The aim of this Master thesis has been to analyse the debate on Wikileaks as it occured in the Swedish daily press during 2010 and early 2011, as well as to identify what different discourses influenced the discussions. The empirical material consisted of fifty-three articles, taken from three national newspapers and has been analysed using the discourse analysis theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. The articles were analysed in four stages which included: identifying statements concerning Wikileaks and its operations; identifying additional groups and individuals appearing in the debate and the statements made about these; grouping statements into themes and on the basis of these themes construct chains of equivalence and identify subject positions. The last stage consisted of identification of discourses and the relationships and possible conflicts between those discourses. The results showed that four discourses could be identified: the good democracy discourse, the traditional diplomatic discourse, the good journalism discourse and the power-critical discourse.