This study examines the findings of an empirical research of the Belgian, French and German online news to identify how practices of surveillance are represented between the end of 2014 and beginning of 2017. This study aims to reflect on how the contemporary discourse on surveillance is presented in the leading online news platforms of three European countries following the historical intelligence leak of Edward Snowden and during times of a high terrorism alert. The focus will be on the portrayal and review of online surveillance practices and data gathering with the overall aim to understand how surveillance is justified or challenged in the online news debate. The research is guided by the central question: When is surveillance justified and when are surveillance measurements challenged in the news debate? This research approaches the question through a quantitative content analysis and a qualitative discourse analysis. The latter is largely focussing on the linguistic-based critical discourse approach as developed by Fairclough, Wodak and Meyer and Van Dijk. The articles evaluated in this research show that surveillance is both normalised and contested. The former shapes the Belgian media discourse,  focusing on the concerns over national security and surveillance of elites. The German discourse is characterised by the latter one, based on the anxiety of mass surveillance of the citizens. The French media discourse articulates a debate that responses to both normalising and contesting surveillance and is therefore considered as a borderline case.