Four years ago, Sweden’s far right became the power behind a centre-right government. This time, it expected further gains leading to cabinet seats. But voters turned against it. In the 13 September general election, support for the far-right Sweden Democrats fell for the first time in the party’s history. Four days later, Ulf Kristersson, leader of the centre-right Moderate Party, resigned as prime minister, leaving the way clear for the centre-left Social Democrats to try to piece together a coalition. But the Sweden Democrats’ defeat may prove hollow. The party will still have won if the next government maintains the hostility towards migrants that has characterised Sweden’s recent politics.

Firewall breached

The Sweden Democrats originated in the country’s violent neo-Nazi and white supremacist movement. Established parties long refused to cooperate with the party, but the centre-right Moderate Party broke the firewall in 2019, when it announced it was willing to work with the Sweden Democrats. In the 2022 election, the Sweden Democrats came second with 20.5 per cent of the vote. The Moderate Party came third but was able to form a minority government. The Sweden Democrats didn’t receive cabinet seats, but entered into a formal agreement with the governing parties, which relied on its votes.

Having brought the Sweden Democrats into the political mainstream, last year the governing parties announced they planned to keep cooperating with it after the next election. Kristersson went further in April, when he said his aim was to form a majority government with the Sweden Democrats and promised them cabinet posts, potentially giving them control of immigration policies, among others. The announcement made clear how central to Swedish politics the Sweden Democrats had become.

Hostility written into law

During the 2010s, Sweden saw a sharp increase in the number of asylum seekers and migrants, particularly from war-torn Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. Political parties and media have repeatedly blamed migrants for crime and economic and social problems. The Sweden Democrats framed its hostility towards migrants as a defence of the country’s envied living standards, underpinned by its extensive social welfare system. This time it promised to ‘make Sweden Sweden again’, in a campaign marked by instances of blatant Islamophobia.

As the Sweden Democrats picked up electoral support, established parties adopted increasingly anti-migrant policies to try to see off the political threat. The same thing has happened in other European countries, including Denmark, France, Germany and the UK, and with the same effect. Mainstream parties legitimised the anti-migrant agenda and brought the far-right challenger into the political mainstream, while voters tended to prefer the original to the copy. In Sweden, the result has been a steady worsening of conditions for migrants under successive governments.

Sweden’s turn towards restrictive policies predates the 2022 government. After asylum applications surged in 2015, the Social Democrat-led government, with broad cross-party support, passed a temporary law that took effect in July 2016, replacing permanent residence permits with three-year permits for refugees and sharply restricting family reunification.

In 2021, the same government made temporary permits the norm, with permanent residence dependent on financial self-sufficiency and ‘good conduct’. The Moderate Party-led government that took office in 2022 went further. It raised the salary that workers from outside the European Union (EU) must earn to obtain a work permit to 80 per cent of the median wage and, starting in January 2026, increased the ‘repatriation grant’ offered to refugees who agree to leave Sweden to around US$35,000 per adult.

Ahead of the election, the government stated that it wanted Sweden to have the most restrictive asylum policies possible under EU law, and passed a new set of anti-migrant laws. These removed any route to permanent residence for people with asylum status, offering only temporary residence permits. Children of people who came to Sweden as asylum seekers have no guarantee of residence when they reach 18, and could be deported to countries they’ve never lived in.

Another law introduced a broadly defined ‘good behaviour’ clause that allows authorities to refuse residence permits for non-criminal matters such as unpaid debts, and revoke permits already granted.

On top of this, what’s commonly called the ‘snitch law’ obliges some categories of public employees, including those who work in the benefits, tax and unemployment systems, to report people they suspect of being undocumented migrants. This may deter migrants from using essential public services, such as healthcare, for fear of being reported. Because the law is broad and vague, it could also encourage self-censorship, as migrants may feel less able to take part in protests or speak out online. This effectively creates a two-tier system for civic freedoms.

These laws risk introducing a default racial profiling system in which Black and Brown people face suspicion that white people don’t, and they could turn public servants who went into their profession to help people into unofficial border police. Troublingly, other EU countries are reportedly watching how Sweden’s hostile new laws play out, with a view to copying them.

A fragmented result

Crime and migration were campaign issues, but didn’t dominate the debate, as voters also focused heavily on the economy, education and healthcare. After many years at the top of the agenda, migration may be receding as a political issue, revealing the Sweden Democrats as having little to offer on other issues. The party may also have paid a price for four years of sustaining a government, making it harder to run an anti-establishment campaign, and for a scandal linking a party official to Russia.

The results point to further political fragmentation. The Social Democrats also lost seats, recording their lowest share of the vote in over a century, while smaller parties gained support, with the Green and Left parties particularly attracting young voters.

The two major political blocs, led by the Social Democrats and the Moderate Party, are holding coalition negotiations. Neither faces an easy task. A four-party coalition led by the Social Democrats would command 176 seats, just above the 175 needed for a majority, while a four-party coalition on the right would claim only 173. But agreement can’t be taken for granted, given significant policy differences, particularly between the Centre and Left parties. Negotiations could take weeks. Determination to keep the Sweden Democrats out may galvanise the four into an agreement but may not be enough to sustain it, making another election a possibility.

Even if the Social Democrats prevail, a significant change of direction on migrants’ rights is unlikely. The party has expressed support for many of the recent anti-migrant policies. The political rhetoric may well soften, but the situation could mirror that of neighbouring Denmark, where the Social Democrats, which had long adopted anti-migrant policies, retained power in the March election despite having their worst result in over 120 years.

A chance to change course

Continuing down this path threatens to be a recipe for further decline for the Social Democrats, while the Sweden Democrats, even if denied a role in government, will hope to capitalise on any dissatisfaction with the performance of a new administration. Progressive voices urgently need to start making a more positive case that tells human stories and asserts the human rights of migrants, and that helps build understanding of the causes of migration and appreciation of the benefits migrants can bring, from the public service jobs Sweden’s social welfare system relies on to the economic contributions migrants make and innovations they can drive.

Sweden’s civil society must be heard. Civil society organisations are providing practical help to asylum seekers and migrants, and going to the courts and European bodies to challenge the worst impacts of regressive laws. They know what’s needed to curb the hostility, make Swedish society fairer and restore the country’s hard-earned global reputation as a human rights champion.

The Sweden Democrats’ loss of support shows there’s nothing inevitable or unstoppable about the rise of the far right. If Sweden’s next government listens to civil society instead of continuing to imitate the far right, it has a chance to show the rest of Europe that it’s possible to roll back the far right’s agenda. Swedish voters have rejected the original. The incoming government should not keep offering them the copy.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org