Brexit - why did people vote for leave
Author
Assentoft, Desislava
Term
4. term
Publication year
2020
Submitted on
2020-01-02
Pages
72
Abstract
Denne afhandling undersøger, hvorfor et flertal af vælgerne i 2016 stemte for at forlade EU, og hvordan afstemningen forstærkede politisk og social polarisering i Storbritannien. Afhandlingen anvender rational choice-teori kombineret med en fortolkende tilgang, der betoner, at vælgeradfærd formes af overbevisninger, præferencer og fortællinger, herunder avisernes rolle i at sætte dagsordener. Analysen bygger på sekundære data som officielle statistikker og surveyresultater samt en tematisk gennemgang af centrale emner i kampagnen, og den undersøger mønstre efter alder og uddannelse samt sammenhænge mellem EU-viden og medieeksponering. Resultaterne peger på, at skævvredet information i aviser var væsentlig for at forme støtten til Leave, og at begrænset viden om EU, især blandt lavt uddannede, øgede sårbarheden over for bias og bidrog til den delte stemmeafgivning. Afhandlingen fremhæver, at konklusionerne er kontekstafhængige og bør tolkes i lyset af undersøgelsens afgrænsninger.
This thesis investigates why a majority of voters in 2016 chose to leave the EU and how the referendum amplified political and social polarization in the United Kingdom. It applies rational choice theory alongside an interpretive approach that emphasizes how beliefs, preferences, and narratives—particularly the agenda-setting role of newspapers—shape voting behavior. Drawing on secondary data such as official statistics and survey evidence and a thematic review of key campaign issues, the analysis explores patterns by age and education and the links between EU knowledge and media exposure. The findings indicate that biased newspaper coverage was essential in shaping support for Leave and that limited understanding of the EU, especially among less-educated voters, increased susceptibility to such bias and contributed to the divided vote. The thesis underlines that these conclusions are context-dependent and should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations.
[This summary has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project (PDF)]
Documents