‘Epistemic Learning’ involves mechanisms that promote expert consensus in external arenas. We hypothesize that this may hamper public deliberation, which has important consequences for knowledge construction and utilization. Especially in situations of risk and uncertainty, government-appointed experts, in combination with traditional media, can ‘freeze’ deliberation and transform discussions on alternative policy options to an attack on professional status. During the pandemic H1N1 influenza 2009, Sweden sought to vaccinate its full population while Denmark targeted small groups, which reflected different positions taken by key experts in the two countries. A comparative case study of national print media confirms that though alternative policy options were readily observable in neighboring countries, public debate on them was rare. Government-appointed experts tended to dominate the policy discourse and echo each other. Hence, each country appeared to have one legitimate policy option, even if the truth appeared different elsewhere.
