Logotyp: till Försvarshögskolans hemsida

The aim of this study is to analyse how modernisation influenced parliamentary arguments concerning the abolition of the Swedish ships’ boys corps, in the context of interwar Swedish defence reforms in 1937.

The study examines the debate held in the Första kammaren and Andra kammaren (First and Second Chamber) of the Swedish Parliament, using parliamentary records as the primary source material. By applying argumentation and narrative analysis, the study identifies and categorises the main arguments and overarching narratives articulated by politicians and a few high-ranking military representatives regarding the future of the Swedish ship boys’ corps.

The theoretical framework is based on Seymour Martin Lipset’s modernisation theory, as interpreted by Ursula Hoffmann-Lange. The theory emphasises institutional change in the process of modernisation. This framework is used as an analytical tool to interpret how ideas of social, ethical progress, efficiency, and changing of education requirements shaped political reasoning in the debate.

The results show that arguments in favour of abolishing the ship boys’ corps were largely grounded in notions of modernisation – manifested in changing demands of competence and a reorganisation of military education, but also in an economic rationalisation, where the ships’ boys no longer fit the budget, alongside the ethical concerns about binding minors to lengthy service contracts, alongside harsh disciplinary measures. Opposing arguments tended to also emphasise tradition, but also a modernisation of the corps itself, not the removal of it. The study concludes that the abolition of the ship boys’ corps can be understood not merely as a practical defence decision, but as part of a broader modernisation process that reshaped military institutions in Sweden during the interwar period.