This article performs a narrative policy analysis of a Swedish conflict that erupted over the EU's commercial fishing quota for Bothnian herring in the north Baltic Sea. After scientists raised alarms and the European Commission recommended closing the fishery in 2024, diverse actors sought to influence decision-making. Their accounts diverged, and proposals for action clashed. We parse this controversy by applying Emery Roe's theory and method for narrative policy analysis. We show that an apparently polarised debate entailed multiple narratives, with some more readable and thus more actionable for politicians than others. In addition, while actors’ problem statements diverged, their narratives contained many shared priorities and assumptions. The EU determines fishing quota annually, making it likely that disputes will recur. Narrative policy analysis facilitates formulating policy that better responds to all actors’ concerns. However, whether such constructive resolution is the optimal outcome must also be considered.