While the discourse regarding European strategic autonomy has been ongoing for decades, progress in achieving it have been impeded by both opposition and an overhanging element of ambiguity from some participating countries. As transparency is vital in any international cooperation, this thesis will aim to provide this by analyzing the discourse of one ambiguous country, Sweden, and compare it to that of the concept’s main proponent, France. This with the purpose of allowing the discourse of a more militarized EU progress. The analysis indicates vast differences in domestic conditions, external relations and historical background which keeps Sweden from openly declaring its stance on strategic autonomy, as opposed to France. This study contributes with a framework adaptable to any country relevant within the discourse on European strategic autonomy, and thus allows for better mutual understanding between the opposing sides of opinion.