My study is based on Göran Hägglunds statement that kristdemokraterna no longer support the proposal to remove the sterilisation requirement for transsexuals in the law of establishing sex in certain cases. The purpose of my study was to examine how different actors were debating about the statement to keep sterilisation requirements in an argumentation analysis. I did this by looking at the arguments, how the arguments were sported and which actors support which argument. I used Arne Naess pro et contra overview as a methodological tool to find the arguments and to see how they were supported. For the analysis I used a theory based on the three most important political ideologies: liberalism, conservatism and socialism. My findings were that the arguments could be sorted in to four major groups: Human rights, force, medicine and law. The arguments were supported by facts about history, medicine, laws and points of view. The supporting arguments range a bit based upon which group they belonged to. The majority of the arguments for the removal of the sterilisation requirement was liberal and those against were conservative. None of the arguments were strictly connected to socialism. There were only two actors that argued against the removal of the sterilisation requirements. Both of them were psychologist that works with transsexuals. Otherwise it was hard to find something in common with the actors. There were two doctors whose arguments were similar, and most of had the some connection to questions about transsexuals or were transsexual themselves.