The Framing of the EU Visa Liberalization with Ukraine

Open access


This article presents a qualitative study aimed at investigating the framing of political discourse associated with the EU visa liberalization with Ukraine. This study seeks to address the framing of the EU visa liberalization process in Ukrainian political discourse published online by several leading high-quality Internet news resources, e.g. 112ua, Censor.Net, or UNIAN. The corpus of the study is comprised of 34 articles that have been analysed from the vantage point of framing methodology developed by Entman (2004) and Dahl (2015). The results of the qualitative investigation reveal that Ukrainian political discourse associated with the EU visa liberalization with Ukraine is framed by means of such frames as the Building, the Divorce, the European Integration, the Game, the Home, the Hostage, and the Journey. These findings are further presented and discussed in the article.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Abid R.–S. Abdul Manan–Z. Abdul Amir Abdul Rahman. 2017. A flood of Syrians has slowed to a trickle. The use of metaphors in the representation of Syrian refugees in the online media reports of host and non-host countries. Discourse and Communication 11(2): 121–140.

  • Antonijević Z. 2015. Framing the gender mainstreaming in Serbia: The case of family policy. In: Tamara Petrović-Trifunović–Sanja Milutinović Bojanić– Gazela Pudar Draško (eds) Mind the gap(s): Family socialization and gender. 400–423.

  • Arrese A.–Vara-Miguel A. 2016. A comparative study of metaphors in press reporting of the Euro crisis. Discourse and Society 27(2): 133–155.

  • Aydın-Düzgit S. 2016. De-Europeanisation through discourse: A critical discourse analysis of AKP’s election speeches. South European Society and Politics 21(1): 45–58.

  • Batalla-Adam L. 2017. The EU-Turkey deal one year on: A delicate balancing act. The International Spectator 52(4): 44–58.

  • Baysan A. 2013. Multiple arenas and diverse techniques of securitisation: The case of the EU’s visa regime towards Turkey. Journal of Contemporary European Research 9(5): 740–758.

  • Boeynaems A.–Burgers Ch.–Konijn E. A.–Steen G. J. 2017. The effects of metaphorical framing on political persuasion: A systematic literature review. Metaphor and Symbol 32(2): 118–134.

  • Brugman B. C.–Burgers Ch.–Steen G. J. 2017. Recategorizing political frames: A systematic review of metaphorical framing in experiments on political communication. Annals of the International Communication Association 1: 1–18.

  • Burgers Ch.–Konijn E. A.–Steen G. J. 2016. Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor hyperbole and irony. Communication Theory 26: 410–430.

  • Burlyuk O.–Shapovalova N. 2017. “Veni vidi… vici?” EU performance and two faces of conditionality towards Ukraine. East European Politics 33(1): 36–55.

  • Chaban N.–L. Elgström–Gulyaeva O. 2017. Russian images of the European Union: Before and after Maidan. Foreign Policy Analysis 13: 480–499.

  • Charteris-Black J. 2006. Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse–Society 17(5): 563-581.

  • Cornelissen J. P. R. Holt–M. Zundel. 2011. The role of analogy and metaphor in the framing and legitimization of strategic change. Organization Studies 32(12): 1701–1716.

  • Dahl T. 2015. Contested science in the media: Linguistic traces of news writers’ framing activity. Written Communication 32(1): 39–65.

  • Đurović T. 2010. Metaphors we vote by. The case of ‘marriage’ in contemporary Serbian political discourse. Journal of Language and Politics 9(2): 237–259.

  • Đurović T.–Silaški N. 2012. How heavy do I journey on the way: Framing the issue of the EU visa liberalisation process in contemporary Serbia. Selected Papers from UKCLA Meetings 1: 64–77.

  • Entman R. M. 2004. Projections of power: Framing news public opinion and US foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Fairclough N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Fillmore Ch. J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6(2): 222–254.

  • Finotelli C.–Sciortino G. 2013. Through the gates of the fortress: European visa policies and the limits of immigration control. Perspectives on European Politics and Society 14(1): 80–101.

  • Fiss P. C.–Hirsch P. M. 2005. The discourse of globalization: Framing and sense making of an emerging concept. American Sociological Review 70(1): 29–52.

  • Foucault M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon.

  • Fournier A. 2017. From frozen conflict to mobile boundary: Youth perceptions of territoriality in war-time Ukraine. East European Politics and Societies 32(1): 23–55.

  • Haferlach L.–Tekin F.–Wodka J. 2017. Friends. Foes. Frenemies? Unpacking the future of EU-Turkey relations. Futures 1–25.

  • Happ D.–Bruns B. 2017. The EU and its “ring of friends”—Eyelevel or top-down relationships? Problems of Post-Communism 64(2): 94–105.

  • Jansen S. 2009. After the red passport: Towards an anthropology of the everyday geopolitics of entrapment in the EU’s ‘immediate outside’. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15(4): 815–832.

  • Kapranov O. 2016. The Framing of Serbia’s EU accession by the British Foreign Office on Twitter. Text und Diskurs 9: 67–80.

  • Kimmel M. 2010. Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence conceptual metaphor and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 97–115.

  • Kleinschnitger K.–M. Knodt. 2018. Asymmetric perceptions of EU relations with the near Eastern neighbours: The Republic of Moldova Ukraine and Belarus in comparison. European Foreign Affairs Review 23(1): 79–99.

  • Kortenska E.–Sircar I.–Steunenberg B. 2016. Public-elite gap on European integration: The missing link between discourses about EU enlargement among citizens and elites in Serbia. MAXCAP Working Paper Series 31: 3–37.

  • Kostovicova D. 2014. When enlargement meets common foreign and security policy: Serbia’s Europeanisation visa liberalisation and the Kosovo policy. Europe-Asia Studies 66(1): 67–87.

  • Kövecses Z. 2017. Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics 28(2): 321–347.

  • Lakoff G. 2014. The all new don’ think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

  • Lakoff G. 1996. ‘Sorry I’m not myself today’: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self’. Spaces worlds and grammar. 91–123.

  • Luke A. 1995. Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of research in education 21(1): 3–48.

  • Meadows B. 2007. Distancing and showing solidarity via metaphor and metonymy in political discourse: A critical study of American statements on Iraq during the years 2004–2005. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 1(2): 1–17.

  • Musolff A. 2010. Metaphor nation and the holocaust: The concept of the body politics. London: Routledge.

  • Musolff A. 2000. Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21(3): 216–229.

  • Nerlich B. 2010. ‘Climategate’; paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. Environmental Values 19(4): 419–442.

  • Özdemir Z.–Ayata A. G. 2017. Dynamics of exclusion and everyday bordering through Schengen visas. Political Geography 0: 1–9.

  • Özerim M. G. 2018. Stretching opening or sealing the borders: Turkish foreign policy conceptions and their impact on migration asylum and visa policies. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 20(2): 165–182.

  • Reese S. 2007. The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of Communication 57(1): 148–154.

  • — 2001. Framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In: S. Reese–O. Gandy–A. Grant (eds) Framing public life. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. 7–31.

  • Sciortino G.–Colombo A. 2004. The flows and the flood: The public discourse on immigration in Italy 1969–2001. Journal of Modern Italian Studies 9(1): 94–113.

  • Scott J. W. 2017. Constructing European neighborhood: Critical perspectives from EU–Ukraine interaction and civil society actors. Journal of Borderlands Studies 32(1): 23–39.

  • Snow D. A.–Rochford E. B.–Worden S. K.–Benford R. D. 1986. Frame alignment processes micromobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51: 464–481.

  • Thibodeau P. H.–Boroditsky L. 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2): 1–11.

  • Tsarouhas D. 2018. Turkey: Identity politics and reticent Europeanisation. In: Flenley Paul–Mannin Michael–Tsarouhas Dimitris (eds) The European Union and its eastern neighbourhood. Manchester Michigan: Manchester University Press. 126–138.

  • Vieira A. 2016. Ukraine Russia and the strategic partnership dynamics in the EU’s Eastern neighbourhood: Recalibrating the EU’s ‘self’ ‘we’ and ‘other’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29(1): 128–150.

  • 2016a. EU ambassadors greenlight visa liberalization for Ukraine. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2016b. EU’s actions towards visa waiver are huge historical mistake – Iryna Herashchenko. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2016c. In its visa liberalization process Ukraine is hostage of EU fighting for power – Klimkin. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2017a. Visa waiver for Ukraine: Key steps and peculiarities of travel to EU. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2017b. Poroshenko: Having received visa-free travel Ukraine finalized divorce with Russia. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2017c. EP’s decision clear signal of Ukraine belonging to united Europe – Poroshenko. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2017d. Ukrainians to be able to travel to EU without visas on the night of June 11 – Presidential Administration. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018).

  • 112.UA. 2016a. Klimkin hopes EU to approve migration risk respond mechanism soon. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2016b. Ukraine’s highway to visa-free regime with EU. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2016c. EU creates obstacles to visa-free regime with Ukraine – EU Parliament MP. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2017. French are against: EP told who did not support visa-free for Ukraine. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018).

  • UNIAN. 2016. Ukraine-EU summit: Expecting no miracle. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2017a. Visa-free regime with EU giant step toward Europe – Poroshenko. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2017b. Poroshenko on COREPER’s visa lib decision: Doors to Europe now open Ukrainian. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2017c. Poroshenko on EU visa lib: Ukraine completes divorce process with Russia. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018). 2017d. Poroshenko expects visa waivers for Ukraine to be enforced from June 11. At: (downloaded on: 1 February 2018).

  • The European Commission. 2017. Visa policy. Accessed on 22 December 2017 at:

  • The Official Journal of the European Union. 2017. Legislation L133. Legislative Acts 60: 1–8.

  • (retrieved on: 1 June 2018).

  • (retrieved on: 1 June 2018).

  • (retrieved on: 1 June 2018).

Journal information
Impact Factor

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.101

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 75 75 15
PDF Downloads 39 39 3