Logo: to the web site of the Swedish Defence University

This thesis seeks to understand how the United States and Russia justified their respective military actions in the Syrian civil war by analysing the frames they used in the United Nations Security Council from 2015 to 2018. Using the theoretical framework of constructivism, more specifically Finnemore’s (2003) framework, this thesis presents how norms, ideas and values matter in the international arena, and that patterns of intervention change due to different factors. These matters are examined through the method of frame analysis. Four dominating frames were established that the United States and Russia used to justify their respective military actions during this time period: humanitarian assistance, counterterrorism, blame-shifting and legitimacy. The study shows that both countries used the same frames but to different extents and the frames shifted over time. Furthermore, we can understand these frames in regard to the constant normative shift in international politics and that patterns for intervention change. This can help us understand why certain frames are preferred over others when researching state intervention in conflicts.