Today, coursebooks in history for upper secondary school are not subject to any kind of evaluation from the governing agencies of Swedish education since the communal reform in the 1990s. This, in combination with the risk of older coursebooks still being regularly used for the teaching and learning of history raises questions about whether certain common areas of history education have gone through substantial changes and how. The purpose of this essay is to research and analyse how different coursebooks from 1963 to 1999 presents and/or equals two regimes, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, in order to determine whether the presented views have changed and what implications this in turn could have for our understanding of the two different regimes. Earlier research about the two regimes have shown that three paradigms exists in how the regimes are usually presented. One of these is the totalitarian model which was influential from the late 1950’s to the early 1970’s. This totalitarian model has been gradually replaced by a so called reversionistic model that problematises the term “totalitarian” which in turn has partially evolved into a post revisionist paradigm. This essay analysed seven coursebooks published between 1963 and 1999 by using a critical discourse analysis inspired by Norman Fairclough which in turn is part of the theory of discourse. The results found substantial changes in how the regimes, especially the Soviet Union, are presented over time. The presentations of the regimes also differ from the revisionist paradigm and the post revisionist paradigms. Instead, the coursebooks tend to equate the regimes as regimes either directly or indirectly and present them as totalitarian regimes. This shows in turn that the change in paradigm seen in other research about the regimes cannot be seen in coursebooks. This raises questions about how well coursebooks correspond to scientific research and how challenged paradigms still influence modern history education. Especially as the lack of perspectives and focus on criticism can be seen in other research about how the regimes are presented in history coursebooks since the turn of the century. This essay shows that the critical focus in the presentations has not always been the case.