In 1970 professional boxing became illegal in Sweden and in 2009 the prohibition was removed.Just before both of these changes in the law there were debates in media where people argued forand against ilegalization. In the later debate the focus has shifted from professional boxing toinclude Mixed Martial Arts(MMA) as well. MMA was governed and bound by the same law asprofessional boxing.This purpose of this paper is to compare the debate in 1968-1969 with the debate in 2006. The twodebates resulted in two different outcomes, ilegalization of professional boxing in 1970 and thenlegalization of it 2009. Are there any reason for these differences? What is the reasoning behindthis? By using hegemonic masculinity as a guidance when examining the debates this paper istrying to understand how the discourse have changed over time. The method is to analyze thediscourse in the debates by looking at morality, health and commercialization arguments.The result of this paper is that the arguments are similar in both debates. The values of thehegemonic masculinity is shown through six different topics. (1) How violence is perceived, (2) thefreedom of choice, (3) medias power to command and influence the people, (4) what is considered asport and what is considered an assault, (5) what the society allows children to be able to beinfluenced by and (6) the government's role as a regulator of the sports. The conclusion is that achange in the hegemonic masculinity can not be proven to be exclusively responsible for thedifferent outcomes of the debates. However, the examination of the discourse clearly shows theevolution of the values of the hegemonic masculinity.2