More Politics, More Problems? Intra-Party Dynamics and Conflict in a Politicising European Parliament

The increasing politicisation of the European Union has transformed the long-standing image of the Union as a largely technocratic and post-ideological project. In combination with the EU’s multiple crises, a rightward reorientation of EU politics, and the growing presence and influence of far-right parties, this shift has turned the European Parliament (EP) into a crucial arena for the return of politics to the Union. Yet despite the growth of research on EU politicisation, most work continues to focus on elections and institutional behaviour. This leaves largely unexplored how EP party groups position themselves in this politicised environment and how internal tensions over salient EU-level issues become visible in the public arena. This paper addresses that gap by examining how immigration and environmental policy are politicised as EU-level issues across EP party groups and how party-group positions, framing patterns, and publicly visible tensions vary across groups, issues, and politicised episodes. The paper focuses on EP party groups as meso-level actors and on two policy domains that crystallise core ideological and strategic dilemmas in a politicised Union: immigration and environmental policy. These domains are highly salient in public debate and national politics, but they also expose tensions within and across party families over EU authority, competence, responsibility, and political direction. They are therefore particularly suited to capturing both the politicisation of the EU level and the public articulation of differences within party groups. The paper examines two interconnected aspects. First, it analyses when and in what form these issues become politicised as specifically EU-level questions across EP party groups and parliamentary cohorts. Second, it maps party-group positions, issue framing, and publicly visible tensions across groups, issues, and politicised episodes. Together, these two steps make it possible to reconstruct both the EP's changing political landscape on the selected issues and the public manifestations of disagreement, conflict, and differentiated positioning within party groups. Methodologically, the paper combines qualitative document analysis and media content analysis. Document analysis identifies official party-group positions, issue emphases, and framing patterns over time, based on policy documents, press releases, and plenary interventions. Media content analysis of EU-focused outlets traces politicised claims and debates, identifies critical episodes of politicisation, and maps publicly visible intra-party frictions. The analysis distinguishes between routine references to the EU and instances in which the EU level is made politically salient through explicit framing, attribution of authority or responsibility, or directional claims for action, restraint, reform, defence, or rollback. Overall, the paper takes a first step towards opening the black box of EP party groups in a politicised Union. By showing when and how immigration and environmental policy become politicised as EU-level issues, how party groups publicly position themselves, and when internal tensions become visible, it provides the empirical basis for subsequent analysis of how politicisation is processed internally within party groups.