Sweden's government says in the bill 2008/09: 140 that military service should be suspended and replaced with a system based on voluntary recruitment. In the essay, I will make an argument analysis of the parliamentary debate on the bill from the 12th of June 2009 with the following questions: On what is the different side’s argument based on? Are the arguments essentially and factually substantiated? Is there a clear political party tendency among the for-/counter arguments? The method is a "Pro et contra" analysis, a logical systematization of the arguments. The analysis will take start in the headline; Conscription should be suspended in favour of a voluntary system based on contract employed soldiers. The presentation of arguments in the analysis will be guided by the chronological order. The main argument against the bill is a belief that this system will generate greater costs. Furthermore, results from studies performed on other countries that have recently changed from compulsory military service to contract employed soldiers shows difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff in a voluntary system. Moreover it is noted that the increase in battle readiness that this new system means, would be completely unjustified in view of prevailing threats against Sweden. Finally, it is argued that the common support is at risk when Sweden's defence affairs no longer become an obligation for every individual to contribute. The arguments for the bill believe that we need forces that are fit to use and available, to meet the new threats that is emerging and in which Sweden's participation in international missions is the focal point. The conflict in the debate is based mostly in the ideological distinctions and as a result of these also economic contradictions. As a direct consequence of this, most of the arguments are not substantiated with facts. However, there is traceability to arguments that historically have been used to justify the introduction of either of the systems. There is a clear party political tendency in the debate. Government parties stay united and the opposition parties are slightly more dispersed in their argumentation but still against the bill.