This thesis investigates the climate of media discourse immediately following the Brexit referendum of 2016. More specifically, it does this by examining in detail four editorial articles published by The Guardian and the Daily Mail to uncover how political actors, groups and social structures are represented on these platforms. This investigation aims to uncover the stance of each of these respective media platforms towards Brexit by revealing the ideological differences in the language used to discuss the issue. This is done through the use of Systemic Functional Grammar as developed by M.A.K. Halliday. In particular, the investigation primarily takes the form of a transitivity analysis of these four articles. However, other aspects of Systemic Functional Grammar are considered where it is judged to be beneficial to furthering the reader’s understanding of these articles. The results of the transitivity analysis are then used as the basis for discourse analysis. The structure of this discourse analysis approximates the theoretical framework first proposed by Fairclough (Critical Discourse Analysis). The aim is to show tendencies in the structure of the language that could help shape the perception of Brexit. The results show that both newspapers were actively engaged in presenting opposing views of Brexit; The Guardian being against leaving, while the Daily Mail for leaving the EU. This study found that while there were clear ideological patterns underlying the use of language by both The Guardian and the Daily Mail, the complexity of the issue of such an important aspect of public discourse resisted over-simplification and prevented decisive conclusions in many respects. The conclusion shows therefore that the societal discourse as represented by The Guardian and the Daily Mail is not a simple matter of progression in one direction but rather a complex and at times contradictory place of ideological struggle.