This research focuses on the post-Fukushima discourse regarding
nuclear energy in the EU (including the UK) up to the end of
2019. Since the connections between discourse and policymaking
are well established in the academic literature, it is crucial
to explore concepts and actors that dominated the nuclear
discourse after Fukushima with the goal of improving
understanding of the possible role of nuclear energy in the EU.
This work draws from the Social Constructivist tradition of
International Relations and the field of discourse studies in
order to address the research task. A mixed method – discourse
network analysis – is utilised for this purpose, allowing to
visualise discourse configurations along actors and concepts in
a longitudinal design. Results suggest that there is no reason
to absolutise the negative effects of the Fukushima accident in
the context of the EU, since they had been confined to certain
Member States and largely overcome by 2014, failing to
establish a consistent EU-wide trend, and the situation had
mostly returned to business-as-usual. The dynamics of the
discourse also reveal that the focus is shifting away from the
debate on nuclear policy options towards framing contests. In
addition, high polarisation manifests itself as a key
structural characteristic of the discourse, rising over time
and revealing its adversarial structure. At the same time,
European actors have started to assume a more prominent role,
even though issues pertinent to the EU-wide nuclear policy
development remain relatively marginal in the discourse.
Furthermore, the non-EU nuclear companies tend to abstain from
framing contest, while some European energy incumbents resort
to various framing strategies such as masking, reinvention, and
securitisation. Altogether, the analysis demonstrates that
there are no reasons to assert that nuclear energy will cease
to be an important source of energy in the future in the EU.