The so-called refugee crisis of 2015 has fuelled the discussion on European solidarity regarding the obligations to provide humanitarian assistance and burden-sharing between EU member states. Such solidarity contestations have become highly salient in the European media. Yet, while media framing of immigration issues is widely researched, less attention has been paid to the question how political actors through the media justify and evaluate if and why solidarity towards refugees is needed. Such a focus is, however, crucial given that such a discussion not only shows the individual stances of opinion leaders but their opinions are also likely to structure debates on the perceived legitimacy of solidarity toward refugees among the public. Therefore, the present study addresses the research question: How do political actors as claimants in the media contest solidarity towards refugees, and, more specifically, which values and justifications do they draw from in their claims regarding solidarity?
This paper applies political claims-making analysis to understand three types of justifications which political actors apply when they make claims in public debates: interest-based, rights-based, and identity-based. It builds on a fresh dataset of solidarity claims including around 5600 claims from randomly selected articles in the three largest newspapers of 7 EU members states (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom) and five newspapers in Switzerland during the period 1st August 2015-30th April 2016. In particular, it focuses on a comparison between claims in Denmark and Germany, both countries with opposite approaches to the question of solidarity during this period. As a result, we will be able to provide a comparative assessment of the visibility of claimants, the main issues that are contested in particular country contexts and by particular newspapers and the preferred forms of actions claimants recur to.
