This study analyses how collaboration is constructed as a policy problem in Swedish total defence, focusing on differences between civil and military problem representations. Although collaboration is consistently emphasised as essential, research and practice highlight recurring challenges related to coordination, responsibility, and organisational differences. Using a qualitative text analysis based on Carol Bacchi’s WPR approach (Bacchi, 2009), combined with institutional theory, four central policy documents are examined. The findings show that collaboration lacks a uniform meaning and is constructed differently depending on context. In civil documents, it is primarily framed as a solution to coordination problems in a fragmented system, whereas the military doctrine links collaboration to command, control, and operational execution within established structures. These differences reflect distinct institutional logics and contribute to ambiguity in responsibility and coordination. The study concludes that differing problem representations of collaboration create friction in civil–military interaction, while policy tends to treat collaboration as self-evident, thereby obscuring underlying tensions, power relations, and potential conflicts.