A constitutionally protected right to abortion as well as expanded possibilities to restrict freedom of association and the right to citizenship (pending constitutional proposal)

Amalia Rud Stenlöf (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating a pending constitutional proposal concerning our fundamental freedoms and rights. Our constitutions constitute the framework for our democracy while simultaneously constituting the absolute protection for the citizens' rights: that we are free to think what we want, that we are free to criticize power without fear of reprisals, that we are equal before the law and that our courts are free and independent.

Therefore, it is also of the utmost importance that the constitutional laws cannot be changed easily and quickly without first being carefully considered, reflected upon, and with a broad majority. That a parliamentary election is required between the decisions also means that citizens in an election can express their opinions on the impending changes.

An initial decision on the matter we are now debating was made before the summer, and today we have to take a position on whether the pending constitutional proposal concerning abortion, freedom of association, and citizenship shall finally be rejected or adopted in its entirety. I move for the proposal to be adopted in its entirety.

Madam Speaker! I had the privilege of sitting on the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee, which had the task of investigating the issues that are now on the Riksdag's table. Initially, we as the then opposition had strong objections to the government wanting to push through changes and gave our investigation far too little time. Now, three years later, we have been able to make a careful and well-balanced position that is accurate, legally secure, and holds up in the constitution over time.

I will now briefly state the Social Democrats' position in all three parts regarding abortion, freedom of association, and citizenship.

When it comes to the question of enshrining the right to abortion in the constitution, I begin by stating that it is pleasing to see that the right to abortion is not threatened in our country because all parties in the Swedish Riksdag want to enshrine this possibility – even if it unfortunately looks different at the European level in some parties.

We see today how extreme forces around the world are trying to restrict women's rights over their own bodies by making it impossible to perform abortions and through restrictive abortion policies and a guilt-and-shame logic retrieved from the past.

Let me be clear, however: That the Social Democrats today take the step to constitutionally entrench the right to abortion must not be confused with us being satisfied with the women's healthcare the country has. We hear, among other things, terrifying examples from women all over Sweden who have had to wait far too long and suffered through failed abortions. Equal care across the entire country where healthcare personnel have the resources required, and where freedom of conscience for staff is not permitted, as well as that the time limit for the number of weeks a woman is allowed to have an abortion is not lowered, are prerequisites for the constitutionally entrenched right to abortion to take effect in practice.

Madam Speaker! Let me move on to the question concerning freedom of association. In Sweden, we have a long and proud tradition of citizens being free to engage in associations, trade unions, and parties – or to choose to do neither. It has been crucial for a living democracy that citizens can stand up for themselves and others and have their say. Limiting freedom of association must never occur at the expense of these democratic values and intentions. We have been clear about this before and are also clear now.

The proposal that is on the Riksdag's table is well-balanced so as not to hit anything that is not a criminal organization. In recent years, however, we have seen how more and more anti-democratic forces have threatened our society. These involve Nazi organizations, terrorist organizations, and not least the criminal actors and gangs that are spreading across our country.

We Social Democrats have for several years actively worked to curb these actors' influence on society, and therefore we would have wished that the Constitutional Committee had had the task of investigating the possibility of also banning Nazi organizations. But this issue the Tidö government unfortunately chose to ignore.

After the terror attack on Drottninggatan in Stockholm in 2017, the then Social Democratic government took the initiative to change the constitution to make it possible to ban terrorist organizations. This, in turn, led to an amendment to the Instrument of Government which entered into force on 1 January 2023.

To combat the now growing gang crime, we must make a number of major changes. We must, on the one hand, ensure a safe upbringing for all children and have good schools, and on the other hand, have harsh punishments for those who commit crimes.

When it comes to crime fighting, we must find new tools. Restricting the freedom of association for those who engage in serious crime is an important step in the work of smoking out gang criminals both from public administration and from society at large. If we can additionally achieve a Swedish anti-mafia law, we can also both investigate and prosecute criminal networks collectively. We can then target entire groupings instead of individuals, and that would be both effective and good for Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Let me now move on to the final question, which concerns citizenship. The proposal being debated here today concerns the possibility of revocation of citizenship for those who have dual citizenship and who have acquired citizenship on false or incorrect grounds, or those who have been convicted of crimes that seriously damage Sweden's vital interests.

This is a proposal that has received a lot of media attention, not least because citizens in our country who hold dual citizenship have felt affected. Let me therefore be very clear: The proposal does not mean that citizenship is to be conditioned in general.

The purpose of the reform is not to create unrest but to strengthen security and the position of citizenship. When it comes to terrorism, espionage and other very serious crimes that threaten our country's fundamental security, we must, like our neighboring countries, be able to act forcefully. The same applies to the acquisition of citizenship on incorrect grounds.

The constitutional amendment we propose today ensures that international conventions need to be followed so that no innocent person is discriminated against or punished. This has always been a prerequisite for us Social Democrats to be able to say yes to the proposal. It prevents future legislators from acting arbitrarily.

To gain a better understanding of the issue of dual citizenship, I would like to provide a brief historical description.

In 2001, the possibility of dual citizenship was introduced in Sweden. This occurred after Sweden had become a member of the European Union a few years earlier. Many other countries in the EU had opened up the possibility of having dual citizenship so that their citizens could live, reside, and work in other countries without losing their citizenship. Sweden also introduced that possibility so that our citizens could live in other countries without losing their Swedish citizenship.

Shortly thereafter, in 2003, a major bribery scandal was uncovered at the Swedish Migration Agency where individuals had bribed officials to obtain citizenship. The Persson government then initiated an investigation which proposed that citizenship could be revoked for those with dual citizenship if the person had bribed their way to citizenship or concealed their criminal identity. It was an investigation that the Reinfeldt government unfortunately did not take further into legislation.

If we project twenty years into the future, we see that most EU countries, as a result of an uncertain political global situation with an increased number of terrorist crimes, have tightened their legislation regarding dual citizenship and introduced revocation of citizenship in cases of serious and system-threatening crime.

Our neighboring countries Norway and Finland have in recent years decided on new legislation regarding citizenship for those who have dual citizenship and commit crimes against the country's vital interests. In conversations I have had with our Finnish colleagues, I have heard that the motive has, among other things, been to be able to revoke the citizenship of convicted Russian terrorists.

When I have spoken with the Danes, I have instead been told that in recent years there has been an increase in gang crime that has systematically infiltrated both courts and welfare systems and challenged social structures. This is a development that we unfortunately also see in Sweden, and that was why – with a similar motive – we Social Democrats took on the part regarding citizenship.

Our position has been clear at all times: We want to be able to revoke the citizenship of those with dual citizenship who have bribed their way to citizenship or who have committed terrorist crimes, crimes against national security, or other system-threatening crimes with gang criminal connections.

The legislation must, however, be accurate, legally sound, and rest on our international conventions. And I repeat: Citizenship shall not be graded or conditioned generally. On the contrary, it shall be cherished and protected. Those who use a rhetoric that attempts to say something else have only the purpose of dividing and intimidating.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, it states several times – and clearly – that international conventions shall be complied with. This means a secure protection for the citizens and lays the foundation for the legislation to be precisely accurate and legally certain. After today's decision, it will be up to the incoming government to produce a bill for ordinary law so that this constitutional amendment can also be fully applied.

Videoriksdagen.se

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! What we are doing with this rule change is a new restriction of the freedom of association for criminal organizations.

The change simply means that a person can be convicted for crimes committed by other persons if the persons, so to speak, are part of the same criminal network. One is thus convicted for membership in a criminal network and not for having committed a concrete act. This corresponds to what already applies for terrorist organizations – Section 4 a of the Terrorist Crime Act means that one can be convicted for membership in an organization even though one does not personally collect money, purchase weapons, or whatever it may be.

This is an absolutely necessary rule change, I would say, and the Social Democrats apparently agree as they vote for the proposal. The Social Democrats have also devoted a large part of the election campaign to talking about the importance of a Swedish mafia law.

What I think Amalia could have been a bit more open about is that the issue has been raised earlier, in the constitutional committee that worked in 2021, and that the Social Democrats then voted no to exactly the same proposal. The Social Democrats killed this proposal just five years ago, when it was last up. But we can leave that behind, because I thought instead to ask what will happen moving forward.

It is entirely possible that the Social Democrats will form a government in the near future. An implementation of this constitutional amendment is already finished; there is a Government Offices referral based on SOU 2026:13 Criminal liability for participation in and association with criminal associations. I wonder if we could get a clear and distinct statement here: Will the proposal be implemented if the Social Democrats succeed in forming a government, given that half of the intended government base rejects the proposal in very strong terms?

Videoriksdagen.se

Amalia Rud Stenlöf (S)

Madam Speaker! I think there is much that can be said about history. I would have gladly had even more speaking time today and stood here and told about different shifts that different parties have made. I mentioned some of them that I thought were of great importance for this assembly.

Madam Speaker! The member is concerned about our government base and whether we could proceed with an ordinary law. I must say that I am not concerned, Madam Speaker. We now have a majority in the Swedish Riksdag that will vote for this constitutional amendment, and thus it will be up to the upcoming government to produce an ordinary law that ensures that the constitutional amendment can also be implemented.

Videoriksdagen.se

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I heard an answer from Amalia Rud Stenlöf, who stated that it is up to the next government to do this. Yes, it is – this is one of the first things that should be on the next government's table. The referral to the Council on Legislation is complete, and the Council on Legislation said roughly: Thumbs up! There were no major concerns; rather, it felt completely okay for them.

Constitutional rent is, therefore, just a matter of "honk and go," so that is not what we are talking about here. What I wonder is whether the Social Democrats here and now can give a promise that the next government – if it happens that it is led by the Social Democrats or if the Social Democrats in some other way have a decisive influence over it – will present this proposal? That is what I am interested in.

This is not a small issue. Throughout an entire election campaign, people have talked about the importance of a Swedish mafia law, and I completely agree. Here you go – here is the toughest Swedish mafia law we have ever had. We have never had any better rules against organized crime than those contained in this Council of State referral.

I note that Amalia Rud cannot give a straight answer. Will this be introduced or not? I am not, of course, saying that one needs to introduce the Council on Legislation referral exactly as it is written. It is, of course, possible to make adjustments based on own wishes, even though I think the product is very good as it looks right now. But I would think it would be appropriate to have an answer, because the Social Democrats have placed so incredibly much prestige on this with a mafia law. Will the mafia law that is now on the government's table be implemented – yes or no?

Videoriksdagen.se

Amalia Rud Stenlöf (S)

Madam Speaker! The member asks whether we will be able to make a regular law of the product that we adopt today. We have a broad majority in the Swedish Riksdag voting through this constitutional amendment today. It will be up to the incoming government to present a proposal that reflects that legislation. I believe that will be able to be done in a very good way.

Videoriksdagen.se

Caroline Täljeblad (V)

Madam Speaker! I did not stand in this speaker's chair in May when the first decisions on this constitutional amendment were made, and neither I nor my party comrades voted for this constitutional proposal at that time. Nor could I and other voters take part in a lively debate during the election campaign about this alarming constitutional proposal. Under relative silence, we are now taking a step towards making Swedish citizenship both unequal and less legally secure.

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 equal rights and equal obligations. Perhaps the most important right of all is the right to participate in shaping democracy and the development of our country through free and democratic elections. There we are equals in a society that in many other respects is characterized by great differences.

What the government is now proposing is that persons who provide incorrect or misleading information can be deprived of their Swedish citizenship. At first glance, this may appear reasonable, and if the proposal had only concerned persons who intentionally provided incorrect 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 cannot be proven. I say it again: People who do not intend to provide incorrect information can be deprived of their citizenship. In practice, this means that citizenship is made more conditional and less legally secure, and it is a very serious step to take.

Furthermore, the government goes further than the constitutional commission that dealt with the issue. The commission proposed that persons who have committed acts that seriously threaten the security of the realm or fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court could be deprived of citizenship. We are then talking about terrorism, war crimes, and genocide. But the government instead begins to speak of crimes that seriously damage 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 interpretation. What is considered a vital interest today does not have to be so tomorrow, and because the concept is not clearly defined through a catalogue of crimes in the constitution, a large space is left for future governments to move the boundaries. It is precisely for that reason that one must be so cautious when changing the constitution.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, this constitutional amendment will only apply to persons who have dual citizenship. It allows for different types of citizenship in Sweden: a strong citizenship and a weaker one that is conditional. I ask myself, which everyone in here should do: Are we then equal before the law?

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about the other major issue we are addressing here today, namely the issue of abortion rights. For the Left Party, a woman's right to her own body is a self-evident right, and it is probably no surprise – it is one of our most important issues and something we have championed. This also applies to the right to free abortion. It should be the woman herself who decides if and when she wants to have children. It is a fundamental issue of freedom, self-determination, and health.

We must never take that right for granted. All around the world, we now 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 also been tightened. This shows something important. Rights that are not defended can just as quickly be dismantled. For authoritarian and conservative forces, women's rights will always be negotiable. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet naturally welcomes that the protection for the right to abortion is now strengthened by being included in the constitution.

But there is also a serious flaw in the proposal the government has put forward. The government wants to open up for the right to abortion to be restricted through ordinary law when it concerns others than Swedish citizens. Then we must ask ourselves why the right to one's own body should be stronger for some women than for others. Vänsterpartiet does not accept that premise. The right to abortion must apply to all women who are in Sweden, regardless of citizenship and origin.

Madam Speaker! Constitutional proposals can only be adopted in their entirety or rejected in their entirety. We would have liked to see the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee have been given more time to work out this constitutional proposal, so that it would have had broad support in the Riksdag. This proposal does not have that. Vänsterpartiet cannot accept that fundamental rights are made more insecure for some groups than for others. Rights should never be conditioned based on origin, gender, or type of citizenship.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move for the approval of our reservation.

(Applause)

Videoriksdagen.se

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! As has been said, the fundamental constitutional proposal shall be adopted or rejected in its entirety. Now we are at the stage where we are to take a position on three points, and I intend to touch upon each one of them. We had a more extensive debate when the first decision was taken, but there is reason to repeat some things.

The first thing I want to address concerns the right to abortion. This is a matter that evokes emotions and has prompted a fair amount of writing. I have noted that emails have arrived in my inbox where people almost want to intimidate or, in any case, want to moralize over the position taken. It has not been as bad as during the previous decision, when more or less threats were issued from some senders. The question evokes emotions, and there are quite strong opinions.

We here inside are relatively in agreement that abortion should be possible. We agree that the technology exists and on the purpose. Precisely because of that, it is very good that we are now also establishing that there is only one person who can make the decision, namely, as it stands in the legal text, the one who is pregnant. It is not the case that anyone else shall make the decision on whether the pregnant person shall undergo an abortion or not. It is an important principle to establish for the sake of individual freedom. Then one can always have a discussion about whether the wording instead should have been "the woman" or something else. But the fact remains: It is still only the one who is pregnant who can make the decision. Thus, we are now establishing an important principle of self-determination in the constitution. That it then needs to be followed up with ordinary law and further rules, I believe we all agree on.

Madam Speaker! As we now move on to the next part of the proposal, we come to the question of freedom of association. Let us establish from the outset that criminal activity is, in fact, illegal. As soon as there is talk of a group that has united to commit crimes, the whole thing is already illegal from the beginning. It is therefore not unreasonable to also say that it is illegal to join such an association or such a network.

I believe it is very rare that these gangs have such developed statutes and audit reports that they could be called associations. To say that it should be illegal to join a group that commits crimes together does therefore in no way constitute a restriction of the freedom of association. It is, as several have mentioned here, central to the functioning of democracy. But if an activity aims to commit crimes, it is actually quite reasonable that we do not accept that the activity exists in Sweden.

We are now coming to the final question, which is the one that perhaps has been the subject of the greatest disagreement here, namely the issue of citizenship. For me, citizenship is a way to mark an affiliation, that is to say that I am a citizen of a state whose rules I share and whose system I consider myself to belong to and want to defend. I know that we are all here proud Swedish citizens, who think that Sweden has built a reasonably good system. If I choose to join this, I also of course join in following a framework of rules, a behavior and a systematic approach that we all stand behind because it is this upon which the community of society is built.

If I were to try to acquire citizenship by dishonest means or deliberately use my citizenship to not support this community, I should consider whether it was the right association I joined. Was it the right citizenship I chose when I do not want to share the fundamental values that the state has?

It is therefore a reasonable idea that the person who has used incorrect information or the person who deliberately opposes the values and principles that we have in Sweden should also be able to be deprived of an acquired citizenship. It is, however, an important principle that one can never make someone stateless, which means that this naturally targets those who have citizenship affiliation in more than one place, that is, dual citizenship. We cannot, as said, make anyone stateless, but it is difficult to say that it is unreasonable to take a stand against the one who chooses to distance themselves from the Swedish way of functioning.

Madam Speaker! Today we take a position on three changes to the constitution. They are three changes that can all be seen as reasonable from a reasoning perspective.

It is about ensuring that it is the pregnant person, and no one else, who makes the decision about abortion. It is also about prohibiting the formation of an organization that aims to do forbidden things. It is finally about that person who has acquired a citizenship based on false information or who does not share the values that Sweden stands for being able to lose their Swedish citizenship if they have dual citizenship.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's report in matter KU9.

Videoriksdagen.se

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall take a position on three different constitutional proposals regarding civil and political rights. These concern partly a constitutional protection for the right to abortion, partly a constitutional proposal to make it possible, under certain conditions, to revoke Swedish citizenship from persons with dual citizenship, and finally an opportunity to restrict freedom of association where serious crime occurs.

The proposals have their starting point in the investigation that Member Aspling, Member Rud Stenlöf and I participated in a couple of years ago. We had a fairly broad mandate with three additional questions that we were to look at, but we had to leave those aside. One could possibly say that the investigation illustrated the point of having many parties. Not least the Sverigedemokraterna and Miljöpartiet stood on somewhat different sides in a number of questions.

We have also discussed this previously, as recently as the middle of May this year. Our reservations were rejected, and the government's and the committee's proposal was adopted as a pending bill. Today, we will therefore carry out the second vote on the proposal. As we have discussed previously, there are only two possibilities: to adopt the entire pending bill exactly as it is or to reject it.

Unfortunately, by merging the three proposals in the bill, and especially now in the pending constitutional proposal, the government has forced us to either adopt all or – as in the case of the Green Party – reject all three proposals, including that which concerns the constitutional protection for abortion. I will return to this and first speak a little about citizenship and the limitations of freedom of association.

Madam Speaker! The Government has therefore proposed that it should be possible to issue regulations stating that Swedish citizenship can be revoked from a person who is a citizen of another state and who has acquired citizenship on incorrect grounds or in the case of certain serious crimes.

In my opinion, the proposal is far too extensive. Particularly serious is that the government proposes that citizenship should be able to be revoked in the event of crimes that seriously damage Sweden's vital interests, which is a formulation that lacks clear delimitation. Such a formulation risks leading to a dangerous norm shift where the state is given the opportunity to redefine the meaning of citizenship over time.

Furthermore, the Tidö government wants to be able to revoke Swedish citizenship. A citizenship implies fundamental rights and obligations. It is an expression of equality, and it contributes to integration and participation. Of course, those who commit serious crimes should be able to be sentenced to significant prison terms, but to use citizenship as a pawn in a game or as any kind of privilege is to abuse citizenship and its purpose.

These two proposals give future parliamentary majorities far too much room to move the boundaries of which crimes can lead to revoked citizenship and which associations can have their freedom of association restricted. We should not have such vague provisions in the constitution.

The Government further proposes that freedom of association shall be able to be restricted in relation to associations engaged in serious crime for the purpose of achieving economic or other undue gain.

I and we in Miljöpartiet do, admittedly, share the government's view that organized crime is a serious societal problem. The pending constitutional proposal, however, implies a fundamental shift that has not been sufficiently analyzed or ensured in terms of legal certainty.

The proposal to restrict freedom of association for criminal organizations is unclear and opens up for the provision to be misused, which has been pointed out by, among others, trade unions, universities, and courts. Experiences from authoritarian states have shown how civil society organizations, human rights organizations, and the environmental movement have been able to be defined as criminal with the support of similar legislation.

We must not be naive about the fact that such a development could also occur in Sweden. Organized crime is, of course, a serious societal problem that must be fought with full force, but the government has not been able to show that a restriction of the freedom of association – one of the pillars of democracy – will lead to better opportunities to combat organized crime.

It is about concepts to be introduced into the constitution, such as serious crime, which I have spoken about. It leaves a very large margin of interpretation for the legislator. Such a margin of interpretation is particularly problematic when it concerns a regulation in the constitution, because the view on what constitutes serious crime can change over time.

The proposal risks leading to an arbitrary application and to the fact that legitimate organizations within civil society may come to be covered by future restrictions. I do not believe that the government has been able to show that a limitation of the freedom of association is an effective or necessary tool to combat crime. The pending constitutional proposal to limit the freedom of association regarding associations should therefore be rejected.

Madam Speaker! The individual's personal, economic and cultural welfare shall be a fundamental goal for all public activity. The public sector shall particularly secure the right to work, housing and education and work for social care, security and good conditions for health.

There are in Chapter 2 a number of provisions concerning the protection of bodily integrity: the prohibition of the death penalty, corporal punishment and torture, and protection against forced physical 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 individual's integrity, which is characteristic of a rule-of-law society. This was written into a government bill 50 years ago, in 1975, and naturally relates to the fact that abortion is now permitted not only here but in many 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! I, like many other members of the Committee on the Constitution, received a considerable amount of email in connection with the first decision to adopt the pending proposal, which Ulrik Nilsson also mentioned. I am fully aware that the issue of abortion is problematic for many people. But with respect for different opinions and personal experiences that can lead to different conclusions, we in Miljöpartiet believe that the right to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental freedom. We find support in, among other things, the European Convention and the UN Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, Article 1 of the UN Convention states that all human beings are born free. We therefore share the assessment that the right to abortion should be given explicit protection in the Instrument of Government. Such 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 in ordinary legislation. It is therefore of great importance that the government, in the continued legislative work, ensures that the right to abortion does not only become formal but also receives real content in accordance with Sweden's international commitments. This applies, among other things, to the right to have an abortion for people who are in Sweden, even those who are here without permission or a fixed address.

The Tidö parties want to restrict fundamental rights in the constitution, including when it comes to citizenship and freedom of association, which I have spoken about. We in Miljöpartiet cannot possibly accept that. Therefore, it is unfortunate that these proposals are lumped together with the constitutional protection of the right to abortion, and it is regrettable that we are forced to vote on these proposals together.

Today, the Riksdag votes on changing the constitution on several points, but the proposal makes it impossible for us to vote yes, because we would then be voting yes to the entire package. Against this background, our position should not be perceived as that we do not want to protect the right to abortion. The rejection is based on the fact that other central parts of the proposal involve far-reaching and fundamentally problematic restrictions of basic civil rights and liberties that we in Miljöpartiet cannot stand behind.

The right to abortion is about freedom, equality, bodily integrity, health, and the right to decide over one's own life. We stand firm in strengthening the right to abortion while simultaneously safeguarding the protection of other fundamental freedoms and rights.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the joint reservation from Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet and otherwise refer to our specific statements.

Videoriksdagen.se

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! The report is therefore titled A constitutionally protected right to abortion as well as expanded possibilities to restrict freedom of association and the right to citizenship. This may perhaps seem a bit strange to the ordinary citizen. Freedom of association is fundamentally a criminal law issue, abortion is a healthcare issue, and citizenship is an administrative law issue. Why are these issues being lumped together in one report?

The reason is that this type of issue is usually prepared in parliamentary committees. This report, for example, comes from the 2023 Freedom of Expression and Rights Committee, which I, Jan Riise, Amalia Rud Stenlöf and a couple of others sat on. It would simply become far too complicated if one had thematic committees, i.e., one per issue. Therefore, one combines this into a report, and then it becomes a parliamentary debate, just so that the viewers and the audience understand why it looks the way it does. The committee also prepared even more issues, for example, the issue of restrictions on property rights for environmental reasons, i.e., a forestry issue, and the committee's conclusion in that issue was to appoint an additional committee to investigate it. The wheels of politics turn a bit slowly sometimes.

For the sake of the record, I must say that what Amalia Rud Stenlöf said in her speech—that the Social Democrats think the committee rushed the work—is not correct. The committee worked for a year and seven months preparing these issues, and that is approximately the time these types of committees usually take. It did not go any faster than it usually does. In addition to this, the referral and the bill took another half year. I would therefore absolutely not say that we have rushed this.

What Amalia said about the Social Democrats having highlighted a ban on Nazi organizations as a request for the committee's work is also not correct. This was not mentioned at all. How do we know that? Well, there is nothing about any Nazi organizations in the Social Democrats' specific statement on the report. This is a pure fabrication in hindsight, and furthermore, it is not a constitutional issue. Chapter 2, Section 24 of the Instrument of Government already allows for a ban on Nazi organizations today. No constitutional amendment is needed to achieve such legislation, but that is something the Social Democrats have not proposed either. That investigation was thrown in the trash already in 2021, just so that the minutes are correct and accurate.

We now move on to the provisions that we are introducing today. We can start with abortion. An addition will therefore be made to Chapter 2, Section 13 of the Instrument of Government, where it will state as follows: "A person who is pregnant has the right to terminate their pregnancy according to provisions issued by law."

Anyone who is somewhat knowledgeable in constitutional law will immediately see that this deviates slightly from how the Instrument of Government is structured otherwise. Chapter 2 otherwise deals exclusively with what is commonly called positive and negative freedoms of expression and other negative rights in legal theory. It is therefore about rules that limit or stop the state's ability to prevent you as a citizen from doing something.

What we are doing now is to express the right to abortion as a positive right, that is to say that the law shall allow this to happen. Implicitly, it should of course also be part of the ordinary healthcare system. Society shall therefore provide a certain service or a certain medical intervention. This therefore deviates a little bit from how it usually looks.

Positive material rights are otherwise found in Chapter 1 of the Instrument of Government and otherwise in what is usually called the objective provisions. We in the committee also discussed whether we should include the provision in the first or second chapter. The reason we decided to include it in the second chapter is that it is to have legal effect, i.e., become applicable. The first chapter of the Instrument of Government is not legally applicable, but the second chapter is to the highest degree. Therefore, the regulation looks the way it does.

If it is a legally applicable positive right, the question obviously arises: What concrete right does the new provision create? The short answer to that question is that we do not know exactly because it is ultimately up to a court to apply, but as long as the Riksdag looks roughly as it does today, this will not have any major impact.

What the provision does is to prevent the Riksdag from banning abortion entirely or removing it from the healthcare system. But it does not, for example, specify the premises for how abortion should function, such as the number of weeks, permission from Socialstyrelsen, or other surrounding matters. This is not affected by this provision as long as the right exists in reality, that is, as long as it does not become illusory.

Let me illustrate with a concrete example. I usually avoid taking examples from the USA, because the legal system there is very different, but this is a fairly well-known example. Some states there have heartbeat laws – if it is possible to detect a heartbeat from a fetus, an abortion may not be performed. This constitutional amendment would probably stop such a law if it were to come up for a vote here in the Swedish Riksdag.

Other rules around, fees and so on are not affected, however.

Does this have any practical significance? That is what is interesting. It is doubtful. Presumably, the provision will never be applied in practice. It may nevertheless still have a point: One reason why the issue has been raised could be that Sweden wants to show solidarity with people living in other countries where this is prohibited. We want to emphasize the importance of this being permitted, and therefore we now elevate it to a constitutional norm.

So we move on to freedom of association. Here comes a novelty in Chapter 2, Section 24 of the Instrument of Government. Firstly, that paragraph will be presented in bullet points, which I think is nice. It will always be easier to read then. Secondly, it receives a new point:

"Freedom of association may only be restricted when it concerns associations"

"who engages in serious crime to achieve economic or other undue gain" – that is the news –

2. who engages in or supports terrorism,

3. whose activities are of a military or similar nature, or

4. vilkas activities involve persecution of a group of people on the basis of ethnic origin, skin color or other similar circumstances.”

So there we have the opening to ban, for example, Nazi organizations, an opening that I believe has existed in Sweden for at least 20 years.

One might ask why this is necessary. It is a bit technical. In order for it to be possible to introduce a modern mafia law in Sweden, i.e., a rule stating that it is forbidden to participate in a criminal organization without committing other specific crimes, there must be a rule that restricts the freedom of association for criminal organizations.

What this means, simplified a bit, is that the legal order also recognizes criminal organizations as associations. One might think that is a bit paradoxical, but there are actually quite good reasons for it.

This was something that was threshed out in the Swedish Riksdag in connection with the previous constitutional amendment and that committee's partial report from 2021. If I remember correctly, it was actually Morgan Johansson, of all people, who argued as follows: No, organizations that engage in terrorism or are criminal are not associations and therefore are not covered by the freedom of association. But then the Council on Legislation came and said: Yes, they absolutely are. So, you cannot argue that.

That is why we had to add restrictions to the freedom of association, first for terrorist organizations, which we received last mandate period, and now for other criminal organizations, which we are voting on today – just to clarify so that everyone understands why this is necessary.

The equivalent to what we do today is thus 4 a § of the Terrorist Crime Act, where it states as follows: "For participation in a terrorist organization, a person who participates in the activities of a terrorist organization in a manner intended to promote, strengthen or support the organization shall be sentenced." We will now, therefore, be able to introduce a corresponding rule, but instead of terrorist organizations, it will be criminal networks.

To be very clear: the prosecutor does not therefore need to prove that a person has committed a specific terror-related act – collected money, bought weapons, or whatever it may be – it is sufficient that the person is a member of the group in order for them to be held accountable. This is very important. It should be impractical and risky to be a member of criminal networks in Sweden. Unfortunately, that is not the case to such a large extent as one would wish today.

If one looks at this rule, perhaps someone might wonder: What is serious crime, and what is other gain? These are the two requirements that this somewhat depends on. Here, the constitutional amendment is actually very good. We fought very hard during the committee's work to ensure that this would not become too limited, which it could have become.

Regarding what type of crime can be covered, the constitutional regulation does not actually set any clear boundaries, but rather the concept of serious crime acquires an independent meaning. This is very important, because it means that it can change over time and thus have a different meaning in 10 or 20 years. We do not know exactly what type of crime that the severe organized crime will be engaged in, and therefore it is important that this is an independent concept.

The concept of other gain than economic gain may seem a bit cryptic, but what we wanted to capture is when a crime is committed to strengthen one's own fear or violence capital. If you commit a criminal act intended to intimidate other people or to signal that you have a certain violence capital, but perhaps do not earn any money from the act itself, you should still be covered by this rule. Other gain is, it can be said somewhat simplified, power in the criminal world.

The current government has also started drafting a new penal provision which thus implements this constitutional amendment. There is actually a completed referral from the Council on Legislation based on SOU 2026:13 Criminal liability for participation in and association with criminal associations. The Council on Legislation had no strong objections, and this is currently on the government's desk.

An extremely heavy responsibility rests on the one who is to form a government. On the right side of the Riksdag, if we include the Centerpartiet there, there is no one who opposes this, but there is a group of parties that oppose it on the other side. The Socialdemokratern will therefore need to declare their position on the issue quite soon. I really hope that they do not back down but actually carry out this referral to the Council on Legislation or something similar. It will be up to them how they wish to proceed in that case.

Finally, we have citizenship, but that part will be explained by a party colleague of mine. I thank you therefore and move for approval of the committee's proposal.

In this speech, Mikael Eskilandersson (SD) agreed.

Videoriksdagen.se

Magnus Haara (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are addressing a pending constitutional proposal concerning some of the most fundamental issues in our democratic society: citizenship, freedom of association, and the right to abortion.

It is ultimately about the relationship between the individual and the state – which rights we should protect, what powers society should have when faced with serious threats, and how we ensure that the decisions we make today also hold up for the trials of the future.

Centerpartiet stands behind the ambition to protect democracy against violence-seeking extremism and organized crime. We stand behind the ambition to strengthen women's self-determination. We stand behind the ambition to give society tools to meet those who want to harm Sweden.

At the same time, changes to the constitution must be characterized by legal certainty, clarity, and long-term perspective. The constitution is not just any law. It is the framework for our democracy and the ultimate guarantee for the citizens' civil liberties and rights. When we change the constitution, we must therefore set particularly high requirements for precision, predictability, and respect for the principles of the rule of law.

The Riksdag is often described as the people's primary representative. But we are also one of the rule of law's last lines of defense. Our mission is not only to make decisions but also to ensure that the laws leaving this chamber are of high quality and rest on a stable constitutional foundation. This applies in particular when we change the rules of the game for democracy.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the question of citizenship.

There was a broad consensus in the Committee on Freedom of Expression and Rights that persons with dual citizenship who have committed crimes that seriously threaten national security or fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court should be able to lose their citizenship. It is a very reasonable starting point.

Those who deliberately attack our country, our democracy, or commit the gravest international crimes shall, of course, not be able to invoke the ultimate community of the Swedish state. The Centre Party agrees in principle. Here, however, a choice was made to go further than the committee's proposal. Instead of linking the possibility of revocation to certain clearly defined crimes, the formulation is introduced that citizenship can be revoked in the event of crimes that seriously damage Sweden's vital interests.

The problem, and the challenge, is not that we lack the will to combat serious crime or threats against Sweden. The problem, and the challenge, is that legislation must be predictable and provide legal certainty.

What do Sweden's vital interests actually mean? Where is the limit? Which actions are covered? These are questions that still lack clear answers and that we must continue to work on. The concept is not sufficiently defined, and it allows for a broader application than what was likely the intention from the beginning. Several referral bodies have pointed out exactly this.

Centerpartiet argues that it is possible to combine a tough line against those who commit very serious crimes with a strong perspective on legal certainty. Therefore, we will also continue to work for a clearer and more legally secure regulation of citizenship. Society must be able to act forcefully against those who attack our democracy and security, but it must happen in a way that holds even when the political wind blows in another direction.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to freedom of association, I want to be clear.

Centerpartiet shares the government's view that criminal organizations should not be able to hide behind constitutionally protected freedoms to organize serious crime. We want to reach the gang leaders, reach the criminal networks that recruit children, and reach the structures that undermine trust in our society. Therefore, we support the possibility of limiting the freedom of association for criminal associations. The same principle applies here, namely that the stronger tools we give the state, the higher requirements we must set for legal certainty.

Madam Speaker! Let me then move on to the question of the right to abortion.

Centerpartiet welcomes the ambition to strengthen the protection for women's right to abortion. The free and legal right to abortion is a fundamental issue of freedom. It is about women's self-determination, about equality, and about the right to make decisions about one's own body. We see how rights that have long been taken for granted are being questioned in parts of the world. Therefore, Centerpartiet has long advocated for the issue of strengthening the protection for the right to abortion.

Even here, we must become even clearer moving forward. When we speak of a constitutional protection, the image is easily created that the right to abortion itself is written directly into the constitution. That is, however, not quite the case. The proposal we are now considering refers in practice to regulation in ordinary law, that is, the abortion law. The decisive regulation can still be changed through an ordinary parliamentary decision with a simple majority.

The consequence is that the constitutional protection does not provide the strong protection that many people believe it does, even though we are absolutely on the right track. And because we are truly serious about giving the right to abortion a long-term protection, we must also dare to discuss how a real and explicit protection can be anchored directly in the Instrument of Government. Therefore, the Center Party will continue to push the issue of how the right to abortion can be given a stronger and clearer constitutional protection. For us, this is not about symbolic politics, but it is about ensuring that future generations of women receive the same freedoms and rights as today's.

We also have objections to persons with foreign citizenship being able to be exempted from the proposed protection. Our principled view is simple: The right to bodily integrity and self-determination does not become less important depending on which passport a woman carries. In Sweden, women shall be met with the same respect for their fundamental rights, regardless of citizenship.

Madam Speaker! Today we face a pending constitutional proposal that can only be adopted or rejected in its entirety. The Centre Party does not agree with the government's choice of path in all parts. We would have desired a more legally secure formulation regarding citizenship. We would have desired an even stronger constitutional protection for the right to abortion. And we would have desired that the rights should cover all women in Sweden, regardless of citizenship.

But we also see the value of those parts of the proposal that strengthen the protection of democracy and represent important steps forward. Therefore, we choose not to reject the entire constitutional amendment. We stand by the line that the Center Party has championed from the beginning, namely to support what strengthens freedom, democracy, and security, while we continue to point out the deficiencies that exist. We say yes to reforms that move society forward, but we also say no when the rule of law risks being weakened or when civil and political rights are not given the protection they deserve. It is a liberal stance. It is a constructive stance. And it is a responsible stance.

I and the Centre Party will therefore also continue to work to ensure that our fundamental laws rest on clear liberal and democratic principles.

With this, I refer to our special statement.

Videoriksdagen.se

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! It has always been a tradition when constitutional changes are to be made to seek the broadest possible political consensus. That is also the case today, even though there is a reservation.

The pending proposal that we discussed and debated in May, on May 20, is now to be taken up again. It is therefore about constitutionally protecting the right for the person who is pregnant to terminate a pregnancy according to provisions issued in law, and furthermore, the proposal concerns expanded possibilities to restrict freedom of association and the right to citizenship.

We Christian Democrats support the proposal, just as we did in May. We can thus make two identical decisions with the parliamentary election in September in between.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the revocation of Swedish citizenship, I plowed through the committee's solid work during the spring with great interest. It is noted there that Sweden is somewhat unique. Most other countries – such as Denmark, Finland and Norway – have the possibility to strip a person of citizenship if they have committed certain crimes. We Christian Democrats believe that Sweden should also, of course, have the same possibility.

It becomes somewhat baroque – completely unreasonable – that a person who has acquired a citizenship through violence or threats of violence still cannot be deprived of their citizenship when this is revealed. I believe that few Swedes think that the order that prevails today is reasonable. We think it is good that the government proposes, and the Riksdag cements, that Sweden too should have the same opportunities as a number of other countries. Our constitution should not put a stop to this.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the freedom of association, the proposal rests on enabling the legislator to introduce measures that limit the freedom of association in relation to criminal networks and other forms of organized crime. It can be simply expressed that if the purpose of an organization or a network is to commit crimes, we give ourselves the opportunity to put a stop to those types of networks and organizations.

What I think is important to highlight and which has not been said today is that the government, just like the committee, considers that the protection of freedom of association is and remains a central element in the protection of freedoms and rights. A lowered level of protection for freedom of association should only be considered if there are strong reasons in favor of it.

Madam Speaker! Finally, we must introduce a provision stating that a person who is pregnant has the right to terminate their pregnancy according to regulations issued by law.

The right in the abortion legislation exists, and we Christian Democrats have stood behind the law for over 30 years. Then it might seem like this is a minor matter, an easy question. In a sense, it is. But it would still not be entirely correct if one does not simultaneously highlight that this is unique. Member Aspling explained that it is unique to pick out a single healthcare intervention and push it into the second chapter. Now it is being done, and it is being done even though the abortion legislation, as I perceive it, is not threatened by any single party in the Riksdag and furthermore has broad popular support.

From the fact that one does this, which we are therefore motioning for approval of, there is however a question one can ask. What will be the next thing that is to be included in the constitution? We want to raise a warning finger. I really hope it is not, but I fear that we may be standing here in a few years because then people also want to have the right to end their own lives included in the constitution.

We therefore move for the approval of this writing, not least because we, which I accounted for in May but do not intend to account for here, did a diligent job. It was about ensuring that in the proposal sent over from the government to the Riksdag, it was noted that it is an issue where there is an ethical conflict. There are two protected individuals, and the viability criterion is also important to include when designing the legislation.

Videoriksdagen.se

Erik Nygårds (L)

Madam Speaker! As a relatively new member of the Riksdag, I am often struck by how much there is to learn. Many matters are extensive. This applies in particular to the constitutional questions.

The constitutional changes are special in their nature. The proposals have lain dormant over an election. This means that large parts of the preparation, the investigation work, and the political considerations were made before I myself took my place in this chamber. My task has therefore not been primarily to influence the process but to familiarize myself with it.

Madam Speaker! I must take the opportunity to thank Member Aspling for his solid overview, which we have just listened to, of the background to the work on this bill. They were valuable contributions to my knowledge building, quite simply a free lesson.

The more of the preparatory works I have read, the clearer it has become that there is solid work behind the proposition. The investigation, the referral responses, and the preparatory works are extensive. As I have worked my way through the material, it has happened time and again that I have stopped and thought: That was a perspective I had not thought of before.

It concerns, not least, the issue of abortion. For those who read the preparatory works, a discussion emerges that goes much deeper than the political debate often does. Should the constitution speak of abortion, of the termination of pregnancy, or of the older legal expression termination of pregnancy? These are examples of what one delves into in the text.

On the surface, it may appear as a matter of word choice. But behind the words are considerations regarding legal protection, legal tradition, and how constitutional laws should be designed to endure across generations. That is precisely why I am grateful for the Swedish system of inquiries and the referral process. It gives us the opportunity to test our own views against the arguments of others.

At the same time, there are parts where the reasoning could have been developed further. One example is why the constitutional protection for the right to abortion should not fully cover foreigners in the same way as for Swedish citizens. There, I would have liked to see a more detailed discussion on the fundamental principles.

Finally, however, comes the point where one can no longer hide behind the fact that there are several different perspectives. We are not here to be referral bodies. We are elected to take a stand. After having reviewed the underlying material, I also feel confident in the trade-offs that have been made.

Madam Speaker! The bill contains three different parts, but they are united by a common question: How do we protect both the individual's freedom and democracy's ability to defend itself?

For the Liberals, the starting point is simple. In normal cases, the state should keep its fingers off people's lives. But the state also has a responsibility to protect people's freedom when it is threatened. Therefore, we welcome that the right to abortion is now being written into the Instrument of Government as a fundamental freedom and right.

In Sweden, support for the current abortion legislation is strong. But we do not live isolated from the rest of the world. In recent years, we have seen examples of rights that many believed were self-evident being questioned or restricted. It reminds us of something important: Freedom is not a force of nature. Freedom is something that must be defended and sometimes also protected by the constitution.

Madam Speaker! Freedom, however, is not just about what the state is not allowed to do. Freedom is also about people being able to live their lives without being threatened by organized crime. Therefore, it is reasonable that freedom of association must not become a protection for associations whose activities are based on serious crime, violence, extortion, and control.

Freedom of association exists so that people can organize themselves and make their voices heard. It does not exist to protect criminal networks. It is an important principled difference.

Madam Speaker! The same applies to the question of citizenship. Swedish citizenship entails rights, but it is also a mutual social contract. Therefore, it is reasonable that the person who has obtained their citizenship through fraud or other improper procedures should not automatically be able to retain it. It is also reasonable that society can react against the person who grossly attacks Sweden's vital interests.

I can, however, sympathize with those referral bodies which, like the Swedish Association of Judges, argue that it should appear from the legislative text that the incorrect information must have been provided intentionally for citizenship to be revocable.

Madam Speaker! Ultimately, today's matter is about what kind of society we want to leave behind. We want a society where the individual's freedom is protected, where women can rely on their right to decide over their own lives, where organized crime cannot hide behind the constitutional walls, and where Swedish citizenship is something valuable that both deserves respect and inspires pride but also imposes obligations. That is why the Liberals stand behind the bill.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

Videoriksdagen.se

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Swedish citizenship is one of the most significant things our country can offer a person. It is not just constituted by a passport. A Swedish citizenship also implies a practically unconditional right to live and move in Sweden as well as to be able to travel freely in large parts of the world. It also implies full access to welfare and civil rights as well as the possibility to vote and run for candidacy in parliamentary elections, simply to influence our country's future.

Citizenship is the formal membership in the Swedish state. But it is also something greater than that. It is an expression of belonging to our country, our democracy, and the community that holds us together. For that very reason, citizenship must be taken most seriously.

Madam Speaker! For a long time, we in Sweden have had an arrangement where Swedish citizenship has, in principle, been able to be acquired without any major requirements being imposed. One has not had to learn the language or learn about Swedish society and how our democracy is intended to function. One has also not had to show that one wants or can support oneself and contribute to the common good.

In other words, a Swedish citizenship has been associated with a number of rights and opportunities but perhaps not with as many obligations. It has been a completely unreasonable and in some cases harmful order for our country. But with our, the Sweden Democrats', relatively large influence during the previous mandate period, we ensured to begin recreating the value and status that Swedish citizenship once had and should always have.

Madam Speaker! There is, however, a caveat. If one has obtained their membership through threats, bribery, or by lying about essential information, or if, after becoming a citizen, one has committed very serious crimes that constitute a threat to the nation's security or vital interests, the membership in our nation should be able to terminate.

It is, according to us Sverigedemokrater, not a human right to remain a citizen of Sweden despite having committed serious crimes and participated in organized crime and criminality against our country and our vital interests. It was therefore that we in our turn took the first step towards the possibility of revoking a citizenship.

Madam Speaker! The constitutional amendment we are to take a position on today means that it shall be possible to prescribe by law that Swedish citizenship can be revoked in two specific situations: firstly, when someone has acquired citizenship through false or misleading information or other improper conduct, and secondly, when someone has been convicted of crimes that seriously harm Sweden's vital interests.

It can involve very serious crime directed against our country's security or – and we consider it necessary – serious, system-threatening organized crime – gang crime. It is a fundamentally significant change.

Madam Speaker! Neither threats, frauds, lies, nor extremely serious system-threatening crimes should pay off. I want to point out that today we are not deciding on exactly which individual crimes shall be covered, how the evidence shall be assessed, or how a review of a recall shall be carried out. This shall be regulated in ordinary law and reviewed by the Riksdag at a later stage. There, questions regarding legal certainty, proportionality, and the individual's opportunity to have a decision reviewed will be central.

Madam Speaker! For us Sweden Democrats, this issue is ultimately about what value we attribute to Swedish citizenship and about putting our country, our security, and our rightful citizens first.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

In this speech, Gunilla Gomér (SD) agreed.

Videoriksdagen.se

Caroline Täljeblad (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to reflect a little bit together with Member Stegrud regarding the question of incorrect information, whether intent is required, and what it actually concerns. It could be about a situation where the interpretation has not worked, about fear of authorities here in Sweden or for the government in the home country, or about a child of a parent who has intentionally provided incorrect information. A child can obviously not have intent, which the referral bodies have also criticized. I am curious about how the Member thinks about this.

What concerns Sweden's vital interests is very vaguely formulated. We in Vänsterpartiet are not the only ones who have turned against the lack of clarity; criticism has also come from the investigator themselves and also from a number of heavy referral bodies such as Justitiekanslern, Brottsförebyggande rådet, and Domstolsverket. We and the referral bodies lack a catalogue of crimes. We are afraid that it will not be accurate.

Member Jessica Stegrud and Member Aspling, who spoke earlier, clearly show that they take their mandate seriously and that they like formalities and rules, but the Tidö government has made it a habit to formally ignore referral bodies and the Council on Legislation. It is to depart from the formalities and rules that we often follow in this chamber.

My question is: What will the Sweden Democrats' follow-up legislation in this area look like? How has it been planned that this constitution shall be used?

Videoriksdagen.se

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

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

Just as I pointed out in my speech, this is an opening to be able to take away citizenship from persons who do not deserve to have it. It concerns the matters that have been mentioned here, including threats to national security or vital interests and what the member himself mentioned, that incorrect information has been provided.

What we are talking about today is an opening, a relief in the constitution. Then we have the next step, the actual legislation that will apply in practice. There, just as I mentioned in the speech, there will be a major focus on legal certainty, proportionality, and the individual's opportunity to have a decision reviewed. These will be central concepts. This is not something that we do not take seriously.

When it comes to the concerns, we have, as mentioned, nearby comparable countries, for example Denmark, which has already introduced this type of legislation. Denmark is considered a country with the rule of law. This is not something we do lightly, but we take it most seriously.

It is an incredibly important step being taken, which concerns dealing with, among other things, the heavy organized crime, which is extremely harmful to our country. It is an important step, but we, of course, take proportionality and so on most seriously.

Videoriksdagen.se

Caroline Täljeblad (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! Unfortunately, I am not reassured by what the Member indicated here, but rather it worries me greatly. It shows that the Sweden Democrats' influence over the government has been great, as the Member himself mentioned in his statement. I assume that this is one of the biggest ideological victories that has been pushed through in the Tidö cooperation.

We see in the Sweden Democrats' principle program that the view on citizenship differs significantly from the view that has long characterized Swedish democracy and which many of the other parties share. It seems that it is seen as something that can be conditioned, tested, and revoked, and that can be earned over and over again.

From our perspective, it is an incredibly dangerous development. We cannot escape our responsibility when things get tough. When citizens make mistakes, we also need to take responsibility. It is a relationship and a contract with the state, not an agreement where only one party needs to deliver. We cannot solve all of the state's problems with deportation.

Videoriksdagen.se

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member is correct in the sense that it is, in a way, an ideological question. We Sverigedemokrater believe that one cannot commit extremely serious organized crime that harms the safety of citizens and our country. It can be about terrorism or that one threatens the entire monopoly on violence and so on.

There is actually a limit to when a membership or citizenship in the state and nation of Sweden can cease, even if the threshold for that is, of course, high. It has to do with legal certainty, proportionality, and so on.

It is a completely unreasonable situation that one can come to Sweden and become a citizen without any requirements. We have progressively changed that. We have done so out of consideration for the citizens who are already here and, of course, for Sweden as a nation. One should not be able to come here and organize serious crime or criminality that harms our country. But the threshold is high, and this is also evident from the underlying documents.

Yes, it is an ideological question. There is a limit. One cannot behave however one likes, one cannot be however harmful one likes, one cannot engage in high-level terror, one cannot damage the monopoly on violence, one cannot attack the judiciary, and so on. This will be specified in the next stage. But yes, there is probably an ideological difference here. Nevertheless, it is incredibly important with legal certainty, proportionality, and the possibility of judicial review. This we will see clearly in the next stage.

Videoriksdagen.se

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

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

Centerpartiet has long been a clear advocate for constitutionally protecting the right to abortion. That the right to abortion is being eroded is unfortunately something we saw coming early, and we see it even today in country after country. Thus, the fundamental human rights are threatened. It is precisely them that we are to protect with the constitutions.

The main arguments for the right to abortion are the following: Free and safe abortions are, as stated, 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 so that it cannot be easily changed by future political majorities, even if we are in complete agreement today. That is the point with the constitutional laws: They are written for the future, not for the present.

No, my friends, we cannot compare the right to abortion with a healthcare intervention. It is to greatly diminish what women face when it comes to abortion.

I have full respect for the fact that one can have reflections regarding the consequences of this. But then raise it! Exemplify it without diminishing the fundamental right that women possess, namely the right over their own body, and which we today shall write into the constitution! Words are important.

We then come to a rather large "but", for what is it that we have on the table today? Well, it is actually a chimera. The proposed provision refers only to provisions in ordinary law, and it is that law that will subsequently be guiding for how the right to abortion is to be interpreted. The Abortion Act can be changed by a simple majority. The only thing we protect with today's proposal actually concerns whether someone would want to ban abortion entirely.

I also thank [the member] for the overview that Ludvig Aspling gave regarding the thoughts behind this and how the constitutional laws are structured. But I think it is strange that the Constitutional Committee, with the expertise that exists today, cannot deliver a wording that protects the abortion law in a stronger way than what is currently available.

As my colleague said, we will work with this moving forward. It will actually happen quite soon here in the chamber. We are about to, in fact, deal with the Social Affairs Committee's proposal on a changed abortion law. There, we will work so that they will write in, for example, what I am about to speak about now. It is about the right to abortion applying to all women. We still have, in fact, the very strange detail that in this constitutional amendment, which we will come to today, it is proposed that exceptions can be made for foreign-born women.

I still have not received any answer – after half a year. Why is this wording included? As several referral bodies pointed out in our submissions, this certainly contradicts the European Convention, which in itself would be a ground to reject it. And the government has still not been able to justify why women with foreign citizenship should be able to be exempted.

I ask the question again: Is one afraid of some kind of abortion tourism or of pregnant women from abroad spying when they come here and have an abortion? We don't really know.

That the government chooses to move forward with such intrusive legislation without being able to justify the need and without having conducted any further impact assessment is actually strange. We will, as said, continue to work on this issue in other legislation to ensure that the constitutionally protected right to abortion becomes strong and will apply to all women in the future.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

Videoriksdagen.se