Freedom in moderation?: A discourse analysis on Freedom of Movement of Persons in the European Parliament 2015-2020

Abstract: Although considered to be one of the greatest achievements of the European integration process and continuously shown to be favoured by a majority of Europeans, the principle of Freedom of Movement (FOM), with an emphasis on Freedom of Movement of Persons (FOMOP) has been increasingly politicised over the past few years. In the light of reintroduced border controls in 2015, and a heightened debate in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, this thesis seeks to identify the political discourse on FOMOP in the European Parliament (EP) and how this has changed between the years 2015-2020. Seeking to deepen the understanding of how this EU institution as a political actor defines and shapes the content and meaning of FOMOP, the thesis adopts a normative political theoretical as framework for analysis. Looking at EP documents coded for its content, the relationship between legal norms and their normative theoretical foundations was explored and identified by deploying an sequential mixed methods design, involving a two-stage data collection and analysis process. The analysis found that the EP engages in a political debate that discursively alters the meaning of FOMOP, observing a development in which the EP leans towards a liberal utilitarian frame just as strong as the liberal cosmopolitan frame. Looking at an evaluation throughout time, the idea of EP as a defender of FOMOP as a fundamental right is challenged by a discourse where the establishing of the Single market has increased in importance. While justifications in support of an increased conditionality of FOMOP can be detected, in the year 2020 vocal calls to observe FOMOP as an absolute right has simultaneously emerged.