A gender analysis of wartime action proposals in the case of Ukraine: discourse on existing speeches since the full-scale invasion

Abstract

This thesis examines the role of gender in shaping wartime action proposals offered in response to the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Grounded in feminist peace research and discourse analysis, the research investigates whether and how the wartime prescriptions articulated by male and female political actors and commentators differ across five countries: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Estonia. Drawing on speeches and public commentary from twenty individuals, equally divided by gender, the analysis identifies thematic binaries such as war prescriptions versus peace prescriptions, military versus non-military approaches, and justice versus human life valuations. The findings suggest that gender does influence discourse, with women more frequently emphasizing the broader consequences of war, such as human suffering and long-term social impacts, while men more often focus on strategic goals. However, this division is not absolute, and instances of similarities emerged across contexts. The research also situates its inquiry within the broader framework of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, which advocates for women’s meaningful inclusion in conflict and peace processes. Ultimately, the thesis argues for the necessity of integrating gendered perspectives into international relations and conflict resolution, not only as a matter of equity but as a pathway toward more comprehensive and sustainable peacebuilding efforts.