A constitutionally protected right to abortion as well as expanded possibilities to restrict freedom of association and the right to citizenship

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a bill that concerns the very core of our democracy – our fundamental freedoms and rights. It concerns questions that define the relationship between the individual and the state, regarding what powers the state should have and what boundaries must never be crossed.

The proposition is based on parts of the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee. We welcome that the government is now moving forward with several important proposals. But it is also clear that some parts carry more weight than others, not least those concerning the state's ability to intervene against individuals. For that very reason, it is crucial that this work is carried out with the utmost precision. When we make changes to the constitution, every step must be characterized by legal certainty, proportionality, and respect for our international commitments.

Madam Speaker! The proposal to be able to revoke citizenship in certain cases is one of the most intrusive that can be directed against an individual. Ultimately, it is about the state reconsidering a person's belonging to a country. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that the upcoming legislation fully respects international conventions, such as the European Convention, the Citizenship Convention, and the conventions that regulate statelessness. We do not accept that people are made stateless, in violation of these commitments.

When children are affected, the best interests of the child must be a guiding principle, regardless of the grounds on which a case is examined.

Here, the concrete design of the ordinary law will be completely decisive. It is not enough to open up in the constitution. It must also hit the mark in the application.

When it comes to freedom of association, we can state that we share the view that society needs powerful tools against organized crime – but the more powerful the tools, the higher the requirements for precision. The legislation must be clear, predictable, and legally secure. It must clearly state which associations are covered and on what grounds. The definition of organized crime cannot be vague or open to interpretation. If it is, we risk either missing the target or hitting the wrong one. Purpose creep must be avoided at all costs.

Let me be completely clear on a decisive issue: Trade unions or other civil society organizations shall never, under no circumstances, be covered by this legislation.

This is a fundamental part of our democracy and of the Swedish model. But we also see shortcomings in how the proposal is designed. We would have liked to see that the government also addressed the issue of banning racist and Nazi organizations. There are also reasons to question whether the construction being discussed will to a sufficient extent hit, for example, the so-called activity clubs.

Madam Speaker! I also want to touch upon the issue of the right to abortion. Strengthening the protection for the right to abortion in the constitution is an important and fundamentally significant step. It clearly marks that this right is part of our most fundamental freedoms. At the same time, we must acknowledge that there is already a strong protection for the right to abortion in practice in Sweden. The decisive question moving forward is therefore about ensuring that the right is also realistically accessible – throughout the entire country. This requires a functioning and equal healthcare system.

We also want to be clear in two central respects: No conscientious objection shall be introduced for healthcare personnel, and the time limit for abortion shall not be lowered.

Madam Speaker! This bill concerns fundamental questions about power, rights, and the limits of the state. It is also, more concretely, about giving society sharper tools against the system-threatening crime that has long plagued our country. We Social Democrats therefore stand behind these changes. But our support presupposes that the continued legislative work lives up to high standards of legal certainty, clarity, and respect for our fundamental civil and political rights.

What is required is both decisiveness and reflection. That is how we strengthen our democracy, and that is how we ensure that the decisions we make today also hold up tomorrow.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet says no to all possibilities of revoking citizenship. The same applies to Miljöpartiet. Centerpartiet wants, instead, to investigate the issue further when it concerns the revocation of citizenship in cases of serious crime.

The Social Democrats appear simultaneously as divided on this issue. The Social Democrats in Malmö have, for example, decided to work towards ensuring that the party does not vote for the government's proposal for a constitutional amendment in the Riksdag.

Against the background of this internal split and considering that your intended coalition partners in a potential government formation completely or partially oppose this constitutional reform, I would like to ask the member the following question: Is it really possible to rely on the Social Democrats also supporting the proposal at the second vote, after the election in September?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Mauricio Rojas, for the question! First, I must state that questions regarding the Center Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party are preferably posed to those very parties. I believe that they themselves best elaborate on how they view the issue and that it is also more reasonable for them to answer it.

I also think that Mauricio Rojas and the Liberals do not want to answer all parts regarding how the Sverigedemokraterna act, especially not in individual municipalities. I myself come from a municipality where one of the Sverigedemokraterna's top names very recently went out and warned against the social services and said that the social services would take people's children. It is nothing I hold individual Sverigedemokrater in the chamber of the Riksdag responsible for, even though I believe that as a party, one should act. I will definitely not be asking questions to Mauricio Rojas about how he views that, what responsibility he has, or if he wants to cooperate with a party where that type of thing can happen.

To return to the matter at hand: Can one trust that the Social Democrats will stand behind this proposal at the next decision? Yes, of course you can. We are a party – perhaps one of the few parties left in the Swedish Riksdag – that is prepared to shake hands with representatives from other parties to ensure long-term decisions. This applies in particular to important issues, for example, constitutional issues.

It is not uncommon, if one looks historically, that we, together with the larger parties and the parties that have considered themselves to aspire to be in government, have ensured precisely broad agreements in these types of issues. It is also the responsibility we took in the committee that submitted the proposals in this area and which we take here and now in this issue and in very many other issues.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! I must however say that it was not particularly convincing. It is clear that it matters what your intended coalition partners think and feel on this issue. You will negotiate with them. Then you should say how you will position yourselves if they demand that you do not proceed with these reforms, especially the citizenship reform.

But the most important thing is the internal split that exists within the member's party. The member should be able to say something about that. It does not concern other parties, but the own party. The Social Democrats in Malmö went against the party line at their annual meeting as recently as in March 2026. It is not a small, insignificant branch.

In addition, one can read the following in an editorial in the newspaper Arbetet from January 2026 with the headline "S's swing on the issue of revoked citizenship will likely be the final nail in the coffin for many." It stated: "Step by step, the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in the political debate are being shifted." And further: "That the Social Democrats contribute to that development – and thereby to a sense of exclusion among around two million people in Sweden – is difficult to swallow."

Against the background of this strong internal criticism and the obvious division that exists within the party, I would like to give the member the opportunity to explain why you changed your position and chose to support the government's proposal in this matter.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, member! Initially, I can only state that we have participated in the investigation that has presented the proposal. We stand behind the proposal in the investigation, and we stand behind the proposals that are now being presented in the chamber. That speaks for the fact that we have not changed our opinion on the matter. We have not wavered and we have not turned.

The investigation was commissioned from a social situation that made many parties – including both the Liberals and the Social Democrats, I believe – see a need to review the design of the constitution in order to be able to enact laws in a number of areas that primarily concern a situation in Sweden with system-threatening crime. They wanted to present and make changes to handle the situation and saw the need to make changes to the constitution. We have contributed to doing that.

We – both the Social Democratic parliamentary group and Skåne and all its parts – stand behind and have contributed to the proposal that is now on the table. No Social Democrat from any part of the country will, to my knowledge, vote in any other way today.

It is somewhat remarkable that from the Liberals' side, one tries to make a thing out of another party being split. As far as I have been able to judge when I have read the media – I am obviously not part of the internal life of the Liberals – it has been quite obvious throughout almost this entire mandate period that certain parties are as split as the Liberals on fundamental issues. This applies, for example, to whether one should even join a government or not and which parties one can imagine cooperating with and not. Those listening to this debate should probably have some reflections linked to whether it is possible to trust a party and what a party will actually do. Regardless of the question, the Liberals are well the party they should reflect on most.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! Citizenship in Sweden is not something to be taken lightly. It is an assurance of belonging. It is a guarantee that one is an obvious part of society with rights and responsibilities just like everyone else. Perhaps the most important right of all is the right to participate in shaping the development of our country through free and democratic elections. Citizenship is therefore not just a legal status; it is also a carrier of identity. It is one of the most fundamental forms of equality we have in a society that in many other respects is characterized by great differences.

What the government is now proposing is that persons who have provided incorrect or misleading information shall be able to be deprived of their Swedish citizenship. At first glance, this may appear reasonable. If the proposal had only concerned persons who deliberately and intentionally provided false information, there would at least have been grounds to discuss the matter. But the government wants to go further than that. They also want to be able to deprive people of their citizenship in cases where intent could not be proven. In practice, this means that citizenship is made more conditional and less legally secure. It is a very serious step to take.

The government furthermore goes further than the constitutional commission that dealt with the issue. The commission proposed that citizenship could be revoked from persons who have committed acts that seriously threaten the security of the realm or are covered by the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. We are then talking about terrorism, war crimes and genocide. But the government chooses instead to speak of crimes that seriously damage Sweden's vital interests. It may sound like a minor difference in wording, but it is not.

The problem is that the concept of vital interests is unclear and open to future interpretations. What is considered a vital interest today does not have to be the same tomorrow, and because the concept is not clearly defined in the constitution itself, a significant space is left for future governments to move the boundaries. It is precisely for that reason that one must be cautious when changing the constitution.

Madam Speaker! This is ultimately about what view one has on citizenship. Either one sees it as something stable and common, a fundamental legal and democratic community that applies equally to everyone, or one makes it more conditional and something that certain people in practice are expected to have to earn over and over again. It is here that the Sweden Democrats' influence over the government becomes extra clear. It is probably one of the Sweden Democrats' greatest ideological victories in the Tidö agreement. In their principle program, it is clear that their view on citizenship differs significantly from the view that has long characterized Swedish democracy and which all other parties share.

They do not see citizenship primarily as a democratic community, but as something that is to a greater extent be conditioned, tested, and be able to be revoked. It is an incredibly dangerous development.

Madam Speaker! We also see how this fits into a larger political pattern. The Government, with the Sweden Democrats as the driving force, is pursuing a policy that increasingly relies on the suspicion of people in economic or social vulnerability. They introduce subsidy caps, tighten sanctions within the social insurance system, and implement changes that create great economic insecurity for unemployed people. Instead of reducing the gaps, they increase the pressure on people who already have small margins.

At the same time, we see how the rhetoric is changing. People who are unemployed, poor, or dependent on the welfare state are increasingly described as a problem, as people who should be controlled, suspected, and disciplined. Very often it is also implied that these people don't really belong here.

Therefore, this debate is greater than just a legal formulation in the constitution, because when one begins to make citizenship more uncertain for certain groups, one also changes the view of who is fully considered to belong to society.

Madam Speaker! We must dare to speak plainly about what it means when a party like the Sweden Democrats gains such a large influence over fundamental democratic issues. It is a party whose roots we all know where they come from. Time and again, we have seen how they are prepared to stretch democratic norms to push through their will. As recently as a few weeks ago, we saw how they manipulated the voting result in this chamber. It is an action that shows how disrespectful they are in their view of democratic rules.

Therefore, it is not enough to say that one does not intend to misuse a tool such as this. Constitutions must also protect society against future abuses of power. That is the very point of a constitutional state. Internationally, we already see how vague formulations regarding national and vital interests are being used increasingly broadly by governments that want to advance their positions.

Therefore, we must not create constitutional provisions that leave room for future arbitrariness. In a democracy, citizenship must be something people can rely on – something stable that applies equally to everyone and which is not made dependent on shifting political winds.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about the other major issue that we are addressing here today, namely the issue of the right to abortion.

For Vänsterpartiet, a woman's right to her own body is a self-evident right. This also applies to the right to free abortion. It must be the woman herself who decides if and when she wants to have children. It is a fundamental question of freedom, dignity, and self-determination.

We must never take that right for granted. All around the world, we see how women's rights are being pushed back. In the USA, women have lost rights that many believed were secured for generations to come. In several European countries, abortion legislation has been tightened. This shows something important: rights that are not defended can also be dismantled.

Therefore, Vänsterpartiet welcomes that the protection for the right to abortion is now strengthened by being incorporated into the constitution. It is important and necessary.

But there is also a serious deficiency in the government's proposal. The government wants to open up for the right to abortion to be able to be restricted through ordinary law when it concerns others than Swedish citizens. Then one must ask the question why the right to one's own body should be stronger for some women than for others. What is the principle actually being established here? Should fundamental freedoms and rights be dependent on which citizenship one has?

Vänsterpartiet does not accept that view. The right to abortion must apply to all women who are in Sweden, regardless of citizenship or origin.

Madam Speaker! There is also something larger that unites these two debates. Both the question of citizenship and the question of abortion rights are ultimately about which rights should be unconditional in a democratic society and which people should be fully covered by security, freedom, and the rule of law.

Vänsterpartiet argues that fundamental rights should not be made more insecure for some groups than for others. Rights should not depend on origin, gender, or what citizenship one has. Either the fundamental rights apply equally to all people, or they do not.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet says no to all possibilities of revoking a Swedish citizenship. This also applies to persons with dual citizenship who have cheated their way to a Swedish citizenship, who have paid bribes to obtain it, or who have committed serious crimes that seriously damage Sweden's vital interests, for example, sabotage against socially important infrastructure or pure acts of terrorism.

Can the member explain this position to me and to, I am convinced, a large majority of the Swedish people who find it completely incomprehensible?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not think that Mauricio Rojas heard me when I was in the speaker's chair just a moment ago and spoke for, I believe, six minutes about what we think about citizenship.

We consider it to be a fundamental right. It is nothing that one can simply take away from someone, regardless of what the person may have done. We do not, in fact, see that there is a need for one to be able to do it in that way.

As I said, we could be prepared to discuss the possibility of depriving someone of citizenship at certain specific occasions, but the government wants to be able to deprive people of citizenship even if they should have provided incorrect information without having intended to do so. This means that a person who, due to ignorance of what conditions actually prevailed, has provided information that later turns out to be incorrect could be deprived of their citizenship.

We in Vänsterpartiet do not think it is legally secure, and I find it very difficult to understand how a party that calls itself Liberalerna thinks it is reasonable that one should be able to act in that way. But I understand that Liberalerna have traveled a long way over the last 30 years to end up where they have ultimately ended up. I regret it, but it is something that must remain on Mauricio Rojas and Liberalernas conscience.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! It was a very interesting point from the member that one can move away from the hard line which says that a Swedish citizenship can never be revoked to be able to consider a considerable number of exceptions. It is interesting. But it is not the party's line if one reads the motion that you have submitted.

In any case: In the Left Party's argumentation against every possibility of revoking a Swedish citizenship, the formulation that "an inclusive democracy and a comprehensive rule of law require an inviolable citizenship" recurs. At the same time, citizenship can be revoked in, for example, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Austria. The same applies in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Does the Leader of the Opposition mean, then, that all these countries are not inclusive democracies or that they lack robust rule of law?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I mean that what this government is proposing is very serious. The Sweden Democrats demand that major changes be made to the citizenship law. This is what the government is now doing as a consequence of the Sweden Democrats' view regarding the view on citizenship. We see this as incredibly serious.

We think it is deeply regrettable that the Liberals choose to align themselves with that side. The Liberals have had a long tradition of standing up for human freedoms and rights and a tradition of viewing citizenship as something fundamental. I regret that it is in that way.

We believe that citizenship is a fundamental right. I did not say that we will agree to anything at all, but I said that we are prepared to discuss it. But we cannot discuss depriving people of citizenship because they have provided information that later turns out to be untrue or incorrect when they have not had intent. We do not think that is reasonable. Therefore, we say no to the proposal.

We must be clear that when one makes this change, one opens the door for forces that we know cannot be trusted. One opens it to give them the power to change how our democratic system is actually supposed to function in the future. That responsibility rests incredibly heavily on the shoulders of the Liberals.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! As previously mentioned, we are debating the Committee on the Constitution's report KU34, which includes a constitutionally protected right to abortion as well as expanded possibilities to restrict freedom of association and the right to citizenship.

The Swedish right to abortion stands strong in international comparisons and has the support of both the Swedish people and our political parties. The right is not regulated in the Instrument of Government today, however, and the government considers, in agreement with the committee, that it should be expressed in the constitution.

Both the government and the committee also consider the right to abortion to be a fundamental issue of freedom with decisive importance for an equal society. We in Sweden enjoy other freedoms and rights, such as the right to life and bodily integrity as well as freedom of expression and freedom of the press. We Sverigedemokrater wholeheartedly support this sound proposal.

Madam Speaker! I move on to speak about expanded possibilities to limit freedom of association. To continue on the theme of rights, Sweden has very far-reaching rights even regarding freedom of association, which we will, of course, protect to the greatest extent possible. But we live in a changing world, and today's society has undeniably undergone such great upheavals that there may be reason to, as society has developed, review certain rights that we take for granted.

What we have experienced and what the committee has concluded is quite simply that the criminal networks, to a large extent, engage in system-threatening crime and to some extent have enjoyed a certain protection in the form of today's legislation. It is this, and only this, form of restrictions that has been proposed and specifically for that target group. The Government agrees with the committee that organized crime threatens fundamental values, such as our democracy, the rule of law, and trust between both people and the state.

Madam Speaker! Last but not least, the government proposes that people should be able to be deprived of Swedish citizenship obtained through false or misleading information or other improper conduct. This cannot be done today according to Chapter 2, Section 7 of the Instrument of Government, regardless of how significant the deficiencies have been.

Here Sweden truly stands out in international comparisons as one of the few countries where the constitution prevents the revocation of citizenship as a result of crimes. Naturally, Sweden should also have this possibility in agreement with our neighboring countries and large parts of the rest of the EU. These may well have the same or similar regulatory frameworks so that a country with more generous rules does not risk becoming a haven.

With increasing terrorism and extremism in our immediate vicinity and country, the proposed rule change can actually mean an increase in national security, which is the intention of the proposal. The Government refers not only to our neighboring countries' more progressive legislation but also to the Convention on Nationality. It is stated therein that a convention state may, in its national legislation, prescribe that citizenship can be lost in cases that seriously damage the convention state's vital interests.

The Government intends to use the same expression in the Instrument of Government for consistency, and this is also more in line with the regulatory framework in our Nordic neighboring countries. This is actually a self-evident change.

Once again, this is a sound proposal from the government side, and I conclude by moving for approval of the proposal in the committee report and rejection of the motions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the opportunity to reply to Member Andersson!

I had the pleasure of participating in the constitutional commission that arrived at the proposals regarding the possibility of reclaiming citizenship and limiting freedom of association, as well as regarding the right to abortion, which we will return to later.

What we in Miljöpartiet had as a starting point, both in the discussion on freedom of association and on the reclamation of citizenship, was a requirement for precision in the descriptions. Member Rojas was also touching upon this without further specifying what it actually concerns, so now I pose the question to Lars Andersson.

We felt from our side that we need to know in advance exactly what it is about, or at least significantly more than what the result became in the bill and for all intents and purposes also in the investigation that was eventually submitted.

I am aware that there are vital interests in conventions and other matters, but in the situation we find ourselves in, one must know what type of crime it should in that case encompass and that it cannot be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, when it comes to both proposals, we chose to fall back to what we have in order not to put ourselves in a situation where we need to worry about what a future legislator could decide to do.

I would very much like to receive answers to those questions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Riise for the questions, which however felt more like a reasoning, which is perfectly fine. I agree with the Member in many parts of the reasoning.

These are legal texts that are difficult. Very often, there are both interpretation and definition issues. How do you define vital interests? It is very difficult. What constitutes vital interests today might not be the case tomorrow. In that case, one has to look at the situation one finds oneself in to arrive at what vital interests can be considered to mean. But it is probably very difficult to specify it further, for example in the case of buildings or addresses.

Both citizenship and freedom of association, which we face here, normalize Sweden on a more global level or EU level. We have stood out in very many ways in very many years and have for that paid a very high price. Fortunately, most parties in Sweden today have a completely different view on some of our core issues than they did both five and ten years ago.

I do not really know how I should answer your question, Jan Riise. How am I to define "vital interests" or interpret it in any other way than what appears in the investigation? It cannot be done.

I think it hits the mark. We hope that it hits the mark. Naturally, there can always be a few people who fall between the cracks. That happens all the time among all possible citizens, which is unfortunate. They must, of course, be protected. But to specify it more than we have done, I think, will be difficult, and I do not disagree with anything in the text of what is proposed here.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lars Andersson, for the answer to my reflection!

Let us go into that in a bit more detail. No one should have any doubts that Miljöpartiet is naturally opposed to all organized crime and that we would gladly see it decrease, but I am looking for the accuracy in the descriptions. What type of crime are we talking about?

When freedom of association was discussed, terms such as "serious crime" and "criminal associations" were used. "System-threatening crime" has also been spoken of. This is to be used as a basis for decisions to ban one or the other, and I do not think it is sufficiently detailed. It leaves room for arbitrariness and for changes over time, a space that we perhaps should not leave.

Furthermore, it creates a very large space for case law to develop in tandem with it. That is why we believe it is better to stay where we are.

We are not at all alone in this opinion. Several referral bodies that we consider to be more significant, for example the Institute for Human Rights, the Swedish Bar Association, Civil Rights Defenders, trade unions and Uppsala University, have warned against such an arbitrary application.

I would still like to get an answer, and I will try to formulate it as a proper question. How do Member Andersson and the Sverigedemokraterna party view the definitions of "system-threatening crime", "serious crime" and "vital interests"? There must be something that delimits the whole thing against something that we can understand in advance is not permitted and crosses the line.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Once again, I thank you for the question posed in order to have me define "serious crime," "system-threatening crime," and "vital interests." These are things that appear in a huge number of documents regarding the Instrument of Government. It is difficult to specify them further. "Crime" – are we to define the entire Penal Code based on whether something is serious or system-threatening? And shoplifting – that is no danger.

A great deal is self-evident. I do not know if it is possible to specify it more clearly. I think this captures what needs to be captured. I am satisfied with the proposal. I hope, as said, that everything passes as it is written.

I do not share Member Riise's concern for the future. But we will get the answer sooner or later, and one can only hope that I am more correct than Member Riise.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag is often described as the people's primary representative, but we must not forget that we are also one of the rule of law's last lines of defense. Our mission is not only to enact laws at a stable pace but to ensure that the laws leaving this house are of high quality and rest on a secure constitutional foundation.

From the Center Party's side, we have a deeply rooted respect for the need to adapt legislation as society changes. We see the challenges that Sweden faces with a severe organized crime that is eating its way into the body of society. We share the government's ambition to respond with force. But, Madam Speaker, the strength of a democracy is measured not only in the decisions we make but also in how we make them.

We view with growing concern the craftsmanship behind the decisions that we are expected to make today. Studieförbundet Näringsliv och Samhälles, SNS, democracy council, shows in its latest report that the sitting government has received significantly more criticism from the Council on Legislation than previous governments have received. The problem is not just a considerable amount of criticism, but the problem lies in that the criticism is often dismissed. It appears that quick political decisions are the goal, not the rule of law.

In a constitutional state, speed must never trump quality, especially not when it concerns the constitution. If the craftsmanship fails in the Instrument of Government, the cracks spread throughout our entire legal system. This lack of respect for the process becomes painfully clear in today's case.

In the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee, there was a broad majority that citizenship should be able to be revoked in the case of fraud or crimes against national security. It was a well-examined proposal. But the government has chosen to abandon that path and instead pick up a proposal that has not been subject to a referral process in an acceptable manner. This proposal means that citizenship should be able to be revoked in the case of crimes that seriously damage Sweden's vital interests.

Madam Speaker! Let me be clear. When it comes to citizenship, the Center Party's position is clear. Yes, there are times when a citizenship can and should be revoked, for example if it has been bought with bribes, if it has been obtained through fraud, or if the person in question threatens the security of the realm. It is partly about safeguarding the status of citizenship, and partly about safeguarding us as a nation.

With the government's handling, we however land straight in what also opens up for legal uncertainty. What constitutes a vital interest? It is a rubber concept that the experts warn against. In a liberal constitutional state, predictability is fundamental. A person must know exactly where the legal boundary lies.

Introducing concepts that lack roots in our legislative tradition is to open the door to arbitrariness and political judgments. When the legal requirement becomes vague, the rule of law fails. We cannot accept that the status of citizenship is made dependent on such unclear and difficult-to-interpret criteria.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the expansion of the possibility to restrict freedom of association, I also want to be very clear. The Center Party shares the government's view. Let no one believe that the Center Party is backing down from tough measures against crime! We want to get to the gang leaders. We want to get to those who put weapons in the hands of 13-year-olds. We want to get to those who eat their way into the body of society. We want to break the organizations that wish Sweden ill and that undermine our social construction.

Madam Speaker! We therefore support the possibility of limiting the freedom of association for criminal associations. For us, it is a self-evident matter that a person who wishes Sweden ill should not be able to hide behind the protection of freedom of association to organize system-threatening crime. Here, the government has our full support on the merits.

But just because we want effective tools, we also demand legal precision. If we use vague formulations, we risk that the legislation either becomes ineffective or that it hits the wrong targets in the future. Legal certainty is not an obstacle to fighting crime. It is, on the contrary, a guarantee that we do it in a way that holds up over time in a democracy.

I have highlighted how the government has chosen to abandon the secure, anchored path, how it has picked up proposals where the referral bodies have not had a chance to fully illuminate the consequences, how it takes the constitutional anchoring lightly, and how it lets the time aspect affect the quality.

But in the midst of all this chaos, there is something strange, and that is what has not been managed. Despite their eagerness to quickly change the rules for citizenship and freedom of association, they have completely lost sight of the protection for the right of ownership. That the government prioritizes forcing through vague rubber paragraphs but is unable to include a strengthened constitutional protection for the right of ownership, a cornerstone of a liberal economy and a free democracy, also shows a clear lack in priorities. It suggests that we have a government that is more focused on limiting rights than on protecting the rights that build the individual's freedom.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the Center Party's reservation number 6. We welcome powerful measures against crime, but we do not accept that the rule of law is sacrificed for political points.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Constitutions should naturally be used to define the principles that must be fundamental in a democratic society. Constitutions should not define a political direction in one way or another, but rather the rules of the game that we can all stand behind.

This naturally means that a constitutional amendment will involve trade-offs between different interests, as it is clear that legal certainty regarding deportations can also entail a restriction on the other side. A crime is one of the greatest restrictions on personal freedom that can occur. The person who is subjected to a burglary also has the right to feel safety and legal certainty.

These trade-offs are neither simple nor self-evident – that is what the debate has shown so far. But they must be made in the situation where they arise, because on a theoretical level we can create so many contradictions that this cannot be resolved.

Madam Speaker! When we now discuss these changes to the constitution in a number of respects, we must find a basis where we stand behind the same principles to the greatest extent possible. Then we will, based on political views, sometimes emphasize slightly different things. But that does not mean that we do not all share the democratic principles that the constitutions shall be built upon.

Madam Speaker! I want to describe some of the considerations I am making regarding this matter.

If we start with the right to abortion, it is naturally an issue that evokes emotions. My inbox has exploded with emails on the matter – ranging from objective reasoning, relatively low-key emails, sometimes even written in a somewhat subdued tone, to almost threatening ones, where one threatens with God's punishment if we make this change. Therefore, Madam Speaker, there is reason to say that I have full understanding that people can make different assessments depending on personal views.

But just because this is an issue that speaks to private morality – how I see the issue – is it reasonable that we establish who it is that actually has the deciding power, whose moral perception shall decide the question of abortion. It is naturally the perception of the one who is pregnant – the one who has to bear the consequences for the stance that is taken. It is reasonable from a freedom perspective that it is also that person who makes the assessment and that no one stands by on the side and says that it must not happen or, which perhaps is not as common, that it must happen. It is important that we say whose morality it is that decides this.

That is why I think the proposal currently before us is well-balanced. I can understand that some want a more extensive wording that guarantees further parts, and I can understand that some want a more restrictive wording. But it is important that we stand united in that the decision actually lies with the person it concerns, the one who is pregnant.

Madam Speaker! This issue of forfeiture of citizenship has already been discussed. The question has been whether one must have intentionally provided incorrect information. Somewhere we must, at the very least, be able to assume that fellow human beings can provide information that is true, otherwise we undermine the trust between people. And the trust between people is also an important basis for the way democracy functions. If we start saying "okay, you have just forgotten or been careless with the information," we also begin to undermine the possibility of making this work.

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to say that incorrect information – if it is revealed, of course – is a ground for being able to revoke citizenship. The same applies – I think we all agree on this – if one is here for the purpose of harming Sweden. Then one should not be a citizen of Sweden. I will add that in this provision, it is important that this only applies to those who have dual citizenship. We are therefore not making anyone stateless through this proposal.

I think it is a reasonable principle that we protect democracy in this way.

When it comes to freedom of association, it is a bit like what I was touching upon at the beginning: An organization, association, or whatever we call it that has the purpose of restricting other citizens' freedoms and rights through criminal activity should not have the protection that freedom of association provides. They de facto restrict all of our freedom, and that is not acceptable. It is not something one can stand behind.

Madam Speaker! All the proposals we now have on the table defend, I believe, important principles and are furthermore well-balanced and can serve as a continued basis for a democratic society.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the Committee on the Constitution's report number 34 with the fantastic name A constitutionally protected right to abortion as well as expanded possibilities to limit freedom of association and the right to citizenship.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are to debate and later decide on constitutionally protecting the right for those who are pregnant to terminate a pregnancy according to provisions issued by law, but also to expand the possibility to limit freedom of association and the right to citizenship. We Christian Democrats move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision, and I will briefly explain why.

The background to this bill is, in large part, the committee that worked on the texts for a year and a half. It had the mandate to investigate fundamental freedoms and rights as they apply according to chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government.

Madam Speaker! One of the proposals that we have discussed today and continue to discuss is the deprivation of Swedish citizenship. Here, the government proposes that the person who has acquired citizenship through false or misleading information or through other improper conduct shall be able to be deprived of their Swedish citizenship. It is also proposed that the person who is convicted of crimes that seriously harm Sweden's vital interests shall be able to be deprived of Swedish citizenship. These are welcome proposals.

One way to describe what the government proposes is to say that we are making Sweden more similar to our surroundings, our Nordic neighboring countries. In Swedish law, there is currently no possibility to revoke a Swedish citizenship even if it was acquired on incorrect grounds. Not even if it has been revealed that the person handling the case was subjected to threats – against the person themselves or their family – and this in turn has led to citizenship being granted, can we adjust this in retrospect. It is obviously completely unreasonable.

Madam Speaker! Another important change proposed here today is to introduce expanded possibilities to restrict freedom of association when it concerns criminal associations. The Government emphasizes, just as the committee does, that the protection of freedom of association is a central element in the protection of freedoms and rights, and that a lowered level of protection for freedom of association should only be considered if there are strong reasons for it. And there are such reasons, for few living individuals in our country, if any, have not been shaken by the developments we have seen regarding bombings or deadly gun violence during the last decade.

We see a crime that poses a serious threat even to persons outside the criminal environment. We see how children and young people are involved in criminal networks. It is children and young people who are exploited to store and/or sell drugs or weapons, but also to commit serious violent crimes.

A few weeks ago, I was asked by a friend to bury his son Hugo. I am a priest. Hugo was a young 20-year-old in Örebro who had invested his entire life in becoming what he dreamed of, a football professional. He had just received his first Alagskontrakt in BK Forward. When he wasn't training football, he spent time with his family: mom, dad, and younger siblings. The younger siblings have all been baptized by me. Then he was a member of Citykyrkan. He was executed by a perpetrator who mistook the person.

Whether this could have been prevented with a better constitution that enables us to stop certain types of mergers, I will leave unsaid. But when I was writing my speech, I realized that it is nevertheless crucially important that we obtain that possibility. This is what the government wants us to get.

Madam Speaker! The Government also proposes an introduction of a provision that the person who is pregnant has the right to terminate their pregnancy according to provisions issued in law. The Christian Democrats have stood behind the Swedish abortion legislation for about thirty years, in which the woman herself has the right to decide if she wants to have an abortion up to and including week 18 of pregnancy and after that it is the Socialstyrelsen's legal council that decides on permission for abortion.

We mean that society should work to reduce the number of abortions through support and preventive activities. I believe it is generally known that I have been against this provision and meant that it does not belong in the constitution. I have also argued for my view countless times.

For me, it is very clear that this issue was brought to the fore in the wake of the debate that took place when Roe versus Wade was overturned in the USA in the summer of 2022. It was an old ruling in the USA from 1973 that meant that the right to abortion was guaranteed throughout the country. With its overturning, the states could create their own laws.

One does not need to have lived in the USA for several years, as I have, or follow American politics daily to understand that there is a difference between Sweden and the USA, not least when it comes to the view on abortion. The fact is that in this Riksdag, all political parties stand behind Swedish abortion legislation. I do not know a single Member of Parliament who wants to ban the possibility of having an abortion performed. Despite this, the committee chose this proposal.

I can still think it is strange that one singles out a specific healthcare effort to receive constitutional protection. If one is to single out a specific healthcare effort, I think there are other things that feel more pressing. Even though the healthcare queues have now been shortened by 30 percent, not least thanks to us Kristdemokrater in government, it is still common for people to wait illegally long. There are cancer patients who have to wait illegally long. It might have felt a bit more logical to include this with waiting times in the constitution, if one is now going to include individualities in a constitution.

And why is the right to life not included in the proposal? It is included in the European Convention, which we have actually signed. It should have been enshrined in the Swedish constitution.

The former KD leader Alf Svensson has said many wise things. One thing he writes about in Världen idag is that he is concerned about the trend of wanting to constitutionally protect one's heart issues: gender reassignment, collective ownership, or public service. He also poses an uncomfortable follow-up question: If abortion is written into the constitution, is it then only a matter of time before we see demands to constitutionally protect the right to end one's life?

The Kristdemokraterna party board and our highest decision-making body, which is called the riksting, decided last November by a very clear majority that we stand behind the introduction of this provision in the Swedish constitution. It poses the question of whether there should be abortion legislation or not. We Kristdemokrater have answered affirmatively to that question for over 30 years. We believe that we should have abortion legislation in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! In the preparation of this bill, I have actually been involved in processing the texts. Politics is rarely about everything being black or white; rather, it is about doing the best possible. In that work, we have succeeded in achieving important changes and additions.

I intended to quote something regarding one of these, on page 10 of the bill: ”The Abortion Act is based on a balance between a woman's right to self-determination and the fetus's right to protection during its development. The Abortion Act can be said to have two central points of departure: that the woman has a principal right of determination and that the fetus is given progressively stronger protection as it develops. The question of how the specific conditions for abortion should be regulated requires positions on several different aspects. As the committee is aware, there is fundamentally an ethical conflict between a pregnant woman's right to abortion and the fetus's right to develop into a child. The regulation implies, among other things, that all pregnant women have the right to free abortion up to and including the eighteenth week of pregnancy. The decision is made by the woman herself and no special reason is required. After the eighteenth week of pregnancy, abortion may only be performed if the Legal Council grants the woman permission for the procedure, which presupposes that there are special reasons for the abortion and that there is no reason to assume that the fetus is viable.”

For me, this is absolutely crucial. To turn a blind eye to or wave away the fact that there is fundamentally an ethical conflict between a pregnant woman's right to abortion and the fetus's right to develop is both perverse and directly insensitive.

Madam Speaker! As a Christian, I mean that life begins at the moment of conception. But that does not mean that I can, should, or for that matter want to impose that view on anyone else. It is mine.

As a priest, I have many times been asked by curious confirmands how I reason regarding this. I have then explained the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. I stand behind this abortion legislation but nevertheless argue that a life has begun to sprout. For me, it has always felt natural and obvious that I, in Sweden, am allowed to live with this ethical conflict, especially since I never, ever want to force anyone to have an abortion in an unsafe way.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats support the current abortion legislation and consider it to be well-balanced and that it has functioned well in practice. Therefore, we also support the proposed constitutional provision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating three important constitutional reforms, which we in the Liberals wholeheartedly support. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The first reform concerns the constitutional protection of the right to abortion. This is a requirement that the Liberals campaigned on in 2022. In our election manifesto, it stated: "A woman's right to decide over her own body shall be protected in the constitution together with other civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and property rights. Sweden shall work long-term so that the right to abortion is recognized internationally as part of human rights." Today, the first step is taken towards realizing this liberal goal, and we are very pleased about that.

Madam Speaker! The second reform concerns limiting the freedom of association so that it does not encompass criminal associations engaged in serious crime for economic gain or other undue advantage. The justification is simple: Organized crime is a threat to the system. At the same time, today's constitutional protection for the freedom of association prevents a comprehensive criminalization of participation in such associations. We must change that.

Our constitutionally protected freedoms and rights are not there to protect criminal organizations. On the contrary, these organizations threaten the very freedoms and rights that the constitution is intended to safeguard. To protect those who systematically undermine the freedom of others in the name of freedom is a betrayal of all law-abiding citizens who want to live safe and free lives.

There are, however, those who think differently. Miljöpartiet writes in its motion: ”Focus should instead be on combating concrete criminal acts and strengthening the justice system's capacity, rather than criminalizing participation in associations as such.” It is a strange, if not to say odd, position.

It is also worth noting because it concerns a party that claims to sit in a future government together with the Social Democrats. The question therefore becomes: How credible are the Social Democrats' promises to combat organized crime with full force through, for example, anti-mafia legislation, when their intended coalition partner in practice wants to protect the existence of the criminal associations? It simply does not add up.

Madam Speaker! The third reform – and the most debated – concerns the possibility of revoking citizenship. The Government proposes that Swedish citizenship shall be able to be revoked for those who have dual citizenship and who have acquired their Swedish citizenship through false information or other improper conduct, or who have been convicted of crimes that seriously damage Sweden's vital interests.

This is not just a reasonable proposal but a necessary step in the fight against organized crime. It is worth reminding that the Swedish Police Authority, in its latest situation report on active gang criminals in Sweden, published in November 2025, estimates that more than 67,000 people are either active in criminal networks or have close links to these. In the same report, it is estimated that there are approximately 5,500 people with dual citizenship who could be covered by the possibility of revoking Swedish citizenship if this constitutional reform is passed.

This means in practice that Sweden is approaching the order that already applies in large parts of Western Europe. Sweden is today one of the few countries that completely lacks this possibility. Countries such as Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Austria and Greece already have such rules. The same applies to the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

What we are doing now, both regarding the possibility of criminalizing participation in criminal associations and regarding the possibility of revoking citizenship, is therefore neither radical nor unique. It is instead an adaptation to what is already established practice in comparable democracies and a response to the serious threat that organized transnational crime poses in our time.

Madam Speaker! What is truly remarkable is not that we are now implementing these reforms, but that it took so long to do so. This sluggishness in the face of an increasingly brutal reality has had consequences. It can be measured in shootings and explosions, in those killed and injured, in ever younger children recruited into group crime, in young women living under honor oppression or subjected to sexualized violence, and in older people who no longer dare to move freely in their own residential areas.

Madam Speaker! The reality we live in demands action – swift and decisive action. It is precisely what the parties within the Tidösamarbetet are now carrying out. The reforms we are debating today are part of a larger work aimed at restoring security and trust in Swedish society. Against this background, it is deeply concerning that parties that oppose central parts of this policy, such as Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, could gain influence over Sweden's government. It is something every voter should keep in mind when we go to the polls in September.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to request the floor, but since Member Rojas has attacked my party, I am forced to respond.

I may not be able to reproduce verbatim what it was about, but it was something about that we have written in our response that we would rather invest in crime fighting than in hunting criminal associations – or associations that can be suspected of engaging in criminal activity. I cannot see how this constitutes an irresponsible attitude towards crime. Member Rojas is welcome to tell us a bit more about how that line of thinking works.

In my previous exchange, I raised this regarding the precision in the description of the crimes that we believe should constitute the basis for a potential revocation of citizenship – or for that part, for the prosecution of members, sympathizers, or those who happen to be in the vicinity of associations or groupings that can be called criminal.

I want to repeat that that, to some extent, can provide an opportunity for arbitrariness, and it is this that I and we in Miljöpartiet oppose. We cannot have those kinds of things.

We participated in the discussions on citizenship and could have accepted or discussed reclaiming citizenship on the basis that one has received their citizenship on incorrect grounds or through some form of undue influence. When it then drifted off to involve all kinds of types of crimes, we were, however, forced to say: No, this is too imprecise and imprecise. We must back down regarding this and stand where we are until we have a better proposal.

Mauricio Rojas is welcome to answer my question.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! The majority in this chamber – now also with the support of the Social Democrats – are of the opinion that the association itself, the mafias, or whatever one wants to call it, must be criminalized in order to effectively combat organized crime. This is the basis, for example, for the Social Democrats' proposal for anti-mafia legislation where one tries to target those parts of a network or an association that do not commit the crimes directly but which organize them, finance them, and profit from them.

Miljöpartiet has a principled position which states that we should not do this. We should not target the organization itself but go after the concrete crime. Then you end up in a situation where you cannot reach those who really should pay for these crimes, i.e., those who organize and profit from them.

I say therefore that you in Miljöpartiet stand up to protect these organizations. This is what you do in practice, because you do not want to criminalize them. You want it to be legal to be part of a criminal association. It is something that you should explain, because I believe it is incomprehensible to most that it should be legal and cannot be combated.

I will let the member think about that, and I can return to the other question later.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker and Mauricio Rojas! It is, of course, a completely hair-raising claim that we would defend criminal activities. What we are looking for is that the description of the crime should be so clear, or that the criminal act should be described so clearly, that it cannot risk becoming any arbitrary intervention against things that are at the outer edge of this. We have therefore found it better to focus on the acts themselves that are criminal and on, to the extent that they exist, acts that are not criminal but should be or should be regarded as more serious, such as involving children in various types of serious crimes. Let us do that then – of course!

There is absolutely no defense for serious crime within Miljöpartiet, and not from me either; that is obvious. I am a bit surprised that a liberal commentator like Mauricio Rojas can come to that conclusion. He should perhaps realize that it is an unreasonable assumption.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

Unfortunately, it is you in Miljöpartiet who do not want to criminalize the associations that have the purpose of committing system-threatening crimes. We can say that you want to protect them or that you do not want to do anything about them, but I and a majority in this chamber – including the Socialdemokraterna – believe that it is extremely important to tackle the entire organized network that the concrete criminality leads to.

If one only focuses on concrete actions, one de facto protects those whom we should be able to prosecute: those who organize, pay for, and profit from this.

This is an experience that was made in the USA, and therefore they have that anti-mafia legislation that the Social Democrats advocate for here in Sweden. I think it is right; that is the path we must take. But in order to be able to do that, we shall not protect this type of freedom of association, because that freedom of association is unjustifiable and dangerous.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall apologize on my own behalf and on behalf of my party. We fumbled a bit with the exchange of roles here today, because there were more roles to play than we had members. Therefore, I came in a bit late and tried to reclaim the position I had from the beginning.

In four minutes, I will try to explain a bit about our position on abortion. I have, of course, spoken in replies about the other [aspects].

We know that the right to abortion is not regulated in the Instrument of Government, but there are certain provisions that deal with what can be said to be closely related issues. This primarily concerns the individual's health and welfare in the so-called objective provisions in Chapter 1. The individual's personal, economic, and cultural welfare shall be a fundamental goal for public activity. The public sector shall particularly secure the right to work, housing, and education and work towards social care and security as well as good conditions for health.

There are also provisions regarding the protection of bodily integrity in Chapter 2. It is a number of provisions concerning the protection of bodily integrity: prohibition of the death penalty, corporal punishment and torture, as well as protection against forced bodily interventions and body searches. These function to a significant extent as a reinforcement of the protection for freedom of opinion.

The provisions also express the respect for the individual's privacy that is characteristic of a rule-of-law society. This was, therefore, written into a proposition 1975, that is, 50 years ago.

I also want to say that abortion in the early 50s was prohibited in a majority of countries in Europe. It is therefore not that long ago, and some of us have experienced at least parts of the 50s. Abortion is now permitted in the vast majority of states that have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. In that, as you know, there is also the article on the right to private and family life.

Madam Speaker! As other members have been on, some people have reached out regarding their concern that the right to abortion should become constitutional. I have also received all these emails, and I realize that there is such an ethical issue as Hans Eklind was touching upon just now.

I still land on the fact that the change we have seen over a fairly large number of decades leads here. There are very few countries today that do not have abortion rights. Some of those who write say that they want abortion rights, but not in the constitution. That is the path we are taking.

I land in the European Convention and the UN conventions on human rights, for example. In Article 1 of the UN Convention on Human Rights, it also states that all human beings are born free. I am fully aware that there are discussions behind this, but that was what was landed on, i.e., that is where it begins to count.

I therefore share the assessment that the right to abortion should be given an explicit protection in the Instrument of Government. Such a protection clearly marks that the right to abortion is a fundamental freedom and right that cannot be made illusory through political fluctuations. At the same time, I agree with the views expressed by several referral bodies that the proposed constitutional protection risks becoming too thin in practice if the legislator is given too much room to restrict the rights through ordinary legislation.

It is therefore of great importance that the government, in the ongoing legislative work, ensures that the right to abortion becomes not only a formal but also a real content, in accordance with Sweden's international commitments.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 3 under point 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Dual citizenship is used today by grossly criminal individuals to avoid deportation from Sweden. In that way, they secure a safe haven from which they can continue to manage system-threatening crime directed against our country.

Does the member think it is reasonable that such professional criminals should still be allowed to keep their Swedish citizenship? In that case, is one not choosing to protect those who threaten the safety of law-abiding citizens instead of taking the side of the law-abiding?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Mauricio Rojas!

No, I do not think we do that. Having dual citizenship, one of which is Swedish, actually provides the opportunity to be a Swedish citizen. One must not see Swedish citizenship as some kind of give-and-take effect, but as a very clear example of a tool for integration, participation in a society, and so on.

That it is true that in this group of citizens there are a number who engage in criminal activities. That also exists among Swedish citizens born in Sweden to Swedish parents; it is, so to speak, nothing that distinguishes the one who has received it as their second citizenship from the one who has it as their first citizenship. We must therefore view citizenship in that way, I think – primarily as a tool for integration.

With that said: I have understood that there is a fairly broad view that very many use their Swedish citizenship as a shield for criminal activity. It is naturally unfortunate, and we have talked about this on repeated occasions today.

In order to criminalize this, we must have a clear description of which crimes we are talking about. Among our neighboring countries, I know something about Norway, and there it concerns very serious criminal acts, such as treason in war, espionage in war situations, and so on. What we spoke about in this investigation is more of a long list of crimes, and I think that is inappropriate. That is why Miljöpartiet says no to discussing those issues.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Citizenship as a tool for integration – that sounds nice. But explain to me how Foxtrot and their "Jordgubben", who commits very serious system-threatening crime, are going to use this nice tool for integration, Jan Riise!

In this case, you are converting a tool that is important – but which must be earned, because it is so important – into a protection for criminals. That is what you are doing. This has nothing to do with integration; it is a rhetoric that is actually worth nothing. It would therefore be interesting to have explained how your position in such cases works.

Then we also have the entire issue of that you do not want to criminalize the organizations, which we have already raised. It would be interesting to hear how you will cooperate with a party, the Socialdemokraterna, which wants the opposite. Their entire criminal policy and idea of crime fighting is based on that one should be able to criminalize precisely those organizations that you do not want to criminalize, that is to say, those that you want should have a legal possibility to be here in Sweden. It is very strange that you want it that way, but that is how it is.

In this speech, Lars Engsund (M) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I will start from the back, with the freedom of association. It is an important element in our country and our culture. We must be extremely careful about tampering with those kinds of rights. It is about the right to join together and pursue a cause or various issues, share interests and develop civil society, which is so extraordinarily important – not least for those of us who sit here, who through it come into contact with the society outside.

There are associations that engage in crime for their own profit, which has been expressed here. I tried in a previous exchange of remarks to explain that it is the actions committed that are criminal. It is those we should focus on. We must be careful regarding freedom of association. Foxtrot's leaders do not sit in Sweden anymore, but in other countries, so in that specific case, our Swedish citizenship does not play such a huge role. But that is another matter, and we shall not go into that.

Try to understand, however: I believe that we and other parties – the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Centre Party – have the opportunity to talk about these things. It is not an abyss that separates us when we talk about combating crime and the contexts in which the crime takes place. My focus perhaps lies somewhat more on the crime itself than on the context.

I am afraid that people who are actually not guilty of the serious crimes are being swept up in this arbitrary and somewhat imprecise description of who the people involved are.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a constitutionally protected right to abortion as well as expanded possibilities to restrict freedom of association and the right to citizenship.

Regarding the possibilities to limit freedom of association and the right to citizenship, I have no objections in substance. I believe that the investigation has done a good job and that the government has presented a well-balanced proposal, which we will make a decision on today.

Regarding a constitutionally protected right to abortion, I am not only hesitant, but I believe that this type of medical issue does not belong in the constitution itself. One can also reflect on the wording in this law: "The person who is pregnant has the right to terminate their pregnancy according to provisions issued by law."

I firmly believe that it is only persons who are born as women who can, purely biologically, give birth to children, and it is somewhat tragicomic that we are now going to adopt a legal text that is unable to be clear on this. MP and C are also correct in their criticism that this formulation does not actually regulate the issue in any significant way.

Madam Speaker! My criticism of the fact that we will today carry out the first vote regarding abortion in the constitution is of a more principled nature. I belong to those politicians who profess the natural law principles that underlie the UN Charter regarding human rights.

This natural law tradition comes from Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. Natural law was discussed during the 1700s and 1800s, with Montesquieu's principles of separation of powers. It is this natural law that the Americans have in their constitution, and it is how the European legislation, the constitution, and our principles are built. In Sweden, however, we do not have such a principle of separation of powers. I would have wished that the investigation that has been ongoing had rather investigated how Sweden can obtain a real constitution with a constitutional court.

Unfortunately, there is no possibility to vote on a new constitution today, which means that I must take a position on the proposal that is actually on the Riksdag's table. From that perspective, I will vote green today, that is to say yes, to all proposals despite my opinion that the right to abortion does not belong in the constitution.

To vote red, that is to say no, which some writers and debaters outside this house have tried to argue for, does not in this situation mean that one votes no. It means instead that one de facto votes for an even worse proposal, regardless of whether it is C or MP that wins a potential vote regarding the reservations.

I could, of course, vote yellow and thus abstain, but in practice that would mean that I vote in the same way as the party that potentially loses a vote between the Center Party and the Green Party. When it comes to this report, there is therefore no way to vote completely against, which many of those who have written letters have argued for.

Madam Speaker! In addition to the fact that the right to abortion does not belong in the constitution, it is surprising that the question is on the agenda at all. All parties sitting in the Riksdag stand behind the abortion legislation, and with the proposal that is now on the table, the Riksdag can change the law at any time, regardless of orientation.

After this explanation of my vote, I will vote green this afternoon.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to say a few words about enshrining the right to abortion in the constitution.

This is a historical decision. Some say it is an odd bird. Perhaps it is, but the fact is that it is necessary. If the right to abortion is eroded, as we see in country after country, fundamental human rights are threatened, and it is precisely those that we must protect with the constitutional laws.

Centerpartiet has long been a clear advocate for constitutionally protecting the right to abortion. Unfortunately, we saw this coming early.

The main arguments for the right to abortion are the following: Free and safe abortions are a human right and a fundamental prerequisite for a functioning democracy. The woman must herself have power over her own body. By having this right written into the constitution, it is protected from being easily changed by future political majorities, even if we are in complete agreement today. This is seen as particularly important in a time when the right to abortion is threatened.

Madam Speaker! There seems to be a fairly broad political support in the chamber to constitutionally protect the right to abortion. I am thinking of a unanimous decision here, the Committee on Freedom and Rights and today's bill.

Then we come to a big "but". What is it that we have on the table? Actually, it is a chimera. Several referral bodies, including the Council on Legislation, have established that the proposal has flaws. The proposed constitutional provision refers only to provisions in ordinary law, and it is that law that continues to be guiding for how the right to abortion shall be interpreted. The Abortion Act can be changed by a simple majority. With what we decide today, the formal protection mechanisms that constitutional amendments are intended for are still missing. The consequence is therefore that the constitutional regulation de facto does not play such a large role – perhaps none at all. The only thing it protects against is if someone were to want to ban abortion entirely. Nothing is stated about this in the preparatory works either.

Then we have the somewhat unlikely detail that the government makes it possible to exempt foreign-born women from the constitutionally protected right to abortion. Taste that! We still have not received any answer as to why this is being done. We do not know why they are putting this in. As several referral bodies have pointed out, it certainly conflicts with the European Convention, which in itself is a ground to reject the proposal.

The government has not been able to justify why women with foreign citizenship should be able to be exempted. Is one afraid of some kind of abortion tourism or for pregnant women to spy when they come here and have an abortion? We do not really know.

That the government chooses to move forward with such intrusive legislation without being able to justify the need and without having conducted a consequence analysis is actually appalling. It is unjustified and should therefore be rejected. I find it strange that none of the other major parties – nor the opposition parties – comment on this fact.

I also want to bring up some of what we have heard here today and things we have received via email.

I find it so difficult to compare. It is said that we are now writing in a healthcare effort into the constitution, but we are not talking about a healthcare effort, but about a fundamental right. I think it is distasteful to compare this with cancer treatment. It would mean that there is already a competition between abortion and cancer care today, and that is simply not the case. Abortion is performed many times as a medical abortion at home. I believe there is something else behind this. The fact that we heard a contribution that only dealt with the abortion law itself is, as some member said earlier, a good reason to write the right to abortion into the constitution.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have for many years been committed to the inviolability of life. It is a conviction that is anchored in my and the Christian Democrats' fundamental view of humanity. Human value follows human existence – not her age, function, or achievement. This applies from the beginning of life to the end of life.

I want to be clear about where I stand: Abortion does not belong in the constitution. It is not just my opinion. Expressens editorial page wrote in January last year that the proposal is pure symbol politics and that the constitution should not become an instrument for political signaling. Nya Wermlands-Tidningens editorial page warns that the constitution risks being transformed into a forum for public opinion rather than a protection for democracy.

The right to life exists in Article 2 of the European Convention. It is one of the most fundamental human rights, which Sweden has been bound by since 1952. It should be enshrined in the constitution, but the Constitution Committee did not have time for it.

With this said, I will nevertheless support the bill. The vote stands between two alternatives: the majority's proposal and, likely, the Center Party's reservation. Of these two, the majority's proposal is better. The Center Party's proposal is more far-reaching.

Madam Speaker! The constitutional text we are voting on today is concise and neutral. The wording of the paragraph is: The person who is pregnant has the right to terminate their pregnancy according to provisions issued in law. Note the last words – it is therefore still the Riksdag that decides where the limit lies. It is the Abortion Act of 1974 that regulates this, and it is also continuing to be the Riksdag that decides whether changes should be made.

In the statement of reasons for the bill, it is acknowledged that there is fundamentally an ethical conflict between the pregnant woman's right to abortion and the fetus's right to develop into a child. These are important formulations that the Christian Democrats have campaigned for and also succeeded in getting into the text.

Madam Speaker! What is needed is a policy that takes both the woman and the fetus seriously. The Christian Democrats have a clear medical-ethical action program. The woman and the fetus are two individuals worthy of protection, and therefore society must strive to reduce the number of abortions – not through prohibition but through support and alternatives. Low incomes should not force an abortion. Support calls shall be offered. Wanting to see fewer abortions is absolutely not an extreme position.

Lars Engqvist, who was Minister for Social Affairs 1998–2004, summarized it well: We can all agree that it is important to try to keep the number of abortions as low as possible. This was what the Social Democratic Minister for Social Affairs said when I started in the Riksdag in 1998. It was true then, and it should be true today.

In Denmark, it is estimated that the last child with Down syndrome will be born in 2030. This is not a success, but rather I think it is a frightening development. What is the next characteristic that is going to be sorted out?

SVT reported in the autumn about women who have abortions solely because the fetus has the wrong gender. This is a phenomenon that seems to be increasing. The Chairman of the Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics was clear: We shall not choose characteristics for our children. It was an important position.

We need to have a restrictive and life-affirming stance when it comes to prenatal diagnosis. What kind of society will we otherwise have?

I would have preferred to be without today's decision. I note that this is symbolic politics that does not change the abortion law. What we really need to do is to reduce the number of abortions and expand the preventive work. This work continues, Madam Speaker.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 22.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)