The purpose of this case study was to investigate whether the Swedish Red Cross reproduces or challenges the critiques identified in the critical humanitarian scholarship. Generally speaking, this scholarship argues that humanitarianism is not neutral or apolitical. It investigates how humanitarian practice and discourse are shaped by postcolonial histories, reproduce hierarchies of knowledge and power, and portray people as vulnerable to justify humanitarian intervention. It also interrogates humanitarian authority that shapes the power dynamics among international and local humanitarian actors, as well as humanitarian norms and standards. However, the literature review identified that research systematically examining how humanitarian organizations discursively construct their roles, values, and ethical positions remains limited. This thesis addresses that gap by using critical discourse analysis, within a postcolonial theoretical perspective, to examine how the Swedish Red Cross constructs its humanitarian role and principles in relation to the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and Gaza. Findings show that the SRC presents its work through the language of neutrality, impartiality, vulnerability, inclusion, and a discourse of compassion. However, this apparently apolitical discourse can reproduce postcolonial hierarchies by making suffering visible while backgrounding its political and historical causes. Affected populations are often represented in terms of need, risk, and vulnerability, while humanitarian actors appear as legitimate authorities who can define crises and organize responses.

Keywords: critical humanitarianism, discourse, postcolonial critique, Swedish Red Cross, neutrality, Gaza, Ukraine.