The increasing prevalence of intractable conflicts over natural resources, which defy technocratic solutions, highlights an urgent need for states, managers, and practitioners to find democratic methods for addressing them. In the normative debate over the optimal approach to managing these conflicts, deliberative democracy has emerged as a leading theoretical framework, sparking a deliberative turn in both political theory and natural resource governance. While the normative value of deliberative democracy—where the public collaboratively shapes collective decisions through reasoned discourse under conditions of equality and fairness—is widely acknowledged, its practical effectiveness in addressing intractable natural resource conflicts, particularly its capacity to foster productive reframing outcomes conducive to legitimate decisions or agreements, remains uncertain. In response to these uncertainties, this thesis explores the potential of deliberative democracy in intractable natural resource conflicts, using Swedish mining governance and its associated intractable conflicts as the empirical setting. It employs a qualitative case study design rooted in an interpretive analytical paradigm to investigate the possibility of achieving deliberation and associated reframing outcomes among disputing actors, examine the extent to which and how the ideal of deliberative democracy has manifested within the governance system entwined with the conflicts, and explore the interplay between contextual factors, deliberation, and associated reframing outcomes.

The thesis concludes that while achieving consensus or mutually accepted agreement through deliberation in intractable conflicts may be unlikely, it is possible, given strict adherence to deliberative design principles and significant contextual knowledge, to realize ideal deliberation and the outcome of meta-consensus. This outcome holds substantial value as it can transform intractable conflicts into structured and respectful disagreements, thereby clarifying the conflicts and their dividing lines. Consequently, it makes intractable situations more manageable, facilitating efforts to reach compromises when feasible and make trade-offs when they are not. Furthermore, the thesis shows that meta-consensus can endure amid ongoing conflict and heightened polarization. However, the thesis also concludes that ideal deliberation and meta-consensus may not be attainable in all conflict scenarios due to contextual barriers. Factors, including strained pre-conflict community relations rooted in historical state decisions, a lack of prior foundation for inter-group engagement, entrenched affiliations among participants, and obstacles within the institutional design of the governance system, were identified as impediments to the realization of ideal deliberation and its associated outcomes. The thesis also reaffirms the challenges of extending deliberative democracy beyond isolated forums to pre-existing governance systems. Notably, while the investigated governance system has demonstrated an increasing commitment to deliberative norms and practices, a discernible gap exists between the system's current state and the principles of deliberative democracy, suggesting a "business as usual" scenario rather than a transition toward a deliberative democratic governance system.

In light of these findings, this thesis provides several suggestions for aligning the system and other comparable governance systems with the deliberative democratic norms they aspire to achieve. It also proposes several directions for future research. These include exploring how deliberative processes can be optimally tailored to meet the unique demands of different contexts, continuing efforts to identify and address institutional and other contextual enablers and barriers to deliberation at both the micro and system levels. Addressing system-level barriers is particularly important if deliberation is to flourish beyond isolated forums. Furthermore, recognizing that meta-consensus does not provide a direct resolution to conflicts and cannot be enabled under all conditions, it is essential to identify mechanisms for trade-offs or outcomes that are deemed fair and acceptable even by those who do not get their preferences realized. Additionally, acknowledging the possibility of harnessing long-term democratization effects of conflicts, more research to determine when and under what conditions conflicts and various non-democratic actions yield positive effects is crucial.