I was focusing on analysing the parliamentary debate about Family law in 2012, where the debate was strongly focused on three controversial themes: definition of family, definition of marriage and the right for same-sex partnerships to adopt children. I was exploring the scope of agonistic pluralism with help of tools that identify the level of depoliticization in debates through discursive strategies of moralization, rationalization and naturalization. I have analysed four parliamentary transcripts. Firstly, I have coded the transcripts, listed the most common type of arguments based on Walton's argumentation schemes and then analysed the presence of depoliticization in the vocabulary of main actors in the parliament. I listed three hypotheses: 1) discursive strategy of depoliticization was dominant in the parliament, 2) depoliticization strategy was mostly used by right wing politicians and 3) politicization strategy was mostly used by left wing politicians. Politicization strategy was mostly used by liberals and social democrats, whereas depoliticization strategy by all politicians of the right. The level of agonistic pluralism is somewhere between parliamentary diversity and pluralism – there were antagonistic and agonistic debates, but more depoliticization was present by the opposers of the Family Law, that is the reason why I could confirm the hypotheses 1 only partly, in contrast to hypotheses 2 and 3, which I could confirm fully.