In this thesis, I am curious about the advocacy directed towards members of the Danish Parliament on behalf of people with learning disabilities. I have interviewed representatives from civil society organizations, social enterprises, a labor union, and a human rights institute (a total of eight interviews). Using Boltanski and Thévenot's sociology of critique as an analytical framework, I examine the conditions for this social work advocacy activity.

I find that the actors must navigate a normative field of tension, consisting of multiple ‘orders of worth’ as described by Boltanski and Thévenot; civic, domestic, market, opinion and especially industrial worth. The actors must balance between being 'collaborator' and 'opponent' in their efforts to influence legislation. The way the normative situation is structured enables some strategies while excluding others in the pursuit of change for people with learning disabilities. Examples of possible strategies include making desired changes manageable, attempting to demonstrate that the change 'pays off,' and aiming for 'free victories.' The normatively constructed context and the potential strategies within it have implications for the types of changes that the actors can try to achieve with politicians on the behalf of people with learning disabilities. The actors do not simply represent the desires and needs of the target group in a straightforward manner – there is a filtering of which changes one can advocate for already within the possible strategies in the context.