| Abstract [eng] |
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 created a new and highly consequential context for the European Union’s energy debate. This thesis explores how the energy crisis has been understood and articulated within the European Parliament, focusing on the ways in which different political groups interpret its causes, consequences and possible solutions. Drawing on manual frame analysis of parliamentary speeches, the study combines quantitative analysis of frame frequency with qualitative analysis of how frames were constructed and translated into policy actions. In particular, the research highlights the coexistence of security, economic, social, climate, and solidarity-based interpretations of the crisis. The thesis demonstrates that the Parliament’s discourse does not produce a single perception of the energy crisis, but reflects a significant variation in how political groups interpret both the nature of crisis and the appropriate policy response. Security emerges as the most frequently invoked frame, but its dominance does not come at the expense of economic or climate considerations, suggesting continuity with pre-existing patterns of European energy discourse rather than a fundamental post-invasion shift. Qualitative findings reveal two recurring patterns of political differentiation. Economic, socio-economic and climate perceptions largely follow an ideological left–right trajectory, with left-wing groups placing greater emphasis on social protection, market intervention and renewable energy, while right-wing groups place greater emphasis on competitiveness, economic stability and nuclear or conventional energy sources. By contrast, security and solidarity reveal a stronger distinction between mainstream and fringe factions, particularly in their understanding of Russia, energy dependence, European cooperation and integration. The findings therefore demonstrate that the energy crisis is not understood uniformly across the European Parliament, but is interpreted through competing political perspectives that both converge and diverge across ideological and political boundaries. The study highlights how energy crises function not only as material challenges but also as arenas of political contestation in which competing understandings of security, prosperity, social welfare, climate responsibility and European integration are articulated. |
