The aim of this thesis is to explore and examine in what ways gender and class differences are significant aspects to consider when analyzing the consequences of a local culture debate (kulturdebatt) in the Swedish town Norrköping. The thesis mainly focuses on the culture debate from the perspective of the Norrköping Symphony Orchestra, and what financial cuts within this cultural institution will lead to for people, based on gender and class. Through choosing 13 articles from Swedish newspapers connected to the culture debate, two scientific reports, one statement from the Norrköping Symphony Orchestra and by having interviews with two people who work within the Norrköping Symphony Orchestra, the thesis aims to answer the questions: How do financial cuts within cultural institutions reproduce or question the idea of who has access to culture based on class and gender? In what way is the ”culture elite” (kulturelit) constructed in the culture debate in Norrköping? What does the culture debate say about accessibility within culture for those who are not considered to belong within the ”culture elite”? Grounded in the methods critical discourse analysis and political language analysis and theories such as populism, cultural capital, respectability, the Other and the relation between economic and cultural capital, the study aims to examine gendered differences and differences based on class in how people consume culture. Conclusions show that women are mainly identified within the “culture elite”, while simultaneously being affected by differences in pricing when choosing what culture to partake in. This highlights the consequences of making culture less financially accessible both through a gendered and classed lens, since financial cuts mainly affect women. The material also shows that the way the “culture elite” is being used as a concept within the debate, works as a populistic tool, rather than as an easily defined term. Within the debate, the “culture elite” is constructed both through a strong cultural and economic capital, which varies based on what perspectives are being raised. The construction of the Other within the debate is constructed as a contrast to the “culture elite”, and does not have the opportunity to be heard when it comes to what type of culture should be publicly funded and what type of culture that is associated with the “culture elite”.