Sweden’s Legal Council is facing a paradox at the heart of the country’s lawmaking process. A new democracy report from the SNS research institute says the current government’s bills have received serious criticism from Lagrådet, the Legal Council, twice as often as under previous governments, while parliament still rarely blocks the proposals.
Serious Lagrådet criticism has doubled under the current government
The findings, reported by Swedish public broadcaster SVT and based on the 2026 Democracy Council report by SNS, cover legislation adopted between 2006 and 2024. According to the report, the share of government bills receiving serious objections from Lagrådet rose from 4% to 8% during the first two years of rule by the parties behind the Tidö Agreement.
That increase matters because Lagrådet criticism is not meant to be political theatre. It is part of Sweden’s institutional quality control before laws reach the Riksdag. The report also points to a second trend: when bills move into the parliamentary phase, committee members and MPs only rarely appear to engage in depth with the legal objections already raised.
Political scientist Jan Teorell, quoted by SVT, warned that the longer-term risk is that Swedish courts may end up applying laws of weaker legal quality. In a country where legislative drafting has often been seen as a strength of the system, that is a significant warning sign.
What Lagrådet does in Sweden’s legal system
Lagrådet is a formal part of Sweden’s legislative review system. Its role is to examine draft bills before they are submitted to parliament and assess whether they are compatible with the constitution, the broader legal order and general legal principles. Its opinions are advisory rather than binding, but they are public and are normally included in the legislative record.
The body is made up of judges or former judges from Sweden’s Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court. Under Sweden’s constitutional framework, the government should normally seek its opinion on major proposals, especially those affecting fundamental freedoms, constitutional questions, and laws with major implications for individual rights.
That makes the Legal Council an important safeguard in the Swedish model. It does not decide policy, and it cannot veto a government bill. Its function is narrower but still essential: to test whether fast-moving political priorities are being translated into legislation that is coherent, workable and legally sound.
Parliament still passes bills despite Legal Council objections
The report suggests the problem is not only that the government is receiving harsher criticism, but also that the Riksdag is doing little with that information once the bills reach the chamber. According to SVT’s summary of the findings, parliamentary committees seldom highlight the problems identified by Lagrådet, and MPs usually go on to approve the government’s text anyway.
That weakens one of the checks built into the Swedish legislative process. If the government can brush aside legal warnings and parliament treats those warnings as marginal, the review system remains intact on paper but loses part of its practical force.
SVT also notes that Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer has previously dismissed harsh criticism from Lagrådet in several cases, arguing that the final judgment should rest with politicians and voters. The government’s position is that it was elected on a promise to reshape criminal justice policy and is now delivering on that mandate.
Why the Sweden Legal Council debate matters now
The dispute is therefore larger than one government or one set of bills. It touches on how Sweden balances political mandate and legal scrutiny. Governments are entitled to push reforms through parliament, especially after elections. But constitutional democracies also rely on institutions that slow down the process just enough to test whether legislation is precise, proportional and consistent with existing law.
On average, the Riksdag adopts around 40 new laws and more than 500 amendments each year. Lagrådet criticises roughly a quarter of proposals, while serious criticism has historically remained limited to a small minority. That is exactly why a doubling in the most severe category has drawn attention.
This is not a story about judges blocking elected politicians. It is a story about whether one of Sweden’s most important legal safeguards is being treated as a meaningful part of democratic governance or increasingly as a procedural hurdle. As debates over crime, rights and executive power sharpen across Europe, that question reaches well beyond Sweden.
