SNS Democracy Council 2026: Harsh Council on Legislation criticism of the incumbent government – and parliament rarely reacts

Swedish parliamentary democracy functions well in several respects. Parliament legislates at a stable pace and the scrutiny by the Committee on the Constitution has become more consensual over time. At the same time, problems exist. The current government has received particularly extensive and serious criticism from the Council on Legislation. The Committee on the Constitution’s reviews could be made clearer in their conclusions. In addition, a majority of members of parliament are subjected to threats and hate.

The Council on Legislation’s task is to review the compatibility of legislative proposals with the constitution and the legal order. The report shows that the Kristersson government, during its first two years in office, received both more and more serious criticism from the Council on Legislation than any previous government since 2006. Yet not even the opposition has responded significantly to this.

– When serious objections go unheeded by the government and parliament, it is a signal that quality assurance in the legislative process needs to improve. We propose that parliament’s independent legal capacity be strengthened, for example by establishing a legal secretariat, says Jan Teorell, chair of the SNS Democracy Council 2026.

The Council on Legislation’s role and criticism are unclear in the legislative process

The report indicates that governments (2006–2024) have heeded the Council on Legislation’s criticism only to a limited extent. There is also no clear procedure in parliament for how the Council’s criticism should be handled, meaning that objections risk having little impact. During the period, parliament adopted 57 of 64 bills without amendments despite those bills having received serious criticism from the Council on Legislation.

– We propose that parliamentary committees be required to include an account of the Council’s opinion in their reports on legislative proposals. At the same time, the Council on Legislation should use consistent terminology in which criticism is graded. It must be clearly stated whether criticism is being made and how serious it is, says Jan Teorell.

A more united but sometimes unclear Committee on the Constitution

According to the report, consensus within the Committee on the Constitution has increased, but not at the expense of reduced criticism. Under the Persson and Reinfeldt governments, the government was criticised in 20 percent of cases by members from a governing party. Under the Löfven, Andersson, and Kristersson governments, the proportion has been 51, 57, and 62 percent respectively. At the same time, the researchers note that it can sometimes be difficult to assess whether the committee considers the government to have fallen short in its conduct.

– We therefore propose that the Committee on the Constitution, just like the Council on Legislation, should use consistent terminology in which criticism is graded, says Jan Teorell.

More than six in ten members of parliament subjected to physical or psychological violence

The report also examines threats and harassment. On average, 64 percent of members of parliament report each year that they are subjected to physical or psychological violence. Exposure is particularly high among younger members and those with an immigrant background. Women are marginally more exposed than men, but are subjected to sexist and sexualised attacks more than three times as often.

Harassment and online hate can have major consequences for how parliamentary duties are exercised. Up to 40 percent of members report that they have avoided speaking publicly on certain issues out of fear of being subjected to hate, threats, or harassment. The most common topic to avoid is migration.

– We see that hate and threats appear to distort public debate in a way that particularly disadvantages those groups – women and minorities – that have historically been excluded from politics. It is not enough to focus only on physical violence; we must think more broadly so that members can carry out their mandates, says Jan Teorell.

Key findings:

Legislation

• The current government has received more criticism from the Council on Legislation than previous governments since 2006.
• Governments typically heed the Council on Legislation’s criticism only to a limited extent.
• The Council on Legislation’s criticism is not handled systematically in parliamentary committees.
• Parliament responds to a very limited extent when the government fails to heed the Council on Legislation’s criticism.
• Between 2006 and 2024, parliament did not deviate from the government’s legislative proposals to a greater extent the more serious the Council on Legislation’s criticism was – quite the contrary.
• Only around 26 percent of members of parliament from opposition parties vote against legislative proposals that have received serious criticism from the Council on Legislation.

Scrutiny

• The Committee on the Constitution has become increasingly united in its criticism of the government, and this unity has not come at the expense of reduced criticism. The Committee is also increasingly succeeding in articulating guiding precedent.
• There is a risk that the Comittee’s pursuit of consensus leads to diluted and ambiguous positions.
• The Committee’s unity rests primarily on informal norms, which can easily be threatened by party loyalties in an increasingly polarised political climate.

Representation

• Older people and those with a working-class background are underrepresented in parliament.
• 64 percent of members have been subjected to threats or harassment, which is more than three times the rate among employees in, for example, security and guard services (21 percent).
• Young members and members with an immigrant background are subjected to threats and harassment more often than others.
• Female members are particularly exposed to sexualising and gender-demeaning attacks. 41 percent have been subjected to such attacks in any given year, compared to 12 percent of male members.
• The measures taken by the parliamentary administration and the parties focus on preventing physical violence, despite psychological violence being more prevalent.
• Opinion representation between members and voters is good and has strengthened over the past 20 years.

Reform proposals from the Democracy Council:

Legislation

• Parliamentary committees shall be required to include an account of the Council on Legislation’s opinion on the legislative proposal in their reports on government bills.
• Establish a legal secretariat in parliament or otherwise strengthen parliament’s independent legal expertise.
• Investigate strengthening the Council on Legislation’s secretariat.
• The Council on Legislation should use standardised terminology to express the degree of seriousness of its criticism of legislative proposals.

Scrutiny

• Strengthen minority protection in the Committee on the Constitution.
• The Committee on the Constitution should use standardised terminology to express the degree of seriousness of its criticism of the government.

Representation

• A broader definition than “physical violence” must be applied to ensure that members of parliament are able to fully carry out their mandates.
• Special consideration should be given to the needs of female members, those with an immigrant background, and young members regarding support for psychological violence.
• Investigate the reintroduction of the requirement to be registered as a resident in the constituency one represents (the so-called residence requirement).
• The parties should take measures to increase the proportion of workers and older people in parliament.

About SNS Democracy Council

SNS Democracy Council conducts research on the conditions, circumstances, and development of democracy. The Council was established in the mid-1990s and has since written on principled and topical questions about democracy at local, national, and global levels. The authors bear full responsibility for the analysis, conclusions, and proposals.

About the authors

Jan Teorell (chair) holds the Lars Johan Hierta Chair in Political Science, Stockholm University

Kontakt: jan.teorell@statsvet.su.se / 070-868 18 91

Sandra Håkansson is a Doctor of Political Science, Uppsala University

Kontakt: sandra.hakansson@statsvet.uu.se / 073-694 60 05

Daniel Naurin is Professor of Political Science, University of Gothenburg and University of Oslo

Kontakt: daniel.naurin@pol.gu.se

Johanna Rickne is Professor of Economics at SOFI, Stockholm University

Kontakt: johanna.rickne@sofi.su.se / 070-433 73 88

Patrik Öhberg is Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Gothenburg

Kontakt: patrik.ohberg@som.gu.se / 0760-48 45 85