLEMATIC IN THIS PROBLEM REPRESENTATION? WHERE ARE THE SILENCES? CAN THE ‘PROBLEM’ BE THOUGHT ABOUT DIFFERENTLY? ... 28
WHAT EFFECTS ARE PRODUCED BY THIS REPRESENTATION OF THE ‘PROBLEM’? ... 30
CONCLUSION ... 33
Introduction
Gender equality, a highly debated topic that, in some cases, leads to engaging conversations, and at other times, difficult conversations. Gender equality is considered to be a fundamental human right and something necessary for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world (UN, n.d). As a way to overcome gender inequality, the UN (n.d) suggest implementing new legal frameworks in order to end gender-based discrimination in the world.
In order to achieve this, policies and other legal documents are being set in place. A policy can generally be seen as a plan or a framework that is designed to deal with social problems. Policies can surface through civil society. However, they often surface from the interaction between non-governmental and governmental actors (Hankivsky, 2012). Like mentioned above, policies are often seen as a tool created in order to solve already existing social problems. Thus, some would argue that they rather give meaning or shape to the problems that they address. Therefore, this view would suggest that policies are productive (Bacchi, Eveline, 2010).
Sweden has claimed to have the first feminist government in the world (Government, n.d). The Swedish feminist government argue that women and men must have the same power to shape their own lives and society. This means that the government will ensure that a gender equality perspective is brought into policy-making both nationally and internationally. One could argue that there are many areas where the world lacks gender equality. Thus, this thesis will put its focus on gender equality when it comes to parental leave. The parental leave system in Sweden is seen as being one of the world’s most generous, in relations to this, it is also supposed to be gender-neutral in its form (Försäkringskassan, 2014). However, research and statistics, that will be presented further down in this thesis, show that even though swedes have the opportunity to have an equal share of the parental leave, they do not share evenly (Försäkringskassan, 2014). Therefore, the Swedish government have taken measures in order to change the unequal distribution of parental leave days. One of these measures was to add and additional third earmarked month for each parent, a measure that was presented in 2016 and finalised in 2018 (Regeringen, 2018).
By taking into account what has been mentioned above, it is interesting and important to study the documents that forms the base for this decision. Previous research has focused on and aimed to find explanations as to why the outtake of parental leave has been uneven between men and women. For example, research has shown that there are different hinders, such as economic aspects and traditional gender norms that prevents men from staying at home with the children and women from working (Bekkengen, 2002).
As mentioned above, policies and policy documents are seen as addressing already existing social problems (Bacchi & Eveline, 2012). Therefore, in order to reach a more balanced and critical view on parental leave, this thesis will apply Carol Bacchi´s analytical tool to policy analysis called what’s the ‘problem’ represented to be, in other words known as the WPR approach. The WPR approach will be applied to the Preparatory work and Government bill that formed the base for changing the already existing parental leave policy in Sweden. WPR enables one to see how policies are human constructions that produce effects and how
problems are constructed within the specific policy (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016).This also means that one can provide a more nuanced look at what is seen as the problem in the documents and other aspects that are important. This research will contribute to a more
critical view on both the preparatory work and the government bill, something that has not yet been done before on these specific documents and will therefore, fill a research gap. In the next section, the aim and research questions will be presented.
Aim with this study
This research aims to do an intersectional, critical WPR policy analysis of the Swedish
governments preparatory work and government bill to achieve a more even distribution of the parental leave policy. This means to critically examine how the preparatory work and
government bill, that was later followed by the choice to introduce an additional reserved month for each parent, construct the problem, what presuppositions underlie the
representation of the ‘problem’, what was left silenced and unproblematic and what effects and implications the representation of the problem produces.
Research questions:
- What is left unproblematic and silenced in this representation of the ‘problem’? - What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?
Background
In this section, a background on the history of the Swedish parental leave policy will be presented. Sweden is known for its generous welfare system, and during the 1900s, Sweden went from being a country with existing poverty to a well-functioning country with a stable economy (Försäkringskassan, 2014). One of the reasons for this was the fact that both women and men were able to partake in labour work. This meant that families went from having one income to having two incomes. Therefore, as an effect of this, the welfare system regarding support for families with children had to expand (Försäkringskassan, 2014).
In 1974, Sweden went from a parental leave policy that only took into account the mother, to a gender-neutral parental leave policy. Before 1974, only the mother was entitled to be on paid parental leave. As this changed, Sweden was one of the first countries in the world to implement a policy where both the mother and the father had equal rights when it came to caring for their children (Försäkringskassan, 2014). This meant that families could decide for themselves regarding parental leave and also share it evenly. Thus, the general norm when it came to fathers staying at home with their children were low. Back then, statistics showed that mothers stayed at home with the children 99,5% of the time, even though they had the opportunity to share the parental leave. In order to change this pattern, Sweden decided to implement an earmarked month, meaning that one month of the parental leave allowance was allocated to each parent. In 1995, the earmarked month was implemented, and in 2002, a second month was added. However, even though Sweden applied these measurements, statistics in 2006 showed that men only took 20% of the parental leave (Försäkringskassan, 2014). Thus, it is important to note that this was an improvement and that the earmarked months seemed to work (Försäkringskassan, 2019).
As mentioned above, in order to reach a more even distribution of parental leave between parents, Sweden has implemented earmarked months. In addition to this, a gender equality bonus was implemented in order to encourage a more even distribution. However, in 2017, this bonus was dismissed since no real effect could be seen from it (Regeringen, 2017) and in 2018, an additional third earmarked month was added (Regeringen, 2018). Today, statistics show that the third additional month has had an effect on father’s parental leave. Thus, it does
Previous research
This section will present previous research within the field of parental leave. Within the field of parental leave research, one can find a lot. Thus, the research tends to include different aspects and focuses on different areas regarding parental leave. For example, there is research that focus on the economic effects of parental leave, which shows that women who have a longer leave period can have a risk of a decrease in her human capital and reduce the chance of promotion opportunities (Matysiak & Szalma, 2014). This ultimately shows that an uneven divide of parental leave can also have an effect on the labour market for women. Thus, the duration of the parental leave is an aspect to take into consideration when it comes to the effects it might have on the labour market for women (Matysiak &Szalma, 2014). Research also shows that there are sociological aspects, such as gender norms and stereotypes that affect parental leave, something that will be explained further down. The following sections will provide previous research on gender equality policies, hinders that might prevent an equal distribution of parental leave and previous research on ear-market days, so-called “father quotas” and parental leave.
Parental leave policy
Since the 1990s, Sweden has had the reputation of being one of the most gender-equal countries in the world, a reputation that keeps on growing (Magnusson et al, 2016). In order to maintain its reputation, Sweden has throughout the years implemented and developed policies, such as the parental leave policy, in order to promote gender equality within the country (Regeringen, 2019). These measurements have had some effect and surveys aiming to measure father’s attitudes towards parental leave show that Swedish men generally have a positive attitude towards being on parental leave. Thus, the statistics tell another story since men tend to take out a small part of the shared parental leave (Klinth & Johansson, 2008). This can be highlighted with statistics from Försäkringskassan (2018), which showed that during 2017, women took out 72% of the total parental leave in Sweden. Some research claim that the gender-equality norm and its policies in Sweden might face a risk of reproducing traditional and heteronormative norms (Magnusson, et al, 2016). I.e. do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. This becomes clear when previous research on campaigns from The Social Insurance Agency show that the majority of brochures about parental leave were directed towards fathers (Widegren, 2016). Previous research has also highlighted the
heteronormative assumptions within the Swedish gender equality discourse by the fact that it has been centred by, and therefore, structured by the heterosexual couple (Widegren, 2016). Besides this, policies can also have a risk of, unintentionally, exclude people. Research from Australia, which was aiming to examine the issues of childcare affordability applied the WPR approach to an Australian child care package. This package aimed to assist parents with childcare costs. Thus, when applying the WPR approach to the policy, they could uncover effects that diminished choices made by disadvantaged families (Beutler & Fenech, 2018).
Internationally, parental leave policies can differ depending on what country one live in. Thus, something that is in common for most western countries is that the parental leave policy is constantly under construction, research also shows that many countries are learning from the Nordic countries and their way of doing parental leave policy (Karu, Tremplay, 2018). For example, throughout history, there has been a strong norm to protect motherhood with a parental leave policy, and therefore, no attention has been put on fatherhood. Thus, this is something that has gotten more attention throughout more recent years and measures towards fathers and their caretaking has been put in place (Karu & Tremplay, 2018). In Europe, parental leave policies can differ from each other. For example, they can differ in
transferability and nontransferablility, duration and payment. In most European countries, a part of the parental leave can be transferred to the other parent, thus, most of the time, this “free choice” leads to women taking up most of the days. As a way to change this, the Nordic countries have implemented so-called “father’s quotas” (Castro-Garcia & Pazoz-Moran, 2016) something that will be explained in more depth further down.
Hinders for an equal share of parental leave
There are no guarantees that a parental leave policy is a gateway in order to reach gender equality. Research shows that other hinders needs to be addressed and conquered since existing power structures between men and women is preventing an even share of parental leave (Bekkengen, 2002). Lisbeth Bekkengen conducted qualitative research where she did around 60 interviews with eight couples who had children together, their employers and their colleagues. She followed them through the time from when they first became parents to when they returned to work and when most of the parental leave had been used up. The aim was to find out what mechanism was behind their choices and the divide of their parental leave.
Bekkengen (2002) presents four different hinders as to why fathers do not take out as much parental leave as mothers. The first one is traditional gender norms, where outdated gender norms affect the division of parental leave where it is expected of women to stay at home with and care for their children (Bekkengen, 2002). The traditional expectations connected to being a man and a woman are still present, where women are seen as caring and emotional in
contrast to men who are seen as the breadwinner of a family (Bekkengen, 1996). The second hinder is financial reasons, where the gender pay gap can be seen as an argument, or excuse, as to why women stay at home longer and fathers do not (Bekkengen, 2002), i.e. women tend to earn less money than men which then make for an argument that it is not financially reliable for the father to be off work since the family then would lose his income. However, research and statistics are showing that mothers take out most of the parental leave, even if they have a higher income than their partner (Försäkringskassan, 2016). One could argue that this hinder could also be connected to the obstacle of traditional gender norms, where a man´s contribution and income to the family, i.e. the man being seen as the breadwinner, is seen as more important than the woman’s. In other words, it becomes a question regarding gender and norms rather than money (Bekkengen, 2002). The third hinder is regarding the
attitudes from the employer and that fathers who are taking out parental leave, and thereby not
working, can be seen as something negative from the employer’s side. However, Bekkengen (2002) state that this is more or less a feeling that the father has rather than a view that the employer shares. The fourth, and last, hinder is seen as being the mother. This hinder is related to the fact that the mother is seen as not wanting to “give up” her parental leave to the father and can, therefore, be seen as a hinder for the father to take out more parental leave (Bekkengen, 2002). Alsarve and Boye (2012) argue that a possible explanation for this could be breastfeeding, since the father cannot breastfeed, the mother has to be on parental leave for a longer time.
Father´s quota
In Sweden and some other countries, parental leave policies have so-called “father quotas”. This means that some of the parental leave months are earmarked to the father as a way to reach a more even share of parental leave. Within research, the earmarked months are at times specified as belonging to the father, whereas it also can be specified as belonging to the partner and therefore, be considered as gender-neutral. One could argue that father quotas could be seen as being gendered, whereas the shared parental leave is seen as a family right
and something that is available for both parents, i.e. aiming towards being gender-neutral (Brandth & Kvande, 2018). Thus, Brighthouse and Wright (2008) research argues that in order to actively move towards gender equality, we cannot only rely on policies that remove certain obstacles and attack discrimination. This means that it is necessary to create equality-promoting policies that impose constraints on decisions being made within families that would encourage fathers to take more child care responsibilities (Brighthouse & Wright, 2008). By putting pressure on fathers, by the use of quotas, cultural and traditional barriers that typically hinder gender equality within families could be broken down (Brighthouse & Wright, 2008). This goes in line with Morgan´s (2008) research, where she states that gender-equality advocates should work towards expanding the rights for fathers. This claim is made due to the fact that by adding an additional month for fathers, Iceland got a significant increase in the number of days that was taken up by fathers. This shows that policies can influence the parent’s decision on parental leave. Thus, fathers tend only to take the non-transferable and locked months and thereby, the mother tends to take the parental leave that parents can divide however they like (Neuman & Meuser, 2017).
In Brandth and Kvande´s (2019) research on father’s sense of entitlement to ear-marked and shared parental leave, they interview 22 fathers in order investigate fathers use and their attitudes towards the two different types of parental leave that exists. Their research shows that fathers tend to have an ambivalent relationship regarding their right to shared parental leave. The traditional and societal norms constitute that the shared leave is primarily the mothers right, norms fathers also feel exists among managers and colleagues, which then affects fathers understanding and action. The strain on mother’s bodies due to pregnancy and birth also influences men´s feeling about what is just and fair. Thus, some fathers use their individual sense of entitlement and take advantage of the shared parental leave and are feeling supported by their employers who then find ways to handle their absence without the father losing their status as an essential employee (Brandth & Kvande, 2019). Brandth and Kvande (2018) suggest that this can be seen as a process of change. Like mentioned in the previous section, this research also shows that quotas and ear-marked months tend to work better when it comes to fathers taking up parental leave rather than shared parental leave that leaves the decision up to the family and the individual.
Theory
In this section, the theoretical framework for this thesis will be presented. Carol Bacchi´s WPR approach to policy analysis draws upon Foucault´s poststructuralism. Therefore, a brief introduction and explanation of poststructuralism and its relations to policy analysis will be explained. This will then be followed by the theory of doing gender and intersectionality since this thesis will be built on the understanding of gender as a social construction and the
importance of intersectionality.
Poststructural approach to policy analysis
For a long time, poststructuralism has been influential across humanities and social sciences, thus, in the field of policy research and analysis, it has not been as influential and popular (Bacchi, Goodwin, 2016). Even though poststructuralism is not a singular theory, it is still possible to identify some parameters of a poststructural approach. In general, it questions beliefs in objective and universal truths and assumptions regarding science and progress, reason, emancipation and concerns regarding the connection between social inequality and thinking. This means that attention can be drawn towards heterogeneous and knowledge practices that have a risk of producing hierarchical and inegalitarian forms of rule that constitutes our society (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). By studying problematizations, one can dismantle objects and their taken-for-granted fixed essence (Bacchi, 2012). Legislative rules and regulations shape and influence what we do and how we live our lives. A poststructural perspective on these rules and regulations can bring into play professional knowledge that has a significant role in how we are governed, and thereby, the subjects that we are encouraged to become (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). Therefore, it is essential to question knowledge and see it as constructed or “made” since social policy is a highly normative discipline that constructs ideal models of society which are based on notions of social justice, which masks the concrete functioning of power (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). A poststructural approach to policy can reflect on taken-for-granted notions within policies and challenge the view that policies address problems, this view rather asks how policies can produce problems. This is important since policies are human constructions that produce effects and, by asking how problems are constituted in policies and regulations, it is possible to see the underlying assumptions that form these representations and thereby, the effect and implications that follow (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). The problem representation that policies contain are constituted in
discourse. This means that the discourse refers to bounded and socially produced forms of knowledge that can set limits upon what is possible to think, speak or write about within a specific context (Bacchi, 2010).
Doing gender and intersectionality
As previously mentioned, this thesis holds a view of gender as being a social construction and something that we do rather than something that we “have” or “are” (Lykke, 2010). The theory of doing gender was first created by Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman (1987) in the late 1980s. Doing gender highlights the creation of un-natural differences between girls and boys, women and men that are neither essential nor biological. The doing of gender is constructed and done in human interaction (Lykke, 2010) and is reproduced in everyday life. It is also tightly connected to norms and structures regarding what is seen as being male or female behaviour. Therefore, this leads us into thinking that our doing of gender is natural when it actually is something that we perform (West & Zimmerman, 1987). This means that people are encouraged to fit into existing categories in which our society is organised (Bacchi, 2017).
The doing of gender is also something that can be seen in policymaking. Bacchi (2017) highlights the importance that is to ask how a policy is potentially gendering and how it might encourage the ongoing production of behaviours that are associated with what is seen as being male or female. Instead of looking at policies as affecting people and people’s lives, Carol Bacchi (2017) offers a look on policies as being gendering practices and offers a way to rethink and direct attention to how inequality is “done” (Bacchi, 2017). Bacchi (2017) argues that by looking at policies as a risk of potentially being gendering, one can shift the focus from considering how policies impact men and women to how they constitute or make them come to be. This means that one can ask how policies, potentially, can have constitutive effects and therefore, a risk of being, for example, gendering, heteronorming, classing and disabling (Bacchi, 2017).
Whilst at the same time viewing gender as a social construction and something that we do, it is also important to acknowledge gender as intersectional. This means that we need to acknowledge how gender is interlocked with other sociocultural power differences and
Gender and other social categories are interlocked with each other (Crenshaw, 1989), which means that women cannot be seen as belonging to one group where they have similar identities. Previously, women have been seen as having a shared oppression (Talpade
Mohanty, 1984). This is problematic since it neglects, for example, racial and class processes that are essential in the ongoing reproductions of inequalities and it can, therefore,
marginalize people who are multiply burdened (Crenshaw, 1989). By applying
intersectionality and a view of oppression as interlocking, we can go beyond this way of thinking (Hill Collins, 1990). Hill Collins (1990) also talks about the matrix of domination, which shows that you can be an oppressor or be oppressed depending on what context you put yourself in.
Method
In this section, a presentation of the methodological approach for this thesis will be presented. This will be followed by a discussion on limitations, ethical considerations and situated knowledge. An explanation of the data material that has been used will also be provided.
Case study and the WPR approach
In order to conduct this research, I have chosen to use a case study approach. A case study is characterized by the idea that the research will only focus on one individual instance rather than the broader spectrum. Therefore, a case study focuses on one, or just a few, instances of a phenomenon, in this case, two governmental documents that focus on the same topic, i.e. parental leave. By doing so, one is allowed to discover underlying details or processes occurring in a particular instance (Denscombe, 2007). This research aims to provide an intersectional, critical WPR approach to policy analysis, therefore, the use of a case study is said to be recommended (Yin, 2014).
In order to analyse the data material, Carol Bacchi´s critical approach to policy analysis will be used. This approach and analytical tool is called “What´s the ‘problem’ represented to be”, also known as the WPR approach, and aims to highlight how ‘problems’ are represented and thereby, what meaning that ‘problem’ is given within a specific policy or document (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010). The general conception regarding public policies seems to be that they are created as a reaction to already existing social problems and that they are waiting to be solved through policy interventions. Thus, the WPR approach challenge this conventional view on public policies and directs attention to how ‘problems’ can be socially constructed within policies. Therefore, one can think of policies as being productive and imagining problems which mean that “policies and policy proposals give shape and meaning to the ‘problems’ they purport to ‘address’” (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010, p 111). Thus, it is important to note that this way of looking at ‘problems’ as not existing out in society does not undermine or ignore troubling conditions, such as the subordination of women. However, it argues that the way ‘problems’ are represented in policies can affect the understanding of a specific ‘problem’ and also have an effect on what is seen as problematic and therefore, for what is silenced (Bacchi
What has been mentioned above show that how we represent ‘problems’ can reinforce categories of people and have gendering effects. By applying the WPR approach, one can identify policies possibilities and their limitations, i.e. how they, at times, have a risk of being gendering, classing, racialising and heteronorming in their effects (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010). One could argue that WPR welcomes a more critical approach to policy analysis that has a possibility of questioning taken for granted discourses which then, hopefully, can lead to a change.
In order to critically conduct a WPR policy analysis, Bacchi has created a set of six questions that encourage one to start the analytical process. These questions are:
1. What´s the ‘problem’ represented to be?
2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’? 3. How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about?
4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be thought about differently?
5. What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?
6. How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?
(Bacchi & Eveline, 2010, p. 117).
By applying all, or some, of these questions one can draw attention to the possible usefulness, danger or limitation of a policy rather than the outcomes (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010). For this study, I decided to apply four out of six questions. I will leave out the two questions
concerning how the representation of the problem came about (question number 3) and how the representation of the problem has been produced and disseminated (question number 6). I made this decision based on the fact that I believe that the questions I have chosen are
sufficient enough when it comes to analysing the problem representation, the assumptions that underlie the representation and the possible effects.
The aim with question one is to identify the representation of the problem in order to see what is problematised in the documents. In question number two, the aim is to identify the
assumptions and meaning, which forms a base for the problem representation. Question number four seeks to encourage a form of critical thinking and to draw attention to silences or
unproblematized elements within the policy or document. I.e. question number four opens up for the researcher to look beyond the policy document in order to see, for example, how a policy and document could be built upon heteronormative assumptions of gender and how a problem could be looked at in a different way (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). The fifth and final question consider the effects of the problem representation. Bacchi writes about three
overlapping possible effects from policies, these are the discursive effects, subjectification
effects and lived effects. Firstly, discursive effects are about the possible limitation in what can
be said or not. Secondly, subjectification effects are regarding how people are thought about and/or think about themselves. Thirdly, lived effects are regarding the material impact public policy can have on people’s lives, i.e. the real impact a policy can have on life or death (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010). In order to start the analysis, I read through my data material several times with one of the WPR questions in mind. In the next section, the data material used to conduct this study will be presented.
Empirical material
For this study, I am using the Swedish government´s documents that form a base for the decision to change the parental leave policy in 2016. This means that I will be using the preparatory work “Ytterligare en månad inom föräldrapenningen reserveras för vardera föräldern”, i.e. “An additional month to be reserved for each parent” (D.s 2015:8) in English and the government bill that followed called “En mer jämställd föräldrapenning” in English “A more equal paid parental leave policy” (Prop.2014/15:124). These documents are written in Swedish, therefore, I will be translating quotes that are being used in the analysis into English. It is worth noting that the preparatory work is 52 pages and the government bill is 25 pages long.
In order to understand as to why I have chosen to use both of these documents, I will briefly explain how it works when the Swedish government wants to introduce a new policy or law. A government inquiry is appointed to investigate a specific issue and a committee is tasked with investigating the conditions for what the government wants to introduce. When the inquiry is complete, the committee drafts a report that is sent for consultation to, for example, relevant government agencies, organisations and the council on Legislation that will submit their responses. The government then drafts a proposal, i.e. a government bill, to the Riksdag
last step, the Riksdag then votes on the bill and, if passed, a new law will be implemented (Regeringen, 2016). To clarify, this means that I will be analysing the investigation report (preparatory work) delivered from the ministry of health and social affairs that later led to the government bill, which will also be analysed.
Limitations
This is a small-scale case study, and as mentioned above, I decided to remove two out of the six questions that one can use whilst conducting a WPR policy analysis. I made this decision based on the time limit for this study. However, I would argue that these two questions are more or less similar and will, to some extent, be covered in the other questions. For example, I argue that question number five, on how the representation of the problem could be
questioned, disrupted and replaced is being covered by question number four and what is seen as being silenced in this problem representation and how it could be thought of differently. Bacchi (2009) also mentioned that it is not necessary to address all of the questions whilst conducting one’s research. By making this decision, one might argue that the analysis part of this thesis will consist of a more general overview and therefore, not an in-depth analysis. It is also important to take into consideration that it is not possible to generalize the results made from this thesis to the population. Thus, this is something that can be seen as a general
problem and limitation within qualitative research (Bryman, 2012) and not something specific for this study. Instead, findings in qualitative research are to be generalized to theory rather than to populations (Bryman, 2015).
In addition to what has been mentioned above, it is important to acknowledge that the data material being used in this study is written in Swedish, whereas the actual thesis is written in English. This might lead to some possible limitations due to the fact that English is my second language. This means that I have had to translate parts of my material to English and even though I have lived in an English-speaking country and studied in English, there is still a risk that this will lead to some limitations for this study. One way that I have tried to deal with this is to try and look beyond specific words in the text and instead, I have tried to capture the overall meaning within the text. However, I am aware that this means that I to some extent interpret the text and therefore a risk of the study not being objective, thus, my situated knowledge will be explained further down, and by taking that into account whilst reading the
analysis, one might get an understanding as to how I view the world and why, i.e. a reflection of my own subjectivity.
Ethical considerations
Whilst conducting research, it is important to discuss and take into consideration ethical issues that might have to be dealt with. There are various different requirements on what is considered as being proper research. The Swedish research council (2017) has developed requirements that are based on society´s general ethical norms and values. Some of these requirements raise questions about confidentiality, consent, anonymity and how to use the material (Swedish research council, 2017). As for this research, no participants have been involved, therefore, ethical concerns regarding those aspects have not had to be taken into consideration. Thus, I have taken into consideration ethical aspects regarding transparency and my own situated knowledge, something that will be explained in the next section.
As the writer of this thesis, it is important that I make myself accountable and take moral responsibility for what is said, or not said. This means that the knower, i.e. I, have to make myself accountable for my articulations of reality (Lykke, 2010). In order to do so, I need to take into account and be transparent about my views of reality, in relation to this, I also need to account for what kind of reality-producing effects this research might induce (Lykke, 2010). Therefore, the reflection and analysis that I will present in this thesis cannot be seen as being the “truth” or correct since it will be based on how I have interpreted the material. However, it is important to note that no methodology allows discovering the absolute “truth” (Hill Collins, 1990). Knowledge is subjective and I argue that the way I view the world can be seen as a product of, for example, my history and childhood. This ultimately means that my “truth” and way of looking at the world will be different from others. As the writer of this thesis, I am aware that my interpretations will be shaped by the fact that I am brought up in what is defined as one of the world’s most gender-equal countries, where gender equality is sometimes taken for granted. I also think childcare and family life is something that both parents, if there are two, should share and take equal responsibility for. Thus, I am aware that this is a privileged view and a view that has been enabled by the welfare system that I have been brought up with. I identify as a white, middle-class, cisgender-woman and someone who considers herself as being a feminist.
Analysis and discussion
The following sections will present an analysis and discussion of the findings from this study. In the first section of the analysis, the question “What is the ‘problem’ represented to be?” will be applied to the empirical data material. This means that the problem representation of the documents will be presented. In the second part, the presuppositions or assumptions that underlie the representation of the problem will be presented. The third part will include what is seen as unproblematic in the problem representation and what is left silenced. Finally, in the fourth part, the implications and effect that might be produced by this representation of the problem will be presented. In order to make things clearer and provide a better structure, I have decided, whilst answering the first two questions, to divide the data material into two parts. This means that I will start to apply the WPR questions to the preparatory work and later, I will do the same on the government bill. This means that there might be some overlapping in case the government bill actually covers the information given in the
preparatory work and if not, that will give interesting material for the analysis. Thus, this will not be done whilst answering the two last questions.
What is the ‘problem’ represented to be?
-Preparatory work
The goal with the first WPR question is to identify a place to start the analysis. This first step involves identifying a problem representation and, in order to do so, one can work backwards to be able to see what is problematised (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016) and seen as problems within the policy or document (Bacchi, 2009).
In the preparatory work, the initial and general problem is represented to be that the uneven outtake of parental leave days is not gender equal. That there is an urgent need to take action and implement measures that can contribute to making sure that the work at home, and caring for the children, is better distributed between the parents and thereby, minimize the workload for women (Ds 2015:8, p. 5). Therefore, the problem is the uneven distribution of parental leave days between parents which is in need of change.
What´s the ‘problem’ represented to be? - Government bill
When reading the government bill, it is more or less identical to the preparatory work, therefore, I will present more of an overview of what the government bill presents where it is similar to the preparatory work.
In the government bill, the problem representation is the same as in the preparatory work.
“The distribution of parental leave is not gender equal. In general, women take out a significantly higher part of the parental leave in comparison to men. With this in mind, and the negative effects that it has on, for example, the distribution of paid and un-paid work and the situation for women
participation on the labour market we need to take action and implement measures that can contribute to an even share of parental leave so that the unpaid housework are distributed in an equal way between the parents” (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 1).
I.e. this quote highlights that the outtake of parental leave days is not equal between parents and that this is considered to be a problem since it will have a negative effect on women and their unpaid and paid work. Therefore, they suggest adding another reserved month, which would lead to three months being reserved for one parent as a measure to change the problem with the uneven outtake of parental leave days. This also shows that the government´s
definition of gender inequality is the unequal distribution of parental leave.
What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the
‘problem’? - Preparatory work
The aim of the second WPR question is to identify and analyse the logic that forms the base for the specific problem representation. This means to highlight and present the background knowledge that is taken for granted within the policy or document, i.e. the presuppositions or assumptions (Bacchi, 2009). One could argue that this is where we highlight why the
represented problems are seen as important to work with.
The underlying assumption in the problem representation and the urgent need to change this, is that an un-equal divide of parental leave affects women’s participation on the labour market both individually and as a group. When taking a deeper look into the material, one can tell
market, being more absent from the labour market and working part-time which then can have an impact on their employability. For example, this is seen as making women not gaining income, but also women at risk of not being employed or promoted to higher positions. There is also a gender pay gap, which means that women are generally earning 87% of what men are earning for doing the same work (Ds 2015:8 p. 29). However, another assumption also seems to be that men might not be supported by their employer when wanting to be on parental leave for a longer time (Ds 2015:8 p. 35-36). Women tend to take out more parental leave days and therefore, stay at home longer than the partner. This is then seen as having, according to research that the preparatory work refers to, a negative impact on employers’ view of women in the workforce and a non-equal labour market (Ds 2015:8 p. 30).
The preparatory work mentions that “a high level of advanced academic studies has a positive effect on an even distribution of parental leave” (Ds 2015:8 p. 22). There are assumptions which state that if the mother has a minimum two years of university studies, that doubles the likelihood of an even distribution of parental leave compared to if she were only to have a high school degree. The preparatory work also states that there are similar assumptions when it comes to fathers and them having a degree from a university. However, if the father has studied for a longer time and therefore, has a higher university degree than the mother, this will reduce the likelihood of an equal distribution of the parental leave (Ds 2015:8 p. 22). Another assumption is that if a man works in the private sector, this will have a negative effect on his outtake of parental leave, whereas this is not the case if he works in the public sector (Ds:2015:8, p. 24). In relations to this, if both parents are from Sweden that increases the likelihood of an even distribution of parental leave whereas if the parents are born in other countries, that has a negative effect on an even divide (Ds 2015:8 p. 24).
Other assumptions that underlie the problem representation is that women, who take more responsibility for childcare, have a risk of not developing her income. According to the material, the gender pay gap increases and 15 years after having their first baby, women generally earn 10 per cent less than men as a direct consequence of having a baby and staying on parental leave longer. There also seem to be negative health aspects for women as a consequence of them being on parental leave for a longer time. Research which is referred to in the preparatory work, show that women taking the primary responsibility for housework and childcare, whilst at the same time working, is at a higher risk of going on sick-leave. The preparatory work reference back to research which show that women and men have a similar
percentage of sick-leave days before having children, thus, after having children and 15 years after being on parental leave, women have a double amount of sick-leave than men (Ds 2015:8 p.32).
Another assumption is that by extending the locked parental leave days from the already existing two months to three months, greater cooperation from both parents can be achieved in caring for the children and the home. This is then assumed to contribute to an increase in general gender equality at home since both parents will be taking more responsibility (Ds 2015:8 p. 37). The preparatory work refers back to research showing that the second locked month that was introduced in 2002 had, statistically, a positive outcome on men´s outtake of parental leave days.
According to the preparatory work, a presupposition and an assumption that underlies the uneven, and thereby, the unequal divide of parental leave is that attitudes about parental leave are in need of change. The preparatory work argues that there still exists a view of women as being the primary caretaker of the children whilst men have the freedom to choose (Ds 2015:8 p. 42). According to Försäkringskassan (National insurance agency), gender plays a more prominent role than income in the decision on who will stay home longer on parental leave. Therefore, the preparatory work argues that by adding an additional month, a signal to both men and women to take equal responsibility will be sent out. In addition to this, they argue that a signal like that can in a positive way affect employers view on fathers going on parental leave (Ds 2015:8 p. 42).
Also, “from a child’s perspective, active measures need to be taken in order to cater
children’s need of close contact with both parents” (Ds 2015:8 p. 35), this suggests that
children are not having access to both parents. According to the UN convention on the rights of the child, every child has the right to maintain contact and have a relationship with both parents. This means that both parents have a responsibility for the child and the child’s upbringing. Since the divide between the parental leave days is uneven, the preparatory work claims that children do not have access to both parents due to this (Ds 2015:8. p. 5) which could be seen as important and yet, another assumption that underlies the problem
What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the
‘problem’? - Government bill
The government bill refers to the same research as the preparatory work, which shows that women take the majority of the responsibility for the children and therefore, the unpaid housework. As an effect of this, in relations to women being absent from the labour market for a longer time than men and also working more part-time, women have a risk of receiving a weaker position on the labour market. She is also at a higher risk of being on sick leave due to social and financial aspects, but also because she is taking more responsibility for unpaid housework (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 8). The government bill also highlights that research shows that this could have a negative effect on employer’s view on women and their position on the labour market, meaning that women are seen as a risk to employ since she is most of the time seen as the primary caretaker (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 10). This will ultimately lead to
consequences for women and their employability, income and family and work-life (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 6).
As mentioned above, an un-even outtake of parental leave days has an effect on the labour market for women. Thus, it also has a negative effect for men. In line with the preparatory work, the government bill also states that men tend not to be understood and supported by their employer when wanting to be on parental leave which then affects their outtake of parental leave days (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 10). The government bill also highlights how children have the right to be with both parents (thus, there are exceptions to this rule as mentioned in the preparatory work) and that research show that women, in general, are on parental leave four times longer than men (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 11). In relations to this, the government bill suggests that a more even divide would lead to a more gender-equal labour market and a more even divide of household work, i.e. unpaid work (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 8). The previous introduction of locked months in 1995 and 2002 have shown to have had a positive effect on men’s outtake of parental leave days and therefore, the suggestion in this government bill is to add a third one (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 8).
In addition to what the preparatory work mentioned, the government bill highlights that if women were to have a stronger position on the labour market, they would be more financially independent and therefore, the gap would not be as big between women and men regarding
pension and their income in the long run. This would also mean that women would not have to be as reliant on men and their income (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 10).
In general, there seems to be a consensus between the two documents. They both refer to the same research when arguing as to why it is important to work with the represented problem of an uneven divide of parental leave. Thus, by taking into account what has been highlighted in both the preparatory work and the government bill, I would argue that the documents have mainly focused on women and their lack of labour work rather than focusing on men and their lack of taking up parental leave days. Therefore, I would argue that women are the ones being seen and represented as a problem, even though this is not presented as a representation of the problem in the first question. I argue that this is the case since the background knowledge that is presented in the documents are that women should be able to work more, be less sick, and take more responsibility and control over their income and pension, this entitles that they are the ones who need to change in order to reach a more even, and gender-equal, distribution of parental leave. Therefore, I would argue that there should be a more significant emphasis on how men can work towards enabling this rather than putting the main focus on women. Therefore, I would argue that this reinforces some of the traditional gender norms that Bekkengen (2002) highlights as hinder for a gender-equal divide of parental leave, which ultimately is the opposite of what the two documents aim to do. Men are the ones who are currently benefitting, financially and when it comes to succeeding in their careers, from the current view and divide of parental leave, they also have the ability to choose, a privilege that women, due to traditional gender norms, do not have.
The idea that children have the right to be with both parents assumes, and take for granted, that all children have two parents. One can argue that this is not always the case and that this is a stereotypical and normative view of parenthood as being seen as something that two people do rather than one. This means that it neglects a view of parenthood for single parents or parents who might have, for several reasons, ended up in situations which have led them to not live according to the general norm and how we do gender and parenthood (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Therefore, this view presented in the policy could be seen as potentially gendering since it encourages the traditional production of parenthood as being something that a man and a woman do. This goes in line with Bacchi´s (2017) argument on how policies
heteronorming view on parenthood which goes in line with Bacchi and Eveline´s (2012) view that policies have a risk of being heteronorming in its effects.
One might argue that adding an additional third month, could be seen as forcing fathers to stay at home with their children, and that wanting to care for the children and the home is not seen as a typical and natural male behaviour. I.e. instead of changing traditional gender norms and how we do gender in society, it would rather risk doing the opposite of what the policy aims to do. Men are to some extent being forced to take more responsibility at home whereas it is, in accordance with West and Zimmerman (1987) theory about doing gender and
traditional gender roles (Bekkengen, 2002), expected of women to stay at home and to want to do so. It seems to be a vicious circle where it can be nearly impossible for women to do anything right since, according to the documents, staying at home for too long will affect her career, health and income. At the same time, if there is no man in the relationship that can take more responsibility for the house and the children, the whole concept with adding an additional month fails. I argue that this is the case since there would only be one parent involved and therefore, this is another argument to highlight a risk, as previously mentioned in accordance to Bacchi and Eveline (2012), that the documents are somewhat heteronorming by assuming that there will be a father that can take up the additional third month. Therefore, one can argue that there is an underlying assumption about gender equality as something that men and women do, in a heteronormative relationship.
On an end note, there are some assumptions about the labour market and the level of
education in these documents that are important to highlight. The fact that the documents do not mention if there are any difficulties from the employer’s side when it comes to women wanting to be on parental leave assumes that women are always being supported by their employers when it comes to being absent from work for a longer time. Therefore, it might also assume that the work that women do are not valued or seen as important as men´s work since one can think that, by reading the documents, women are easier to replace whilst they are on parental leave, whereas it seems to be rare for men to find an employer who will find a way to maintain his status as an essential employee whilst they are absent from work (Brandth & Kvande, 2019). This reinforces and takes for granted traditional gender roles, meaning that it is expected of mothers to stay at home with their children and masculine norms such as men being the breadwinners of a family (Bekkengen, 2002; Brandth & Kvande, 2019). In relations to this, there were assumptions regarding the level of university degree and its impact on the
division of parental leave (Ds 2015:8 p. 22). What was interesting here was that in general, higher university studies seemed to have a positive effect on an equal distribution of parental leave. Thus, this changed when the father gained a higher degree than the mother, which meant that the likelihood of an even distribution lowered. This is interesting, since this somehow also assumes that the father’s education and his work is more important than the mothers. This goes in line with what was noted above and therefore, Bekkengen´s (2002) research show, once again, how strong traditional gender norms regarding men´s contribution to the family income is valued higher, and that the breadwinner theory is still relevant and has an impact on decisions made by families today. One could argue that the assumption that men, who work within the public sector, has a higher chance of taking out parental leave (Ds:2015:8, p. 24) implies that working for the government, I.e. within the public sector, is beneficial and allows for this. Therefore, one could argue that this assumption implies that the government have a view of themselves as being good employers and going against other, non-public, employers and their assumed negative view of allowing men to go on parental leave (Bekkengen, 2002; Brandth & Kvande, 2019).
What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the
silences? Can the ‘problem’ be thought about differently?
The fourth question in the WPR approach to policy analysis aims to raise a reflection and to consider issues and perspectives that might have been silenced in the problem representation that was presented in the first section of the analysis (Bacchi, 2009). For example, when conducting the analysis, one can ask “what fails to be problematised?” in this problem representation and by doing so, one can discuss issues and perspectives that are silenced (Bacchi, 2009). In the following sections, I will include both the preparatory work and the government bill, i.e. I will not divide the two documents into different sections.
I would argue that the preparatory work and the government bill is constrained and limited in its way of thinking when it comes to norms about parenthood. Overall, the two documents mainly talk about women and men, mothers and fathers and parenthood being something that two people do. This is highlighted by the quote from the government bill where “In general,
women take out a significantly higher part of the parental leave in comparison to men” (Prop.
needs. For example, the government bill acknowledges that there are children who live with only one parent, have two parents with the same gender, or children who have parents who are separated (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 16). However, it fails to provide any solutions or strategies on how to address and thereby, overcome this. In addition to this, I argue that the preparatory work and the government bill is constrained in the problem representation since they fail to address research and an analysis that shows how non-heterosexual couples divide parental leave and what forms the basis for their decisions. This is also something that RFSU highlights as one of their concerns with the new proposal to add an additional ear-marked month (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 16). In relations to what has been mentioned above, there are also non, or very limited, information about, for example, class aspects beyond university degrees, socio-economic aspects or children who have parents that are, for some reason, not wanting to, or can, be in their children’s lives. They do mention and consider families from other countries that are now entitled to use the Swedish parental leave policy (Ds 2015:8 p. 24). Thus, this focus is limited and, in similarity with what was previously noted, they do not give any solutions on how to overcome this.
What has been mentioned above aims to highlight the constraints that a lack of an intersectional approach can have on the preparatory work and the government bill. For example, when the preparatory work and the government bill mentions the risks that a long parental leave can have on women and their employability and income (Ds 2015:8 p. 29-30; Prop. 2014/15:125, p. 6) they include all women into the same category. Thereby, there is a view of women as having the same limitations when it comes to employability and income, therefore, this contributes to a view of women as having a shared oppression (Talpade Mohanty, 1984). By not including, for example, immigrant women or women who are single parents in all aspects of the documents, they fail to address how a long parental leave can have an effect on women who, like Crenshaw (1989) mentions, are multiple burdened.
Therefore, by not taking into account people that are multiple burdened, the preparatory work and the government bill risk to continuing the reproduction of inequalities that marginalize and silence these women and therefore, also risk limiting gender equality in relations to parental leave as something that can only be achieved in a heterosexual relationship with two people involved. Therefore, this can be seen as a constraint and something that is left silenced and unproblematic in the problem representation.
What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?
The final WPR question that is to be applied to the material allows one to continue a critical analysis. The goal is to identify the effects that come from the problem representation so that they can be critically evaluated (Bacchi, 2009). There is a presumption that some problem representations can create difficulties for members of other groups. Therefore, by critically evaluate the problem representation, one can see how it can benefit some and harm others and what can be done about this (Bacchi, 2009,). There are different effects, such as the discursive effects, subjectification effects and lived effects. Thus, it is important to note that these needs to be understood as interconnected (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). In this section, one can ask whether the preparatory work and the government bill reinforces and contribute to stereotypes regarding gender, or if they manage to do the opposite.
The discursive effects build on question four (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016) and aim to examine the effects which follow from the limits on what can be thought and said about in relations to the problem representation in the preparatory work and the government bill (Bacchi, 2009). The subjectification effect of a problem representation aims to highlight the ways that
subjects and subjectivities are constituted in the discourse (Bacchi, 2009). Finally, the concept of lived effects aims to direct attention to the material impact of the problem representation and how these problems directly can effect people lives (Bacchi, 2009). According to Bacchi (2009), lived effects need to be treated as an integrated analysis of the effects, and therefore, this will not be presented as a separate category at the end of this section.
As previously mentioned, the problem is represented to be that the outtake of parental leave days is not equal between men and women and that this is considered to be a problem since it will have a negative effect on women and their unpaid and paid work (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 1). As previously noted, this way of representing the problem, by highlighting women and men, neglects to include people who do not belong to the normative and traditional group that is supposed to do parental leave in the problem representation. Therefore, the documents can be seen as marginalizing rather than inclusive since it applies this narrow view. This limits what can be said about parental leave which could have harmful effects for people outside of that group. As mentioned whilst answering question number four, one can argue that the represented problem is limiting in its way since it fails to include an intersectional approach in
gender and parental leave is discussed and excludes a view that could look at the issues differently and include a wider variety of people and therefore, change the discourse.
The problem representation also reinforces the traditional view on parental leave which therefore, limits what can be discussed outside of the traditional assumptions about parental leave. By mainly talking about the problems for women and the negative effects a long parental leave period can have on them, one also allows for a negative view on women who do stay home for a longer time and therefore, limits and make it difficult to think of any positive aspects that can come from staying at home longer. I argue that this could have an effect that looks negatively on women who do decide to be on parental leave for a longer time. By staying at home, she lives according to traditional gender roles (Bekkengen, 2002) and stereotypes which is accepted by society, but at the same time, her employability and income will weaken (Prop. 2014/15:124, p. 6). This imposes a rather difficult situation for women, where she is forced to choose between two options that both have a risk to impose negative effects for her. For example, it could lead to her either missing out on her career and income by staying at home, or she might risk being seen as a bad mother for working and leaving someone else to take care of her child. One could argue that this is the case since this would oppose the traditional way of how we do gender and parental leave where women and men are seen as having different areas of “expertise” (Bekkengen, 2002; West & Zimmerman, 1987). I.e. a vicious circle that can affect women lives. Thus, this is something that could be avoided by changing the problem representation since the current representation, and its underlying assumptions might create effects where women are seen as being the problem rather than doing the opposite and actually enabling them to pursue both parenthood and work. Could the problem representation be gender-neutral? Meaning that instead of it being a problem between men and women, it is a problem between parents? Thus, this would still leave us with the underlying assumption about parenthood as something that two people do rather than one.
As previously noted, I would argue that the preparatory work and the government bill are gendering in its effects. I argue that this is the case since the documents lie on
heteronormative assumptions about men and women, mothers and fathers and, therefore, reinforces these assumptions rather than changing the underlying traditional norms and attitudes which are left unproblematized. Like Widegren (2016) mentions, there is a
would argue that the preparatory work and the government bill goes in line with this since the documents can be seen as centred and structured by the heterosexual couple.
It is interesting to ask oneself, is adding one more month enough to make a difference? Will this actually change the underlying norms and negative effects that women face on the labour market? Will we be gender-equal when fathers have stayed at home for three months? I would argue that it is a somewhat naïve and optimistic goal that these documents present. However, in line with what Brighthouse and Wright (2008) argue, an additional month might encourage fathers to take more child care responsibilities, and that in itself is positive. Thus, like Brandth and Kvande´s (2019) research shows, that due to strong traditional, and societal norms about parenthood, fathers feel like the shared parental leave belongs to the mother. Therefore, I would argue that adding one additional month might not be enough to solve the underlying issues with an uneven distribution of parental leave that the preparatory work and government bill address.
On an end note, this means that the discursive effects can be seen as being the limitation of what is included in the discourse of parental leave and parenthood. I.e. the documents mainly mention women and men and therefore, sets the limitations on who is included in that
discourse, and thereby, who is left out. What can be said and thought about in relation to the issues of parental leave are more or less limited to men and women. In the documents, women are shaped in ways that can be harmful, limiting and form women’s identities. Like mentioned above, women can be seen as being caught in a vicious circle, where they should work more, be on parental leave, but not for too long since that might impose negative effects for her. One can argue that this can be seen as the subjectification effect and that women are not free to create their own identity and are valued on their choices to live according to what the
Conclusion
In this section, a conclusion of this research and its contribution to the field of knowledge will be presented. This will be followed by a suggestion for future research.
The aim of this study was to do an intersectional, critical WPR policy analysis on the Swedish governments preparatory work and government bill to achieve a more even distribution of the parental leave policy. I examined how the preparatory work and government bill, which was later followed by the choice to introduce an additional reserved month for each parent, constructed the problem, what presuppositions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’, what was left silenced and unproblematic and what effects and implications this
representation of the problem produced. Each of the research questions has been answered in the analysis and discussion section of this thesis. Thus, to summarize the main results, the analysis showed that the problem was represented to be the that the uneven distribution of parental leave was not gender-equal and that this could have negative effects for women. There were underlying assumptions, mainly focusing on women, regarding the labour market and other aspects that were tightly connected to traditional gender norms and our doing of gender. The lack of an intersectional approach in the preparatory work and government bill became clear whilst analysing what was left unproblematic and silenced in the problem representation. There was a tendency in the documents to address women as being part of the same group, and therefore, as having a shared oppression. This ultimately neglects women who are multiple burdened. To conclude, whilst conducting the analysis, it was clear that the two documents were gendering, heteronorming and did not adopt a clear intersectional approach since the preparatory work and the government bill mainly talked about men and women, mothers and fathers, something that can have possible implications and effects for the group that is being silenced.
I believe that Bacchi´s WPR approach to policy analysis was a good and effective choice for analysing the preparatory work and the government bill and in order to fulfil the aim with doing an intersectional, critical WPR policy analysis. It enabled me, together with the use of poststructural theory, to adopt a critical lens and to question taken for granted notions within the documents and thereby, to adopt a different view on policy. This research has contributed to the research field by applying a WPR approach to the preparatory work and the
