This dissertation first outlines the theoretical relationship between discourse and regulation, and how this may be changing due to the rise of the Internet. Subsequently, the investigation is conducted in four parts:

Part One provides a primer on net neutrality, including the architecture of the Internet and a general spectrum of goals of net neutrality regulation. This theoretical and technical background forms the basis for two case studies of net neutrality in the U.S. and the E.U, respectively.

Part Two provides an analysis of the regulatory process in the U.S. and the corresponding discourse, while Part Three represents the analogous case study for the E.U. In Part Four the findings of the analyses are contrasted and embedded into discourse theory.

It is found that the current rules are similar, although regulatory approaches have recently moved in different directions. Moreover, lawmakers of the two jurisdictions share some regulatory goals. At the same time, the E.U. discourse is shown to be strongly influenced by the American debate. The dissertation concludes with a normative recommendation for regulators to facilitate a constructive discourse on net neutrality, which should inform regulation, instead of merely reacting to formal comments and consultations.