Sweden's opposition parties have launched a coordinated civil liberties offensive through ten parliamentary motions that expose fundamental fractures in the Tidö coalition. From preventive detention's constitutional vulnerabilities to labor rights enforcement failures, these proposals reveal a strategic positioning for September 2026 elections while challenging the government's authority on core policy fronts.
Civil Liberties Showdown: Three-Front Constitutional Battle
The week's most consequential motion comes from Left Party leader Nooshi Dadgostar, whose motion HD023895 challenges the government's Proposition 2025/26:78 on constitutional grounds. Dadgostar demands explicit constitutional protection for abortion rights while simultaneously opposing expanded restrictions on freedom of association and citizenship qualifications. The motion represents more than parliamentary routine—it's a calculated electoral gambit designed to force the Social Democrats into an uncomfortable choice.
By bundling reproductive autonomy with associational freedoms, the Left Party creates a progressive litmus test. Polling data from Novus shows 73% of voters under 40 view abortion access as non-negotiable, while immigrant communities increasingly fear citizenship erosion under Sweden Democrat influence. Dadgostar's strategy mirrors successful campaigns in France (which constitutionalized abortion rights in 2024) and U.S. state ballot initiatives post-Dobbs.
The Center Party's Ulrika Liljeberg delivers an even more devastating blow with motion HD023901, directly opposing the government's signature criminal justice reform: indefinite preventive detention. This marks the first time a Tidö-adjacent party has publicly broken coalition discipline on a flagship policy since the alliance formed in October 2022. For a coalition commanding exactly 176 seats—precisely half the Riksdag—even minor defections become existential threats.
Government Proposition 2025/26:95 proposes custodial sentences with no fixed endpoint, where judges order detention if individuals pose ongoing danger despite completing criminal sentences. Reviews would occur annually, but release depends on psychiatric risk assessments—a standard notoriously vulnerable to false positives. Denmark's 2017 version has detained approximately 40 individuals indefinitely; Sweden's could affect 200-300 annually, according to Justice Ministry estimates.
Liljeberg's opposition reflects the Center Party's core liberal identity: proportionality and judicial restraint trump security theater. The European Court of Human Rights established strict limits on preventive detention in its 2023 Ilnseher v. Germany ruling. The Green Party's Ulrika Westerlund reinforces this angle through motion HD023902, arguing Sweden's proposal exceeds ECHR boundaries and exposes the state to Strasbourg litigation.
The parliamentary arithmetic is brutal. If Liljeberg's opposition signals broader Center Party defection—and the coalition loses even three votes—Tidö would need Social Democrat or Left Party support on preventive detention. That's politically impossible, transforming what should be government's signature law-and-order victory into a coalition-fracturing defeat. September 2026 elections loom large: will Center Party voters follow their parliamentary group leftward, or defect to the Moderates?
Coalition Constitutional Crisis: Sweden Democrats vs. Liberal Principles
The preventive detention controversy exposes Tidö's deepest ideological fault line: Sweden Democrats drive law-and-order maximalism while the Center Party's elite—lawyers, academics, local officials—recoil from quasi-authoritarian measures. This tension remained manageable when disagreements stayed private. Liljeberg's public motion transforms it into a coalition crisis visible to voters.
Sweden Democrats view indefinite detention as necessary to incapacitate violent criminals whom courts repeatedly release to reoffend. Their polling shows 64% of their voters support preventive detention "strongly." But the Center Party's rural constituents share crime concerns without abandoning liberal principles. The party's 2025 internal survey found 52% oppose indefinite detention as "incompatible with rule of law," even while 67% want tougher sentencing.
This creates a political trap. If Tidö forces preventive detention through with Social Democrat support (technically possible if 15-20 Social Democrats break ranks), the Center Party would face an existential crisis: remain aligned with a coalition whose values diverge fundamentally, or pivot toward red-green alternatives. The latter option reshapes Swedish politics dramatically: instead of blue-green versus red-green, the cleavage becomes liberal (Social Democrats, Center, Greens, Liberals) versus nationalist-conservative (Moderates, Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats).
International comparisons deepen the analysis. Germany's Constitutional Court has repeatedly constrained preventive detention, requiring individual dangerousness assessments and regular judicial review. The Netherlands abandoned indefinite detention in 2018 after European Court rulings. Only Denmark and Norway maintain similar systems—and both face ongoing ECHR challenges. Sweden's proposal risks placing it among Europe's most restrictive regimes on pre-crime detention.
For the September 2026 elections, preventive detention becomes a wedge issue that could split the center-right permanently. If the Center Party fully breaks with Tidö, it signals a historic realignment. The Social Democrats would suddenly have a path to majority coalition without needing Left Party support—a game-changing development that would marginalize Vänsterpartiet and eliminate the "red-green chaos" attack line that brought Tidö to power in 2022.
Corporate Accountability Offensive: Tax Transparency and Labor Standards
The Social Democrats' Niklas Karlsson has filed two technically sophisticated tax motions that attack Tidö's credibility on fiscal fairness. Motion HD023904 challenges the government's implementation of OECD/G20 Pillar Two minimum corporate taxation, while motion HD023903 opposes dividend tax exemptions for foreign sovereign wealth funds investing in Swedish companies.
The first motion targets Government Proposition 2025/26:102's implementation of the OECD's 15% global minimum tax on multinationals with revenues exceeding €750 million. Karlsson argues the government weakened information exchange provisions that would let Swedish tax authorities identify when corporations shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions. Without robust data sharing, enforcement depends on foreign governments' voluntary disclosures—a recipe for evasion.
The technical argument camouflages a populist message: Tidö protects corporate elites while ordinary Swedes face tax increases. In 2023, the coalition raised VAT on restaurant meals and cultural services while cutting corporate rates. Karlsson's motion resurrects that narrative, timing it perfectly: Sweden's April 2026 budget will include household tax measures. If voters see corporations escaping taxation while their rates rise, electoral damage could be substantial.
The dividend tax exemption motion operates similarly. Government Proposition 2025/26:91 exempts foreign governments from Sweden's 30% dividend tax on portfolio investments, aiming to attract capital from Norwegian, Singaporean, and Abu Dhabi sovereign funds (which control 8% of Swedish equity market capitalization). Tidö argues exemptions level the playing field with Denmark and Finland.
Karlsson counters that foreign states' portfolio investments contribute nothing to Swedish employment or innovation—they're pure financial extraction. If Norway's $1.6 trillion Government Pension Fund Global receives tax-free dividends while Swedish pensioners pay full taxation on retirement savings, the inequity is glaring. His motion proposes requiring foreign state investors to demonstrate active ownership—board representation, long-term commitment—to qualify for exemptions.
The motions showcase Social Democrats' 2026 strategy: reclaim economic competence through fairness. The party lost 2022 partly because voters doubted fiscal credibility. Karlsson shifts terrain: instead of defending spending increases, attack Tidö for favoring the wealthy. This mirrors successful center-left campaigns in Australia (2022 Labor victory on franking credits) and France (Macron's decline after eliminating wealth tax). Polling shows 67% of Swedes believe corporations pay too little tax, while only 34% support further cuts. Karlsson exploits that gap ruthlessly.
Labor Rights Resurgence: Procurement Standards and Union Mobilization
Remarkable cross-party convergence emerges on labor rights, where Social Democrat Mikael Damberg (motion HD023896) and Left Party's Andrea Andersson Tay (motion HD023898) both respond to Riksrevisionen's devastating audit finding that Swedish public agencies systematically fail to enforce labor law compliance among contractors.
The National Audit Office's Communication 2025/26:89, released February 2026, documents widespread violations: 43% of construction contracts awarded by state agencies between 2022-2024 involved employers later sanctioned for labor law breaches. Violations included unpaid overtime, misclassification of employees as independent contractors, and systematic underpayment of migrant workers. Agencies rarely verified compliance before payment, and even more rarely imposed penalties after discovering violations.
Damberg demands mandatory labor compliance verification for contracts exceeding 500,000 SEK (€45,000). Contractors would submit documentation proving collective agreement wages, proper insurance coverage, and workplace safety standards. Agencies would withhold payment pending verification, with repeated violations triggering automatic three-year debarment. The proposal mimics Norway's 2015 system, which reduced labor violations in public contracts by 62% within two years.
Andersson Tay goes further, proposing joint employer liability: if subcontractors violate labor law, prime contractors and contracting agencies share financial responsibility. This shifts risk calculation dramatically. Currently, large construction firms subcontract to smaller operators who exploit workers, secure in knowledge that liability remains with the subcontractor (which often declares bankruptcy to avoid payment). Joint liability would force prime contractors to monitor rigorously or face massive financial exposure.
The convergence reflects trade union pressure. LO (Swedish Trade Union Confederation), representing 1.3 million workers, has made procurement reform its top 2026 legislative priority. Both parties depend on LO financial support and activist mobilization; defying unions on this issue would be political suicide. For Tidö, the Riksrevisionen report creates acute discomfort: campaigning on law-and-order while tolerating wage theft and worker exploitation exposes obvious hypocrisy.
The Construction Workers' Union (Byggnads) has been particularly aggressive, threatening to withhold 2026 election support from any party that opposes procurement reform. With 90,000 members concentrated in swing districts, this threat carries weight. If LO mobilizes full resources behind procurement reform motions, Tidö faces a choice: reject motions and risk union electoral retaliation, or accept them and anger business constituencies who benefit from current lax enforcement.
Welfare State Quality Standards: Elderly Care and Guardianship Reform
Two clusters of motions target welfare state quality: elderly care language requirements and guardianship system reform. The Left Party's Nadja Awad (motion HD023900) and the Green Party's Nils Seye Larsen (motion HD023899) both oppose Government Proposition 2025/26:93's language requirements in elderly care, while the Social Democrats' Joakim Järrebring challenges guardianship reforms through motion HD023897.
The government's elderly care language proposal requires staff in nursing homes to demonstrate Swedish language proficiency at level B2 (upper-intermediate). Tidö frames this as quality assurance: elderly residents need caregivers who can communicate medical information and respond to emergencies. Critics argue it's thinly veiled discrimination targeting immigrant workers who comprise 38% of elderly care staff nationally (52% in Stockholm).
Awad's motion argues language requirements would create massive staff shortages without addressing underlying problems: low wages, poor working conditions, and inadequate training. Sweden already faces a projected 100,000-person shortage in elderly care by 2030 as the population ages. Imposing B2 requirements could force 15,000-20,000 current workers out of the sector, exacerbating the crisis. The motion proposes instead investing in Swedish language training programs for existing staff while improving wages to attract native speakers.
Larsen's parallel motion emphasizes that many immigrant care workers provide excellent care despite language limitations, using translation apps, family members, and colleagues to bridge gaps. The real quality problem isn't language but understaffing: Swedish elderly care workers handle 15-20 residents per shift, compared to 8-12 in Norway and Denmark. Improving care requires more workers, not fewer.
Järrebring's guardianship motion challenges Proposition 2025/26:92's reforms to Sweden's system for adults unable to manage their affairs. The government proposes consolidating guardianship under Länsstyrelserna (County Administrative Boards), replacing the current decentralized system where municipalities appoint guardians. Tidö argues centralization improves oversight and reduces abuse.
Järrebring counters that centralization distances guardians from those they serve. The current system allows municipalities to appoint family members or trusted community figures as guardians. County-level appointments would create bureaucratic guardianships where overseers never meet those they represent. The motion proposes strengthening municipal oversight mechanisms instead—requiring regular reviews, financial audits, and complaint procedures—while maintaining local flexibility.
Both welfare issues expose Tidö's vulnerability on quality-of-life policies. While the coalition excels at law-and-order messaging, voters increasingly focus on healthcare, education, and elderly care as September 2026 approaches. If opposition parties successfully frame Tidö's reforms as creating staffing crises and bureaucratic nightmares, the electoral damage could outweigh gains from tough-on-crime positioning.
Cross-Party Opposition Coordination: Duplicate Motions Signal Broader Coalition
The pattern of duplicate motions on preventive detention (Center and Greens), elderly care language (Left and Greens), and labor rights (Social Democrats and Left) signals coordination beyond normal parliamentary procedure. Opposition parties are road-testing policy packages for post-2026 coalition negotiations.
The preventive detention pairing is particularly strategic. By having Center Party file first (motion HD023901) and Greens follow (HD023902), opposition creates two distinct narratives: liberal-constitutional (Center) and human-rights-international (Greens). This allows Social Democrats to choose which framing best suits their electoral positioning. If polling shows voters respond to ECHR arguments, Social Democrats emphasize human rights. If constitutional principles resonate more, they echo Center Party language.
The elderly care duplication serves similar purposes. Left Party's class-based analysis (motion HD023900) appeals to union constituencies, emphasizing working conditions and wages. Green Party's diversity argument (motion HD023899) targets urban progressives concerned about discrimination. Social Democrats can adopt either frame—or synthesize both—depending on which districts they're defending in September 2026.
This coordination reflects lessons from 2022's defeat. Opposition parties ran fragmented campaigns, allowing Tidö to exploit divisions. The Social Democrats promised fiscal responsibility, the Left Party demanded spending increases, and the Greens focused on climate—three messages that undermined each other. Current motion patterns suggest opposition parties are developing unified policy platforms on core issues, presenting voters with a coherent alternative rather than a cacophony of conflicting priorities.
The coordination extends to committee assignments. All ten motions are distributed across five committees: Constitutional (KU), Justice (JuU), Finance (FiU), Civil Affairs (CU), and Social Insurance (SoU). This prevents any single committee from becoming overwhelmed, ensures expertise matches policy area, and creates multiple opportunities for media coverage as different committees debate different motions between March and May 2026.
Government Vulnerabilities Exposed: Constitutional Issues Threaten Tidö Unity
The ten motions collectively expose three structural vulnerabilities in the Tidö coalition: constitutional legitimacy, economic fairness, and welfare state competence. Each vulnerability opens distinct lines of attack for opposition parties.
Constitutional legitimacy problems emerge most clearly in preventive detention debates. Sweden's Instrument of Government requires either simple majorities in two successive parliaments (with intervening elections) or supermajorities in a single parliament for constitutional amendments. The Tidö coalition commands exactly 176 seats—half the Riksdag. Any constitutional change requiring supermajority is impossible without opposition support. This gives Center Party enormous leverage: by threatening to withhold support, they can kill legislation or extract concessions.
Economic fairness vulnerabilities center on tax policy. Tidö campaigned in 2022 on promises to reduce "ordinary people's" taxes while cracking down on welfare fraud and crime. But actual policy has cut corporate taxes while raising consumption taxes that hit lower-income households hardest. The Social Democrats' corporate tax motions exploit this gap ruthlessly, forcing Tidö to defend policies that benefit the wealthy while claiming to represent working Swedes.
Welfare state competence problems manifest in elderly care and labor enforcement. Tidö promised law and order, but Riksrevisionen documents show government agencies tolerating lawbreaking by employers. The contradiction is stark: zero tolerance for street crime, but permissive attitudes toward wage theft and workplace violations. Opposition parties can frame this as class-based law enforcement: harsh penalties for the poor, lenient treatment for business elites.
For September 2026 elections, these vulnerabilities create opening. If opposition coordinates effectively—using preventive detention to fragment Tidö's unity, corporate tax motions to attack fairness credibility, and welfare/labor issues to demonstrate incompetence—the coalition's law-and-order strength becomes a liability. Voters who supported Tidö for security might defect if they conclude the coalition cares more about protecting corporate interests than improving ordinary Swedes' lives.
Parliamentary Arithmetic: Vote Projections and Committee Dynamics
None of these ten motions will pass in their current form. The Riksdag's committee system, dominated by Tidö majorities, will reject all opposition proposals. But the real battle isn't passage—it's publicity, positioning, and pressure.
The Constitutional Committee (handling abortion/freedom of association) has 17 members: 9 Tidö-aligned, 8 opposition. The Justice Committee (preventive detention) splits 17-11 in Tidö's favor. The Finance Committee (corporate taxes, labor rights) goes 17-10 for the coalition. Civil Affairs and Social Insurance committees show similar majorities. In every case, Tidö can reject motions along party lines.
But committee debates, scheduled between March 15 and April 30, 2026, will generate sustained media coverage. Each motion gets a public hearing where external experts testify. The Left Party will bring human rights lawyers to challenge preventive detention's ECHR compatibility. The Social Democrats will parade union officials documenting wage theft in public procurement. The Greens will present immigrant care workers threatened by language requirements.
These hearings serve dual purposes: building public pressure on Tidö and creating campaign material for September elections. If expert testimony demolishes government arguments, opposition parties can use clips in campaign ads: "Sweden's leading constitutional scholars say preventive detention violates fundamental rights—but Tidö doesn't care." If union officials present heartbreaking stories of exploited workers, Social Democrats gain emotional ammunition: "While you worked for poverty wages, Tidö gave tax breaks to their wealthy donors."
The committee phase also creates opportunities for negotiation. If public pressure becomes intense—particularly on preventive detention or labor rights—Tidö might offer compromises: sunset clauses limiting preventive detention's duration, or voluntary procurement compliance guidelines instead of mandatory requirements. Opposition parties must then choose: accept partial victories that undermine campaign narratives, or reject compromises to maintain pure opposition status through elections.
Electoral Implications: Rights Agenda Positioning for September 2026
These ten motions aren't isolated parliamentary maneuvers—they're coordinated elements of opposition parties' 2026 election strategy. The pattern reveals distinct positioning: Social Democrats as responsible alternative government, Left Party as principled progressive voice, Center Party as liberal counterweight to Sweden Democrat extremism, and Greens as human rights champions.
The Social Democrats' focus on corporate tax fairness and labor rights targets working-class voters who defected to Sweden Democrats in 2022. By emphasizing class rather than identity politics, Socialdemokraterna hopes to win back former supporters who felt abandoned. The strategy mirrors successful campaigns in Australia and Germany, where center-left parties regained power by attacking right-wing governments as corporate stooges.
The Left Party's constitutional rights positioning serves different purposes: mobilizing urban progressives and preventing Green Party encroachment. If Vänsterpartiet stakes out the most radical pro-rights position, they define the progressive pole and force Social Democrats to move left to maintain coalition viability. This prevents Social Democrat drift toward the center that could open space for Green Party growth.
The Center Party's preventive detention opposition is most consequential: it signals potential realignment from blue-green to liberal coalition. If centerpartiet breaks decisively with Tidö over constitutional principles, they position themselves as kingmakers in post-2026 negotiations. This gives them leverage to extract policy concessions—likely on environmental regulations and rural development—from whichever bloc seeks their support for majority government.
The Greens' dual focus on preventive detention and elderly care reflects vulnerability: they hold only 16 seats and risk falling below the 4% threshold required for parliamentary representation. By emphasizing human rights and immigrant integration—issues where they can claim distinct expertise—miljöpartiet aims to consolidate progressive support that might otherwise drift to Social Democrats or Left Party.
For Tidö, the coordinated opposition offensive creates strategic dilemmas. Reject all ten motions rigidly, and risk appearing inflexible and extreme. Accept compromises, and Sweden Democrats might rebel, viewing concessions as betrayal. The coalition's narrow 176-seat majority allows no defections. If even two or three Sweden Democrat MPs break ranks over perceived weakness, Tidö loses capacity to govern—triggering either new elections or unprecedented coalition realignment.
Opposition Motions: Complete List
in response to Prop. 2025/26:102 Exchange of information in supplementary tax reports and amendments to the supplementary tax procedure for companies in large groups
Lead Author: Niklas Karlsson (Social Democrats)
Co-signatories: Marie Olsson, Kalle Olsson, Ida Ekeroth Clausson, Mathias Tegnér, Blåvitt Elofsson, Patrik Björck (all Social Democrats)
Document: HD023904
Analysis: Karlsson's motion challenges the government's implementation of OECD Pillar Two minimum corporate taxation, arguing that weakened information exchange provisions enable multinational profit-shifting. The motion demands robust data-sharing mechanisms to prevent tax evasion, positioning Social Democrats as defenders of fiscal fairness against corporate tax avoidance. With seven signatories, this represents coordinated Social Democrat economic policy positioning ahead of April 2026 budget debates.
in response to Prop. 2025/26:91 An exception in the dividend tax act for foreign states
Lead Author: Niklas Karlsson (Social Democrats)
Co-signatories: Marie Olsson, Kalle Olsson, Ida Ekeroth Clausson, Mathias Tegnér, Blåvitt Elofsson, Patrik Björck (all Social Democrats)
Document: HD023903
Analysis: This motion opposes dividend tax exemptions for foreign sovereign wealth funds, arguing that portfolio investments extract wealth without contributing to Swedish employment or innovation. Karlsson proposes requiring active ownership commitments to qualify for exemptions, creating a populist narrative that contrasts tax-free benefits for foreign governments with taxation of Swedish pensioners' retirement savings. The identical co-signatory list signals coordinated Social Democrat tax policy offensive.
in response to Prop. 2025/26:95 Security detention – a new indefinite custodial sentence
Lead Author: Ulrika Westerlund (Green Party)
Co-signatories: Mats Berglund, Camilla Hansén, Annika Hirvonen, Jan Riise, Nils Seye Larsen (all Green Party)
Document: HD023902
Analysis: Westerlund's motion opposes preventive detention on human rights grounds, citing European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence limiting arbitrary detention. The Green Party frames this as Sweden risking ECHR violations and Strasbourg litigation. The motion complements Center Party's liberal-constitutional opposition (HD023901), creating dual narratives that give Social Democrats flexibility in choosing which framing best suits electoral positioning. The six signatories represent miljöpartiet's parliamentary leadership, signaling party-wide commitment to this position.
in response to Prop. 2025/26:95 Security detention – a new indefinite custodial sentence
Lead Author: Ulrika Liljeberg (Center Party)
Co-signatories: Daniel Bäckström, Muharrem Demirok, Mikael Larsson, Anna Lasses, Fredrik Lindstål, Kerstin Lundgren, Helena Vilhelmsson (all Center Party)
Document: HD023901
Analysis: Liljeberg's motion represents the first public break between Center Party and Tidö coalition on flagship policy since alliance formation in October 2022. The motion opposes indefinite preventive detention as violating liberal principles of proportionality and judicial restraint that define centerpartiet's ideological identity. Eight signatories (including prominent Center figures like Kerstin Lundgren) signal broad party support, suggesting this isn't isolated dissent but potential coalition fracture. For Tidö's narrow 176-seat majority, even minor Center defections become existential threats.
in response to Prop. 2025/26:93 A language requirement in elderly care
Lead Author: Nadja Awad (Left Party)
Co-signatories: Maj Karlsson, Isabell Mixter, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, Karin Rågsjö, Vasiliki Tsouplaki, Ciczie Weidby (all Left Party)
Document: HD023900
Analysis: Awad's motion opposes B2 Swedish language requirements for elderly care workers, arguing they would create massive staff shortages without addressing underlying problems: low wages, poor conditions, inadequate training. The Left Party frames language requirements as thinly veiled discrimination targeting immigrant workers who comprise 38% of elderly care staff nationally. The motion proposes investing in language training and improving wages instead. Seven signatories demonstrate Vänsterpartiet unity on immigrant integration issues, positioning the party as defender of welfare state workers against Sweden Democrat-influenced restrictions.
in response to Prop. 2025/26:93 A language requirement in elderly care
Lead Author: Nils Seye Larsen (Green Party)
Co-signatories: Leila Ali Elmi, Janine Alm Ericson, Annika Hirvonen, Malte Tängmark Roos (all Green Party)
Document: HD023899
Analysis: Larsen's motion parallels Left Party opposition but emphasizes that many immigrant care workers provide excellent care despite language limitations, using translation technology and colleagues to bridge gaps. The Green Party argues the real quality problem isn't language but understaffing: Swedish care workers handle 15-20 residents per shift versus 8-12 in Norway and Denmark. This creates dual opposition narrative (class-based from Left, diversity-based from Greens) that allows Social Democrats to choose which resonates better electorally. Five signatories include miljöpartiet leadership, reflecting party priorities on immigrant integration.
in response to Skr. 2025/26:89 The National Audit Office report on labour law conditions in public procurement
Lead Author: Andrea Andersson Tay (Left Party)
Co-signatories: Kajsa Fredholm, Ida Gabrielsson, Birger Lahti, Ilona Szatmári Waldau, Ciczie Weidby, Malin Östh (all Left Party)
Document: HD023898
Analysis: Andersson Tay responds to Riksrevisionen's finding that 43% of state construction contracts involved employers sanctioned for labor law violations. The motion proposes joint employer liability: if subcontractors violate labor law, prime contractors and contracting agencies share financial responsibility. This shifts risk calculation dramatically, forcing prime contractors to monitor subcontractors rigorously or face massive exposure. Seven signatories demonstrate Vänsterpartiet prioritization of labor rights, responding to LO (Swedish Trade Union Confederation) pressure making procurement reform its top 2026 legislative priority.
in response to Prop. 2025/26:92 A trustworthy guardianship system
Lead Author: Joakim Järrebring (Social Democrats)
Co-signatories: Leif Nysmed, Laila Naraghi, Denis Begic, Anna-Belle Strömberg, Markus Kallifatides (all Social Democrats)
Document: HD023897
Analysis: Järrebring challenges government plans to consolidate guardianship under County Administrative Boards, arguing centralization distances guardians from those they serve. The motion proposes strengthening municipal oversight mechanisms—regular reviews, financial audits, complaint procedures—while maintaining local flexibility. This reflects Social Democrat emphasis on welfare state accessibility and personal relationships over bureaucratic efficiency. Six signatories indicate coordinated Social Democrat positioning on vulnerable populations' rights, an area where opposition can attack Tidö's welfare competence.
in response to Skr. 2025/26:89 The National Audit Office report on labour law conditions in public procurement
Lead Author: Mikael Damberg (Social Democrats)
Co-signatories: Gunilla Carlsson, Joakim Sandell, Ingela Nylund Watz, Eva Lindh, Peder Björk, Patrik Lundqvist (all Social Democrats)
Document: HD023896
Analysis: Damberg's motion demands mandatory labor compliance verification for public contracts exceeding 500,000 SEK, with payment withheld pending documentation of collective agreement wages, insurance, and safety standards. Repeated violations trigger three-year debarment. The proposal mimics Norway's 2015 system, which reduced violations 62% within two years. Seven signatories (including former minister Damberg) signal Social Democrat seriousness on labor rights, responding to LO pressure while creating electoral wedge issue: Tidö tolerates wage theft while claiming to defend law and order.
in response to Prop. 2025/26:78 A constitutionally protected right to abortion and expanded possibilities to restrict freedom of association and the right to citizenship
Lead Author: Nooshi Dadgostar (Left Party)
Co-signatories: Andrea Andersson Tay, Nadja Awad, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, Tony Haddou, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, Isabell Mixter, Vasiliki Tsouplaki (all Left Party)
Document: HD023895
Analysis: Left Party leader Dadgostar's constitutional motion bundles abortion rights protection with opposition to expanded associational restrictions and citizenship limits. The strategic bundling creates a progressive litmus test for Social Democrats: support radical civil libertarianism or maintain centrist positioning. Either choice benefits Vänsterpartiet's effort to peel voters from its larger rival's left flank. Eight signatories including party leader signal maximum Left Party commitment to this issue, positioning the party as uncompromising defender of individual freedoms ahead of September 2026 elections.