Priorities in healthcare

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish healthcare is fundamentally strong, but it has for a long time had serious structural problems with accessibility, capacity, and governance. This is noticeable, not least in the healthcare queues. It is people who are waiting for surgery, patients who receive their diagnosis late, and women who do not get the care they are entitled to at all. It is from this that we have designed our reform work.

Let us be honest that the problems are not new. They are the result of a system that for a long time has lacked sufficient governance, coordination and long-term perspective. They should have been addressed a long time ago.

Mr. Speaker! The Government is pursuing a clear and extensive reform agenda for Swedish health and medical care. It is about building capacity, strengthening structures, and getting systems to function better in practice, even in the long term. It is about the care queues. That people have to wait for care is not just an organizational problem. It also causes extensive human suffering. Therefore, the Government has taken several concrete measures in the form of investments to increase the care's capacity to shorten the queues. The result is 28 percent shorter queues.

One sees a clear difference depending on who governs in each respective region. In Moderat-led Skåne, the queues are shortened the most in the entire country. In Socialdemokrater-led Stockholm, the queues are growing instead. I guess it is the Stockholm Magdalena Andersson is talking about when she speaks about the healthcare crisis. In that case, I am actually willing to agree.

The appointment of a national coordinator to help the 21 regions with their respective challenges in shortening queues is an effective way to address the issues. Work is also being done on a national healthcare brokerage so that patients can receive care where it is available instead of standing in long queues in their own region.

It is also about creating better conditions for a common system. That is why the government is investing in a national digital infrastructure that will make it possible to share information throughout the entire care chain. This reduces double work, frees up time for staff, and ensures that patients receive the right care faster. This is not a technical detail, even though it is in the highest degree technical. It is a crucial reform to truly shorten queues, reduce administration, achieve better workplaces, and more accessible care.

Mr. Speaker! We must also speak about women's health. It is an area where the care has for a long time not delivered sufficiently. The same applies to the policy. It is an area that the government has consistently invested in during the mandate period – from maternal health care and maternity care to aftercare and care for women-specific diseases and not least research. It is also about care for women who are subjected to violence and sexual abuse. Girls' and women's health is not a special interest. It is a fundamental healthcare need that is now being taken more seriously.

At the same time, the government is carrying out extensive work to strengthen the pharmaceutical systems. Pricing is being analyzed in a new global context. Greater state responsibility shall be taken for pharmaceuticals, and clinical trials shall be streamlined and made more accessible. Innovation is strengthened through our research budget. This will be crucial for both the patients and the long-term sustainability of healthcare.

Mr. Speaker! Common to these reforms is that they are interconnected. They do not aim to win a single debate or a single voter, but they aim to make healthcare function better for patients throughout the country, also moving forward.

(Applause)

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! If you present figures in that way, Noria Manouchi, then you get a retort. It sounds fantastic with 28 percent. That is what we thought when we listened to this. It is very good that the healthcare queues are decreasing. But what I want to talk about is where and how they are decreasing.

You should probably keep a low profile regarding mentioning the figure 28 percent, because it shows that you have excluded regions because the systems have been replaced in Dalarna, Gävleborg, Halland, Norrbotten, Sörmland, Västerbotten, Västernorrland and Örebro. Some of those regions are doing well. Others are doing very poorly. If you calculate as you do, you arrive at 28 percent. If you do it in another way and look at other periods, you can arrive at 13 percent, as from October 2022 to January 2026. That sounds good too. For January 2023 to January 2026, the figure is 8.4 percent. But nowhere is the figure 28 percent. That was the one thing I wanted to bring up.

Then it has been talked about the regions all the time. Stockholm is very bad. It becomes rhetorically quite special, I think, when one constantly comes out with very strange figures. I am saying something completely different. The average waiting time for surgery in specialist care was during 2025 80 days in Stockholm and 148 days in Skåne. A snapshot from January 2026 of a healthcare queue, adjusted for population, shows that 6.24 patients per thousand inhabitants were in queue in Stockholm. In Skåne, it was 16.41 patients. I would wish that we, when we talk about the regions and get down to this level, at least try to find figures that are okay. Skåne has extreme problems within healthcare. There, M, KD and L rule together with SD. I just want to say that.

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! It would perhaps be a bit strange if we had included those regions that cannot quite account for the situation in their respective regions. When they change digital systems and we know that several of them have extensive problems, I actually think it would create more questions than answers. It is also not the case that the Moderaterna or the government are making up these figures. They exist. They are public documents. One only has to search for them. SKR is, for example, a source that one can make use of.

Mr. Speaker! It is nothing new that the Left Party questions data to make it fit their rhetoric and their arguments. We have seen it before. We will see it in the future.

My question to the member is whether it is truly positive for Swedish healthcare that the left-wing parties continue to assert that the healthcare system is in a healthcare crisis, that things are going terribly for Swedish healthcare, that no one receives care in time, and that everything is falling into decay.

Do the left-wing parties really believe that this has a good effect for Swedish healthcare? Would it make more people want to work there and increase the trust for Swedish healthcare? I do not believe that. I believe on the contrary that Swedish healthcare is something to boast about. We should do that more often.

There is a maternity crisis, an ambulance crisis, and a staffing crisis, and functioning healthcare is being shut down. Patients from Stockholm – young girls – seek out, hear, and are astonished by members from Skåne to plead for help to stop the Social Democrats' and the Left's rampage in the Stockholm region. I will not assert anything other than that their life destinies should be taken seriously. But if the Left Party wants to do so, let that stand for them.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! This was words and no mere songs.

The paper with figures that I am holding in my hand also comes from SKR, who have done a deep dive into this. We may have different sources at SKR; what do I know?

Then it was spoken about Stockholm, and so we have Skåne. Skåne's healthcare, if I may express myself in a Stockholm way, is healthcare on a budget. When it came to Stockholm, you spoke about that anorexia clinic that had to close down. Yes, it had to do that because they had not managed their finances. They also treated their patients in a way for which there was no evidence.

As taxpayers and as those responsible in regions, we cannot have an activity that does not follow guidelines from Socialstyrelsen, but instead does something completely different. These girls have also received other care in the Stockholm region. But I do not work with Stockholm politics, but with the national level.

When it comes to the national level, we have a fantastic healthcare system in Sweden, especially if one becomes ill, if one gets cancer, stroke, heart attack and so on. Then one receives very good help.

Where people do not get good help is, for example, within psychiatry. Every week I am called by people who have contact with psychiatry somewhere in Sweden. They say that psychiatry in Sweden is no longer functional for these patients, but not either for the staff who work there. It is something that we own together, and we would need to do something about psychiatry as a whole.

I honestly believe that the regions have had a major crisis. Extremely large funds disappeared for them during the great economic crisis, when people were even laid off. It was noticed by the staff, and it is reflected in the analysis that has been made of how the staff are doing at work. It is truly terrible. The Work Environment Authority says so, for example. You should look into that.

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that it must be terribly difficult for a Stockholmer to hear how badly things can actually go in Stockholm. You are used to being the best in the class, to being at the center of Swedish politics and to be in the focus of the entire country when we discuss this, regardless of which issue and which investments it concerns.

As a person from Skåne, one is well aware of exactly this situation and how you view the rest of the country. This is nothing new for us. I understand that this is difficult and that the member has an enormous need to defend Stockholm's governance, despite the terribly serious situation that Stockholm finds itself in.

It is not as the member says that these girls have received other care, in any case not if one is to trust those who, in their desperation, contact members of parliament from all corners of the country. They now, on the contrary, are completely without care and must manage on their own with very difficult diagnoses.

I think the member should take this more seriously and perhaps send a clearer signal back home to Stockholm that we cannot work like this in Sweden. It is not worthy.

The member mentions psychiatry, an incredibly important area that has been neglected time and again. That is why this government has implemented the largest investments ever in psychiatry. We do it throughout the entire chain, from child and adolescent psychiatry to adult psychiatry. We are even reforming school health so that a greater focus shall be placed on children's mental well-being. This cannot have escaped the member's notice. It has been in all the newspapers, even those that the people in Stockholm read.

(Applause)

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! If you want to vote for a party that prioritizes healthcare, you should vote for the Christian Democrats. We are a healthcare party. We prioritize healthcare in budget negotiations and in our reform work. When it comes to our priorities within health and medical care, I would particularly like to highlight three areas.

Firstly, we want to abolish the regions and let the state take over the responsibility for Swedish healthcare so that we can ensure that people throughout the country have access to the best care. We must be able to ensure that we have an equal and fair healthcare. We know that we have Sweden's doctors on our side in that matter. We also know that we have the Swedish people on our side.

The healthcare staff are making fantastic efforts, but today's healthcare model with 21 self-governing regions is not economically sustainable. Today's healthcare organization is bureaucratic and inefficient, and it involves a waste of taxpayers' money. Despite being self-governing and having full taxing rights to fulfill their task of offering people care, they do not succeed to a sufficient extent in offering people care in a timely manner. People are not met today with equal and fair care.

The waiting times between diagnosis and treatment for severe cancer diseases vary far too much. It differs greatly as to which treatment methods and which medicines one can qualify for.

Swedish healthcare could function in a much better way. It was against that background that we Christian Democrats ensured the appointment of the parliamentary Healthcare Responsibility Committee, whose conclusion is that the state should take an expanded responsibility and thereby also strengthen its governance when it comes to competence supply, pharmaceuticals, vaccinations, screening, and a number of other areas.

Making this a reality – letting the state expand its responsibility in the areas that the Healthcare Responsibility Committee has identified – is one of the Christian Democrats' priorities going forward. It is a first step for us towards our ultimate goal of abolishing the regions and letting the state take over the responsibility for healthcare.

Secondly, we prioritize pushing back the record-long healthcare queues that built up during the Social Democrats' eight years in power. We have invested more than 25 billion on more healthcare beds and shorter healthcare queues. We have begun the establishment of a national healthcare brokerage so that those who are ill and get stuck in the region's healthcare queue can turn to another region or a private healthcare provider to receive the care that they are entitled to according to the healthcare guarantee.

Our focus on increased accessibility is having an effect. The negative trend that we have seen during previous parliamentary terms is now broken. We see that the healthcare queues are decreasing. The healthcare queues have decreased by 28 percent so far. That the development is now moving in the right direction is also a picture confirmed by expert agencies such as Socialstyrelsen and by SKR.

Continuing to focus on accessibility and shorter healthcare queues is a priority for the Christian Democrats. We want to do this through a sharper healthcare guarantee, several targeted initiatives to shorten healthcare queues, and a fully expanded national healthcare coordination so that more people receive care in a timely manner.

Thirdly, the Christian Democrats have a priority of a significantly stronger primary care and a family doctor for everyone, Mr. Speaker. More resources are needed for primary care and specifically for the health centers. We need investments in competence supply so that more are trained as general practitioners. Primary care needs to be allocated a larger share of the healthcare budget.

There should be a fixed healthcare contact with a named doctor as well as a cap on the number of patients at an individual health center, as well as for the individual district doctor. It would provide a significantly better working environment but, above all, create the continuity and knowledge of the patient that provides a secure approach and also leads to care of the highest quality.

A stronger primary care with stronger health centers and a regular doctor for everyone is therefore our third main priority moving forward.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats support most of the committee's proposal in today's report. But we also want to move for the approval of our and the Sweden Democrats' reservation 15, which concerns the issue of repealing the new gender identity law.

On July 1, 2025, the new law was introduced which makes it significantly easier to change gender. It became possible to change legal gender even if one does not have gender dysphoria. With the guidance from the National Board of Health and Welfare, which arrived in May last year, it would furthermore be sufficient with a single video call to change gender.

Many people in Sweden have questioned this new law. It was in the spring of 2024 that the Riksdag, at the initiative of the Moderaterna and Liberalerna, in broad consensus together with all red-green parties, decided on the new law that makes it significantly easier to change legal gender. Kristdemokraterna and Sverigedemokraterna were the only parties that reserved themselves then, and we still assess that the new law risks having serious consequences.

It was wrong to lower the age limit for legal gender reassignment to 16 years so that the possibility now covers children. I am well aware that there are red-green parties that would like to go even further. Lowering the age limit to 12 years is something that Miljöpartiet is pushing – the spokesperson Daniel Helldén has been clear about that. We will therefore have to see how this legislation might be changed with a red-green government after the election.

The problem with this is that professors and specialist doctors in psychiatry warn that the possibility of changing legal gender at a young age can lead to this self-perception being reinforced and becoming the first step towards hormone treatments and, ultimately, irreversible physical interventions that might otherwise not have been needed and that one may come to regret in adulthood. It has, in fact, been shown that gender dysphoria can subside or completely disappear after puberty. It is also therefore why it was wrong to lower the age limit.

We oppose, for the second time, the simplified assessment of gender identity in the new gender identity law. When the possibility of requiring a diagnosis of gender dysphoria before a legal gender change now disappears, and doctors are also not allowed to attach any weight to how long one has felt as belonging to the other gender, there is a risk that other explanations for how a patient feels and perceives themselves will be missed. The risk is great that these children will then not receive the support they need.

We know that mental ill-health, for example anxiety and autism, is common among people who suffer from gender dysphoria. It is common that they, especially in their teenage years, cannot fully relate to their body. Therefore, it is not responsible to affirm children and adolescents in their perceived gender identity through a gender transition without first having conducted a proper investigation.

For the third, the Christian Democrats also do not consider legal gender to be something that everyone should be able to freely choose even if there is no diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Whether one is a man or a woman is not something arbitrary. Our starting point is that the legal gender shall correspond with the biological gender. If one is to change legal gender, we believe it should require a medical investigation, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and an approval from Socialstyrelsen – just as it has functioned until last summer. Otherwise, it opens up for abuse, especially since a new personal identity number is assigned every time one requests to change legal gender.

Since the new law came into force, there have been recent examples of murderers, including a double murderer in Södertälje, who was sentenced to prison and in prison changed legal gender to subsequently be moved to a women's prison to serve the sentence among women. This is perceived by very many as offensive. Against the background of the new gender identity law and how easy it has become to change legal gender, a provision in the Prison Act was needed that placement in detention and prison as a starting point shall be based on the inmate's biological sex.

But that is not enough, because it was wrong to lower the age limit. It was wrong to make gender a question that only concerns self-identity, that is to say that legal gender reassignment does not require either any gender dysphoria or that one has experienced belonging to the opposite gender for a longer period. It is wrong that one is assigned a new personal identity number every time one requests to change legal gender.

The Riksdag needs to redo, correct, and tear up the new gender identity law. I therefore move for approval of reservation 15.

(Applause)

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! I hesitated whether I should request the floor and give more oxygen to the debate on the gender identity law, where the Christian Democrats and the Sweden Democrats want to reopen a question that was decided in the Riksdag two years ago. But I have had a small child in my vicinity who was born as a Johanna. Already in preschool, Johanna herself stated: You say that I am a girl, but you are wrong – I am a boy. And Johanna became Johan. So I request the floor for Johan's sake.

I know, and studies clearly show that gender dysphoria is a difficult diagnosis to live with. It is a long process to change gender, especially for a young person. Transgender people as a group run a greater risk of being subjected to violence, discrimination, and harassment than the population at large.

To repeal the Gender Identity Act is a bureaucratic issue that is about stopping the possibility for Johanna to become Johan in the bureaucracy, the population register, and the passport – and nothing else. The Gender Identity Act changes nothing in the medical process toward a gender reassignment. But it gives the individual the right to identify as what they perceive themselves to be before the medical gender reassignment is fully completed. It facilitates contacts with authorities when Johan does not have to start every conversation by explaining why he looks like a man but is named Johanna in the population register.

This is not about many individuals, but for the individuals it does concern, the right, the freedom and the security to be themselves is just as important as it is for all of us others.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Karin Sundin, for the remark and for choosing to tell us about this case.

I have a very great respect for the difficult situation that many trans people experience, and it is very important that society shows support for the vulnerable group. But I have also listened to transsexual people myself. I have spoken with parents of children who have undergone gender reassignment that has been successful – these are people in my vicinity. They still think it is perfectly reasonable that one is 18 years old when making such a far-reaching decision as the decision to change legal gender. They express that these are not simple questions. Therefore, this issue deserves to be taken very seriously and treated with full respect regardless of what standpoint one reaches.

The committee members describe it as if it were merely a bureaucratic issue. It is not that simple. These professors and doctors warn that the confirmation of gender identity that a legal gender change entails can reinforce and exacerbate gender dysphoria. Thus, the risk increases that one begins hormone treatments – precisely because the gender dysphoria has been exacerbated in a way that it would not have needed to be with another type of support.

That is why it is problematic to introduce this at such an early age. That is also why we continue to pursue the issue. It is not that it has been uncovered just because we have had a vote once in the Riksdag, but we take the liberty of pursuing it. We do that for the sake of these children.

(Applause)

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! No, this is not a simple question. But I want to be clear that all trans people whom I know welcome the change that was made in the legislation regarding legal gender. I want Sweden to be a society where we care for one another – regardless of where we come from, what religion we belong to, what biological gender we have and what legal gender we have. I want us to have legislation that views every human being as unique and valuable and does not treat people solely based on gender.

I am glad that we live in a time when a child born in the wrong body and named Johanna has the right and the opportunity to change gender and become Johan. We must not relativize or stigmatize people based on these narrow biological yardsticks, which throughout history have driven people out of the community and sometimes even into death.

I do not want the Sweden Democrats and the Christian Democrats to turn back the clock on the issue of trans people's right to live their lives fully. It is about being able to change legal gender. It changes nothing in the biological process that the member highlights. It is about being able, as far as possible, to live in the identity one perceives to have. I want Johan to have the right to be Johan in a legal sense. Johan and the others – these individuals are not many, but their rights deserve to be taken most seriously.

Therefore, I regret that we are turning this question over once again. But I do not think this should go unchallenged. Sweden deserves better than this.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we shall be afraid for one another. We shall safeguard a society where every human being is treated with dignity and respect. We emphasize all people's equal value regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or whatever it is we are talking about. We shall safeguard all of this.

It is because we cherish those such as Johan and other children that we must be careful about what legislation we decide on here in this chamber. That is why we must listen to the experts who say that it is problematic to let children change their legal gender because gender dysphoria can be exacerbated, which can lead to consequences that they would not have had to experience otherwise. That is why we must treat the issue with caution.

It does not help these children that a medical investigation is not conducted. It does not help these children that those who do not have gender dysphoria can change their legal gender freely just by saying so. It does not help these children that every time one changes their legal gender, one receives a completely new personal identity number, regardless of how many times one changes.

It was thoughtless legislation. We have the chance to redo it and do it right. Therefore, our proposal is on the table to scrap the new gender identity law.

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Christian Carlsson for the presentation. Let us begin with healthcare and then move on to the gender identity law.

The Chairman highlights the Christian Democrats' three most important issues within healthcare: increasing national responsibility, removing the illegal healthcare queues, and strengthening primary care. This was indeed the Christian Democrats' starting point in the 2022 election campaign as well, not least increasing national responsibility and removing the illegal healthcare queues.

Now, a full parliamentary term has passed with the Christian Democrats at the helm of Swedish health and medical care, but none of the important areas that needed a strengthened national responsibility have received it. We need a strengthened national responsibility for pharmaceuticals, vaccination, and screening. An inquiry was appointed for the spring of 2026, but no work has been started. We need a strengthened national responsibility for forensic psychiatry, but not even an inquiry has been appointed. We need a strengthened national responsibility for airborne ambulance care. Nor has any inquiry been appointed there either. We need a strengthened national responsibility for the supply of competence. There is a strategy, but they still do not take a holistic approach regarding those issues. They have not done any of this for four years.

During the election campaign, there was talk about the illegally long healthcare queues, which were to be removed. In February, there were 49,917 people standing in illegally long healthcare queues in Sweden. Certainly, the figure has decreased since the election, but almost 50,000 people in illegally long healthcare queues can be nothing other than a failure. When it comes to strengthening primary care and increasing the possibility of regular contact with a doctor, we received a report from Vård- och omsorgsanalys the other day showing that it is now 31 percent who have regular contact with a doctor. It is exactly as bad as when the Kristdemokraterna took over responsibility. How can it be like this?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We have begun a piece of work that moves Swedish healthcare in the right direction. That we have appointed the Care Responsibility Committee and now brought all parties on board on six areas where the state shall step forward and take greater responsibility is a step in our work for increased state governance. We have brought the Sweden Democrats on board with the Christian Democrats' line of abolishing today's 21 regions and letting the state take over the responsibility. We have taken several steps in area after area during this parliamentary term. When we took office, for example, there was no national plan for competence supply. We also had no national healthcare mediation. The work continues to increase state governance and responsibility, so that we can ensure that people receive care in time.

The healthcare queues were halved when the Alliance ruled. Then they more than doubled when the Social Democrats ruled. Now they have decreased by 28 percent, if one adjusts for seasonal variations. It is a big step in the right direction. It is due to the policy we pursue, with more resources. There will be more operations, shorter queues and more healthcare beds, and we are investing in the national healthcare brokerage. We will continue that work with a sharpened healthcare guarantee and continued investments. We have now succeeded in something that the red-green parties never succeeded with when they ruled.

Why haven't we received a stronger primary care? It is due to the dysfunctional system with 21 self-governing regions. We have invested more than 35 billion to strengthen the health centers and primary care. But it is not reflected in how the regions budget, because we cannot rely on the agreements with SKR. Therefore, we need stronger state governance so that the money reaches the health centers and patients can receive the care they need.

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! We need a better distribution of resources in this country. It is not about whether healthcare is managed by a director-general in Stockholm or not, it is about how the state distributes its money. If we can agree to distribute them in a different way, so that the regions in northern Sweden and our inland counties get a better economy to provide care, that is absolutely excellent. It is actually in our rural areas and sparsely populated areas where the great sparseness exists between the health centers, not here in Stockholm, where it is very close and dense between the health centers. It is not solved by having a person in Stockholm deciding on Swedish healthcare. No one should make me believe that, because I don't believe it for a second.

What I can state is that during these years, marginal changes and improvements have occurred, but we still have very many people in illegally long healthcare queues. We still have not achieved the national responsibility in any of these areas, because the Christian Democrats spent all their time and effort investigating a nationalization of healthcare when we actually could have directly investigated proposals for constitutional amendments. But the Healthcare Responsibility Committee was not even allowed to submit some such proposals. We could have achieved better accessibility within primary care.

Now I did not quite have time, Mr. Speaker, to go into this matter of legal gender. But I can only state that it is extremely important that we maintain the legislation we have. It has meant a great deal for those people who have now been given an opportunity to submit an application for a change of legal gender. The National Board of Health and Welfare issued a report this month which showed that they could not find any examples at all of applications that were not seriously intended.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is funny to listen to some of the country's regions – and also to the Center Party. They say: We cannot manage our task. The regions cannot manage the task. We must have more money from the state. We must constantly have more money to solve our task.

One must decide everything, and when we provide the funds, the state should not have the opportunity to control where that money goes. One should, so to speak, have free disposal when it comes to the state funds.

It doesn't work. We cannot continue in that way. It becomes unclear regarding accountability when it is the regions that are to decide how all the money should be used and when it is based on the state constantly providing the funds.

We need to make a change. The state needs to take responsibility for governing Swedish healthcare. It does not mean that all decisions need to be made in Stockholm. But it means that the state must be able to have the full responsibility for the financing and the full mandate to step in and ensure that we have a good preparedness within healthcare and that we have an equal and fair care in the country.

I think Sollefteå hospital is a crystal clear example of how dysfunctional the management of Swedish healthcare is today. It is the worst security policy situation since World War II. We are concentrating forces when it comes to military buildup in a town like Sollefteå. But we have regional politicians who sit and reduce the number of care beds and weaken the healthcare's preparedness. And the state cannot influence it. We have to hope that they want to have a hospital in Sollefteå.

It is not enough. It is time to realize what challenges Sweden faces. It is time to give the state the full responsibility, so that we can take responsibility for Sweden's preparedness.

(Applause)

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker! This debate concerns the priorities of healthcare. It is, of course, largely an ethical question, which then becomes a political one.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals want to take a national responsibility for all diseases and for all patients to receive good care regardless of postcode, regardless of age and regardless of background. This applies regardless of which disease it is, whether it is common or rare, whether it is physical or mental or which organ it happens to be in.

Healthcare should simply provide care based on need.

The priorities that the Swedish Riksdag has made decisions on are very good, but they would need to be clarified. Human dignity shall, just as now, be the most important thing. We shall not receive care based on position, age, or salary. People's needs shall be placed ahead of cost-effectiveness. We shall, of course, not treat cheap diseases first.

All of this is completely correct. But the healthcare's priorities, on the basis we already stand on, need to be deepened and concretized. What is preventive care, really? Does it actually receive the priority it should receive according to the current prioritization platform?

What role does pure digital care have in Swedish healthcare? The Liberals want to integrate digital care with all other care. Out-of-county placement shall be removed. High compensation is for people who actually physically receive their care somewhere else, not a person who sits on the sofa with digital care in their pocket. Then one is not out-of-county. Digital care is by definition local.

Mr. Speaker! We also think, in terms of priority, that this issue of receiving care and this issue of who should pay for the care can be completely different things. Of course, every person should receive care based on what he or she needs. But the tax money should primarily go to ordinary care, so to speak. The person affected by cosmetic surgery shall receive the care they need, but those funds need to come from the clinic that actually caused the suffering. There, we need to put much greater pressure on the beauty industry, that it needs to be insured for costs that arise. It is not the taxpayers' responsibility.

An additional priority for the Liberals is that the state must take greater responsibility to ensure that the best care is actually provided across the entire country – based on the best possible knowledge. National guidelines need to become governing. They cannot be an optional task. Nationally, we need to take much greater responsibility for screening and for ensuring that screening reaches people throughout the country. We need to follow knowledge and secure knowledge growth, so that we can change screening recommendations when more knowledge is available or, for all intents and purposes, when it is needed but does not exist.

Mr. Speaker! Rare diseases need to be specifically prioritized. When it comes to them, there is often much, much less knowledge. Consequently, one receives poorer care. The knowledge is too small. It is spread too poorly. And the patients are hit the hardest. This government has started the work in earnest when it comes to rare diseases. This applies to both strategy and steps toward funding. More is needed. The state and also the EU cooperation need to gear up when it comes to rare diseases and the patients who are affected by them.

Then we liberals want to prioritize self-determination for patients. One should not become deprived of freedom because one has become ill. One should be able to choose a personal doctor. That doctor should know you and follow you over time. We want to get rid of the focus on large-scale operations. More small-scale care should be introduced. It should, as mentioned, be digi-physical. One should be able to be met at a clinic, via a mobile team where someone comes to your home, or via digital care, depending on what suits you as a patient in the healthcare encounter. The human must come before the system.

As we see it, it is also a matter of self-determination that a woman should be able to choose to undergo her abortion at home if that is what she wants and feels most secure with. The law will soon allow this, and it is high time for this. It is also high time for the work that is ongoing to entrench the woman's right to decide for herself over her body and her future in the constitution. The right to abortion should not be able to be taken away with the push of a button in Sweden's Riksdag.

It is also self-determination – to continue the list – to avoid being subjected to innocence checks or completely unjustified interventions based on prejudices. This is what Swedish law now puts a stop to. This, too, is long overdue.

It is self-determination to have greater chances to try to become a parent if that is what one wants. Now we are strengthening the possibility for more IVF attempts.

We Liberals also prioritize knowledge. With this government, it has become easier to produce more knowledge and easier to disseminate that knowledge. We are taking steps toward the right to continuing education for healthcare employees. During the next parliamentary term, we Liberals want to legislate that the regions shall actively contribute to research.

Finally, we want to prioritize transparency, Mr. Speaker. SKR is an important employer organization. But for patients and taxpayers, it can at times become clumsy, incomprehensible, and non-transparent. The influence over the governance of welfare must be open, understandable, and fully democratically accountable. SKR needs to be reformed.

This also applies to the Legal Council, which handles applications for, for example, late abortions. The Council is difficult to follow today. Patients who, with the help of their healthcare personnel, apply for late abortions receive no justifications from the Council for the decisions that are made. They cannot reliably understand the Council's decisions. Nor can the healthcare services that help them. Therefore, the healthcare services cannot learn for the next time a patient needs its help.

Not even a structured follow-up occurs that allows the council's own members to have an opportunity to understand that the decisions are being made consistently over time.

This must change. Transparency is absolutely crucial.

In summary: The Liberals' priorities regarding Swedish healthcare are that it must be secure for every patient, that we must be able to control our own lives even when we become ill, and that knowledge must exist, reach out to the entire healthcare system, and constantly grow. And healthcare must always be better tomorrow than it was yesterday.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! This debate is intended to summarize the Riksdag's work on the priorities of health and medical care following the general motion period in the autumn. There are 172 motions in the report.

It is just one of several debates we have on healthcare based on the motions from this autumn. Earlier today, a debate was held here in the chamber regarding the organization of health and medical care. To be honest, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish one from the other.

The report concerns the care and treatment of various diseases and patient groups, knowledge management, screening, and difficult ethical considerations in healthcare.

Also, in this debate, it deserves to be reminded of the obvious: The priorities that the government and the Riksdag make in the area of health and medical care are largely influenced by how health and medical care is organized and financed. It is in exactly the same way that the priorities that each individual region or municipality makes are largely influenced by how the care is organized and financed.

It is not possible to debate healthcare priorities without pointing out that Swedish healthcare today is seriously underfunded. It is tough for municipalities and regions to make the finances balance after years of cost crises and cost increases.

Furthermore, healthcare is being starved by the Tidö government. That the government chooses to lower taxes by billions while not increasing state grants to municipalities and regions in line with inflation and healthcare's cost increases is a Tidö government priority.

In this report, among other things, women's healthcare and sexual and reproductive health are included. That the government, before 2026, chose to cut the state grant for women's health and maternity care by 600 million kronor is a Tidö government priority.

We have in recent days been able to follow Ekots' revelation of how the online doctor companies work to maximize the number of patients and minimize the number of minutes per patient. They therefore prioritize patients who do not actually need medical care but perhaps an Alvedon, and they charge for doctor visits that have not even taken place.

We have in recent days heard representatives for the government parties on the radio and here in the chamber distance themselves from this and say: This is appalling. But that is nothing new. That the government, in silence, year after year, has watched as tax money has flowed out of healthcare in the form of quick cash to private healthcare companies is a Tidö government priority.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats would have wanted to prioritize differently. With our budget, regions and municipalities would have received 13 billion more for welfare than they received with the government's budget, and it would have been 600 million more for maternity and women's healthcare.

We are clear that we want to regain democratic control over healthcare. We want a proper review of how the market has affected welfare and healthcare. We want sick people to be seen as patients and not as commodities sold by the piece on a healthcare market to the online doctor companies.

We want to change the law on freedom of establishment. New health centers should start where there is a need, not where venture capitalists see the greatest opportunity to make a profit from those who are sick, or perhaps from those who are least sick.

We want to expand 1177 with a national map service, without profit-seeking and without misleading advertising. We want healthcare to be there when you need it. We want the patient who has the greatest need to go first, not the patient who happens to live where there are the most health centers, not the one who can afford to pay for it and not the one who is the loudest. That is why we choose to prioritize measures and proposals that lead in that direction and nowhere else.

Mr. Speaker! Among the measures and proposals that we highlight in this report on the priorities of health and medical care, there are, among others, proposals regarding women's health.

Women of my age hear far too many stories about how women seeking care for menopausal symptoms are met with both lack of interest and ignorance in healthcare.

Quite a lot has happened positively in this area in recent years. When Lena Hallengren was still Minister for Social Affairs, she tasked the National Board of Health and Welfare with mapping the interventions for climacteric issues in healthcare and assessing how advice, support, and treatment can be improved.

That mapping became an important foundation for the work that has led to the fact that there are now national guidelines for care for menopausal symptoms. It is about time, and it is truly welcome. But for the national guidelines to have a real effect, so that women in menopause truly receive help when they seek care, it will require more healthcare staff and investments in competence development.

There are other areas within women's health where progress is slow. Since 2018, there have been national guidelines for endometriosis. This is very good, because endometriosis affects approximately one-tenth of all women, of whom half experience great suffering. For those listening who may not recognize what I am talking about, I should mention that it is often brushed off as menstrual pain, but it is when the uterine lining grows outside the uterus. It is exactly as painful as it sounds.

The national guidelines were welcome, but unfortunately, they have not resulted in any revolution in the care of the women, often teenagers, who seek help for severe menstrual pain. We Social Democrats believe that it is high time to follow up on the guidelines.

Menopause and endometriosis are two important areas that would need more focus, more prioritization, and more resources. They are two areas that in themselves are sufficient arguments for not saving 600 million on women's health in the way the Tidö government does.

Mr. Speaker! Another area I particularly want to highlight is the many rare diseases. They are increasing. Or more accurately said: We have a development where more and more rare health conditions can be identified and treated. The National Board of Health and Welfare has a knowledge database containing approximately 300 descriptions of rare health conditions, but we know that there are thousands.

Development is moving fast. This means that healthcare faces a major challenge. The rarity of the diseases themselves means that it concerns few patients, and they are spread across the country. On the one hand, it is difficult to have competence in line with the ongoing development and the increasing knowledge, and on the other hand, it is difficult to organize care and treatment without it becoming extremely costly.

We Social Democrats welcome that the government has commissioned the development of a national strategy in this area, but we already know today that it will not be enough. Sweden needs to mobilize to meet the developments. As a first step, a national coordination function would be needed to coordinate and stimulate the establishment of centers for rare diagnoses at the country's university hospitals.

Furthermore, another system was needed for the pricing and negotiation of medicines, but that is the subject of one of the other debates concerning health and medical care.

In summary, Mr. Speaker: Priorities within health and medical care are difficult. There is much that would need to be prioritized, and I naturally stand behind all the Social Democrats' motions. But I move for approval of reservation 9.

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

It is truly a relief, and I was pleased to hear that the member is concerned about what is happening today with the online pharmacy. Digital care is incredibly good and a very important part of healthcare when it is used in a sensible way and integrated into healthcare. It gives people an opportunity to receive care in a simpler way while maintaining continuity.

As the member says, there is a growing and protracted concern that digital healthcare today is instead, to some extent, used to drain regions of the money they need. One gets quick and short visits that in practice do not help people to become particularly much healthier. Digital healthcare has great advantages but also very great disadvantages.

I have four questions for the member. They are all quite short, so they should be easy to remember.

My first question is: Is Anders Henriksson a social democrat?

My second question is: Is Anders Henriksson the one who is chairman of Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR?

My third question is: Is Anna-Lena Hogerud a social democrat?

My fourth and final question is: Is she the chairperson of SKR's, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner's, healthcare delegation?

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! That was quite a beautiful display in the department of rhetorical questions! Yes, that is how it is; those the member mentions are in the management of health and medical care in Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner.

When it comes to how the online medical companies have organized themselves in health and medical care, it can be stated that it is an area where the regions would have benefited greatly from support in the form of legislation and guidelines from a government that cares.

Instead, the regions have for many years tried to work and keep pace with the development that has occurred with various online doctor companies that have established themselves in different regions. We have a system that is not fully capable of meeting this … yes, I don't know what one should call it – completely indecent exploitation of our publicly funded healthcare system.

It would have been necessary to have a government that had said in a clearer way that this is not okay. It is not okay that we have companies that can, in this way, invoice for care that is not performed. It would have been needed, not least, more resources for Ivo, which frankly has clearly formulated that they do not manage their mandate in all areas, so that the agency would have had better conditions to follow up that the law is complied with in the way it should be complied with.

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Madam Speaker! I stand here and do not really know what to say, but thank you, member, for the stumbling pudding!

I cannot make sense of this. How can a Social Democratic Member of Parliament stand and shout at the government and at bourgeois members in the Swedish Parliament about this regulatory framework? I am reading at the same time that it is the two Social Democratic members in SKR's healthcare delegation and, ultimately, SKR's board that make the decisions regarding the compensation for digital out-of-county care.

Everything that is happening now and that we hear about on Sveriges Radios Eko and see on the news regarding how the incentives are now steering healthcare incorrectly is a Social Democratic responsibility. Or isn't it?

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! I can state that we are now seeing an excellent example of a government that does not want to take responsibility for a healthcare system that gives private companies free rein over tax money, but instead blames municipalities and regions.

We have legislation that governs healthcare. We need to have a proper review of what the private companies have entailed within the various sectors of welfare, not least in the healthcare area, where in the last few days we have seen quite clear examples of how the legislation can be exploited. They invoice for care that is not even provided and ensure that they maximize the number of patients a doctor can manage during a day.

I think that a responsible government ensures that there is proper supervision and a proper review and ensures that the taxpayers' money is used in the right way, that is to say that it goes to health and medical care based on the portal paragraph of the health and medical care legislation that those who need care shall receive care and those who need care the most shall have priority. That legislation is not being complied with today, and it is actually a task for the government and the Riksdag to ensure that it is changed.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the Sweden Democrats' and the Christian Democrats' reservation 15 under point 8. It concerns the new gender identity law.

I will begin there, Madam Speaker. Sweden has pursued an extreme gender transition policy. The latest revision of the Gender Recognition Act was quite clearly a step in the wrong direction. It made it easier to access irreversible surgical procedures on healthy tissue. It is therefore not just about law here.

One chose to strengthen a system that confirms and releases individuals who would otherwise need a diagnosis and care. One chose to make the law easier to abuse for persons who do not actually have an authentic transidentity.

There are also many who receive this experimental care on incorrect grounds and then regret it. It could have been even worse with the red-greens, so let me remind you of how the Government Offices' referral looked before the change of government. Then, those who have turned 12 years old would be allowed to change legal gender without an assessment. No permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare would be required to undergo surgery either. And perhaps most reckless: Children who have turned 15 years old would be allowed to undergo surgery on the genitals.

So that is how it could have looked. Now it didn't turn out quite as bad, thank goodness. But we have still reached Sweden's most progressive gender identity law, and it has already had an effect: A man who murdered his two children had to change his name and legal gender in order to subsequently be moved to a women's prison. The Prison and Probation Service said that she shall be placed in a suitable facility so that she shall be given the opportunity to reintegrate into society.

The Sweden Democrats were critical of the law from the beginning. The only thing that was perhaps a bit positive was precisely that the Prison and Probation Service would be to base placement on biological sex. Now it stands, at least, completely clear that it is the legal sex that is completely dominant and completely guiding.

We Sweden Democrats consider, on our part, that it should be biological sex and biological and medical starting points that also determine legal gender, and not subjective experiences. For us, the way forward is very clear: We shall tear up the new gender identity law.

I heard in a previous exchange that those on the red-green side argued that we would, in that case, turn back the clock and go back in time – to 2025. It is not so far back. Furthermore, I do not mean that this is going back in time, but rather the opposite. We are moving forward. We are leaving behind a failed ideology with healthcare that is not based on evidence, which is experimental and which actually risks the future for very many young people.

We Sverigedemokrater take this very seriously, and we do so with the absolute greatest empathy for those who suffer from gender dysphoria. The conclusion is that these people shall receive a thorough investigation and all the care they need instead of being channeled through the system as quickly as possible.

Madam Speaker! This is not to become a repetition of the budget debate or even the debate that was conducted here earlier. It is as the previous speaker said: We have very broad considerations here. I still cannot avoid mentioning perhaps the most important prioritization, namely the state's role as the primary authority, which the Sverigedemokraterna and Kristdemokraterna want to oppose.

In connection with me mentioning that, I must also mention the other side: the regions and the regions' priorities. The quality of care varies greatly from region to region. I cannot throw everyone under the bus here, but that is also somewhat what is the problem. It should not vary, rather one should receive good care regardless of where one lives.

Let me take Region Stockholm, my home region, as an example. I have mentioned this before, Madam Speaker, but I repeat it.

Just here in Region Stockholm, the language interpretation costs amount to approximately 160 million kronor. Then we have what is called the care need index, which a few years ago cost Region Stockholm approximately 1 billion kronor. Of that sum, approximately 400 million kronor were paid out based solely on the variable "foreign-born". One could not save all the money there, but it is quite clear what one is spending money on. It can be called a prioritization.

The cost for the care of illegal [immigrants], that is, people who are not even supposed to be here in the country, amounts to millions of kronor annually – approximately 233 million kronor in Region Stockholm alone. Pre-circumcision rituals on children, that is, non-medical circumcision of young boys, is also a multi-million cost – believe it or not.

Furthermore, we have Islamist study associations and menstruation art in the subway; that has been relevant. I can mention Norrlandsoperan and the Concert Hall. My colleague Jessica Stegrud mentioned this earlier, but I can just as well continue here. It is about approximately 25 million kronor and 160 million kronor respectively. This can be contrasted with Sollefteå Hospital, which perhaps one should have prioritized instead, regarding the regions' priorities.

Wind turbines are bought and sold with multi-million losses – approximately 60 million kronor for Gävleborg in this case.

Participation in Almedalen Week has cost hundreds of thousands of kronor. The Hbtqi-diploma is not free, I can inform you about that. Gender mainstreaming is also something that is being dealt with.

Why not conclude with the best example? I am thinking of a cloned spruce for 8 million kronor.

With this, I want to say two things. For the first: More money in a system that functions poorly does not necessarily result in better quality. For the second: The state grants must also continue to be conditional in order to be effective and so that we citizens receive better care for the money.

Madam Speaker! Otherwise, I stand behind the committee's response in the report. I would, however, finally mention the national strategy for cardiovascular health. The Sweden Democrats were previously quite alone in requesting a national strategy for this. We welcome that more parties are taking it up in the report. Above all, we welcome that the government has picked up the proposal and has now tasked Socialstyrelsen with producing a national action plan. We are very happy about that. We are also proud that in our budget for 2026, we have a continued investment of an additional 500 million kronor in the cancer area. This means a total of 1.5 billion kronor during 2026.

I am not first on the speaking list, Madam Speaker. I otherwise refer to my Tidö colleagues, who have accounted for the report in an exemplary manner.

(Applause)

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! This debate is about all sorts of things; it feels like we are repeating the previous debate.

I can begin by saying that the Stockholm region went approximately 5 billion plus 2025, so that you know that. It ticked in very well.

I will quickly say what Vänsterpartiet wants to do in healthcare. We did that, in any case, last time as well.

Healthcare has suffered from chronic underfunding for decades, and the current government has not lifted a finger to alleviate the economic crisis in the regions. Vänsterpartiet will push that the state must take greater responsibility for the funding of healthcare and inject more resources into the regions, specifically into primary care.

The state subsidies must be indexed, and they must be long-term. We must have a long-term policy – we cannot continue with tinkering here and there.

A new report from Vård- och omsorgsanalys shows that a third now have a fixed doctor contact. It is an incredibly poor figure. We want to double the number of doctors at the health centers. We want to see that everyone gets a fixed doctor. It is a key for a significantly expanded education, and then one must also train more.

Enough about that – I will return to our priorities in another way. I will touch on a bit about children and young people.

According to the Public Health Agency, a quarter of the country's children and young people feel tense or nervous. The alarm bells are ringing. The growing mental ill-health has several causes that interact with one another.

School is the single most important part of this. That is where one should be able to see one's future and receive education and knowledge, but that is not the case today. The school we have today is deeply segregated and fuels mental ill-health. The future is uncertain given the global situation. If you come from an immigrant family, you live with a special anxiety: Will we be allowed to stay, and why do politicians not want us here? Why are we singled out as a problem?

Sweden has 700,000 poor people, and it is clear that it has an impact. Early interventions make a difference. Completing school is a key factor for a functioning adult life. School must be prioritized in a completely different way.

Too many children and young people do not receive the right help in time. The queues are enormous in different places. School health services must be strengthened, and we have done that in our budget. That there is a functioning school health service – that there are doctors, psychologists, and nurses on site – is essential. Today, school health services are organized in completely different ways. Some schools call in staff on a consultancy basis. It is insane.

The Children's Ombudsman, in connection with the report *There has always been violence, i.e., when there have been problems*, has conducted in-depth interviews and conducted a survey with children and young people who are deprived of their liberty. It has been observed that the prevalence of neuropsychiatric diagnoses among children and young people who are deprived of their liberty is very high.

If there had been better preventive work, these children and young people would have been caught. Then one could have done something with them at a much earlier stage instead of, as now, putting children in prison when they are 13 years old. All referral bodies, including the Council on Legislation, are against this. We think it is a very bad idea. Here, one needs to prevent.

One thing that worries us is the extreme medication of children when it comes to anxiety and so on. It has gone up extremely much. I do not understand why more parties are not joining in. We have, among other things, submitted motions. Something must be done here. Something is wrong.

The number of diagnoses is also increasing astronomically. In some way, these things are connected. The school says that one must have a diagnosis to get help. In that way, I believe it can spiral out of control. Barely half of the children who have problems that could indicate ADHD or autism receive interventions in school. Then it is clear that the parents try to get help in different ways.

We must ensure that children and young people receive support and help early. We must have a manifesto for children who suffer as badly as many children do.

I am moving on to a completely different topic. Cancer is an issue that we are affected by, to some extent or another, one way or another. Survival in cancer has increased in all socioeconomic groups over the last 20 years. The gap between the groups remains, however, and it has not been affected. If survival had been as high for everyone as in the groups with the most survivors, approximately 3,000 lives could have been saved per year. Highly educated people get access to treatments, help, and conversations to a greater extent than people with lower education levels. This is a class issue.

We want the government to mandate the appropriate authority to, in cooperation with the six regional cancer centers, develop proposals for measures to increase equality within cancer care – it is needed.

Every year, 3,000 women fall ill with gynecological cancer. We must become significantly better at screening and get it started in a different way across the entire country.

Even the clinical trials, or the clinical studies, must increase so that women with gynecological cancer can receive better help. 80 percent of all those who receive a breast cancer diagnosis are over 50 years old. At the same time as breast cancer becomes more common, the chance of surviving the disease increases. The chance of being cured increases, quite simply. This is, of course, about improved treatment and mammography. Approximately half of all cases of breast cancer are detected precisely during screening with mammography. Three-quarters of the tumors are detected in women who are over 55 years old. Two out of three cases in the age category 40–74 are detected thanks to screening.

Together with the previous government, we introduced free mammography; we thought that was good. The age limit is based on the Socialstyrelsen's recommendation regarding age limits. This has been justified by the fact that it cannot be proven that breast cancer screening for women over 74 years of age reduces mortality among the elderly. The problem is that there are hardly any studies on breast cancer screening for this group. In that case, one has not taken a position on other data or called for new data or pilot projects. Vänsterpartiet regrets this. But now Socialstyrelsen has been tasked by the government to look into this, which we think is good. Against the background that average life expectancy has increased in this age group, it is extremely important that these women can be captured. We cannot have age discrimination within cancer care.

Prostate cancer is Sweden's most common cancer. Increased screening is therefore extremely important.

A completely different area that must also be highlighted is sepsis, which was previously called blood poisoning. The disease has a rapid and serious course. According to the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare's cause of death register, approximately 860 Swedes died as a result of sepsis in 2021. But a study by Karolinska Institutet shows something completely different: that 8,500 Swedes die from sepsis every year. Knowledge about this common disease, for which one must receive immediate care, must be spread throughout the entire health and medical care system.

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to move for approval of the Center Party's reservation 16 under point 9 on euthanasia.

We are now debating the Social Affairs Committee's motion report on priorities within health and medical care. It is a rather diverse area, and I intend to comment on several different parts within it.

Let me begin with the area of screening. It is one of the areas where the Care Responsibility Committee proposed that a national responsibility was needed to increase equality across the country, and we in the Center Party fully share that conclusion. It is not reasonable that access to screening for different diseases varies depending on where in the country one is located or who one is.

In the extent that we have age limits in the screening, they must be supported by facts, not by a lack of facts. But that is the case today within the screening for breast cancer. Centerpartiet is extremely critical of today's upper age limit, which is not based on scientific findings but on a lack of scientific findings. It is not reasonable that one stops the screening for breast cancer after the age of 74 because there is a lack of population studies that can show how effective this is. We know that women over 74 are also affected by breast cancer and that the risk factors one has carried through life remain even in older age.

Breast cancer screening also needs to transition to becoming more individual- and risk-based so that those in the risk zone are called with more frequent intervals than those who do not have the same high risk. It is a significantly better starting point than strict age limits.

Madam Speaker! What is even more remarkable within the screening for breast cancer is the obvious discrimination that occurs against women with disabilities. It has been shown that women with intellectual disabilities or autism undergo fewer screenings and that tumors are therefore detected later and that more of them die from cancer. The reason for this is often that the invitations are not noticed. Sometimes they end up in an LSS residence without being opened, and among the guardians, 45 percent state that they do not consider it to be their responsibility to monitor. The National Board of Health and Welfare has shown in a report that the risk of dying from breast cancer is six times greater for a woman with an intellectual disability than for other women. This is completely unacceptable.

Naturally, it cannot be like this, and therefore it is good that the government has now finally, a year after the Vårdansvarskommitténs final report, appointed an inquiry into the screening activities. But it should have happened a long time ago.

Madam Speaker! Another important area addressed in the report concerns sexual and reproductive health. For many couples, the dream of a child is one of the most important things they have in a relationship, but for many of those couples, that dream is very difficult to achieve. For various reasons, it can be difficult to have a child of one's own, and therefore the possibility of IVF has become increasingly important. The regions' general offer is three free attempts, and then one is referred to private clinics where one has to pay with one's own money. In the autumn, we saw in Kalla f aktas investigative report Barnmakarna examples of how people's desperation is ruthlessly exploited.

Centerpartiet has long demanded that the number of free attempts must increase and that even those who already have a child should be given the opportunity for IVF to be able to have a sibling. Now the government, late in the day, has landed on that they want to increase the number of IVF attempts. It is obviously a good start, but it is not enough. It should also be possible to get IVF for those who already have a child.

In 2025, only 97,500 children were born in Sweden, which is the lowest figure in 23 years. It is naturally worrying, and the least we can do to improve that figure is to help those who actually want to have children as much as possible.

An area that in many ways is difficult to debate, is complicated and affects us deeply, is the question of euthanasia.

Centerpartiets position on that issue is that all people have the right to decide over their own lives, receive the best possible care, and be allowed to die in dignified ways. In cases of painful and incurable illness that causes permanent and unbearable suffering, those who wish should be able to decide over their own death in an orderly manner. In such situations, there should be a right to active euthanasia.

The government should therefore appoint an inquiry with a mandate to analyze how active euthanasia can be introduced in Sweden in a way that involves setting clear boundaries for when such euthanasia may be granted.

Madam Speaker! Lastly, I want to strongly demand the rejection of the Christian Democrats' and the Sweden Democrats' reservation regarding tearing up the Swedish gender identity law. In February, a report from the Socialstyrelsen showed that 1,500 cases have been submitted since the law was enacted and that there are no signs that the law is being misused. On the other hand, it has meant an enormous amount for many people who, thanks to the new law, have finally been able to find security in their identity. They are also extremely grateful to the six parties that argued for and voted for the law here in the Swedish Riksdag.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with women's healthcare. Despite the fact that equal care is a national goal, there are still large differences in how women's diseases are detected, investigated, and treated. Many women have to wait a long time for diagnosis and treatment. Many also describe that their symptoms are not taken seriously enough.

A clear example is endometriosis. The disease affects many, but it still takes an average of seven to eight years to get the correct diagnosis. It shows that knowledge needs to be strengthened and that care needs to become more systematic. Therefore, we want a national quality register for endometriosis to be established. We also want to see a quality register for abortion care and reinforced research on women's diseases, including endometriosis, PMS, and menopausal symptoms.

Maternity care is also an area where clear improvements are required. Better continuity in care before, during, and after childbirth is needed. The woman giving birth shall have influence over her care and over who shall be present during the birth. We want to see more places of study in the midwife program, better conditions for midwifery research, and greater opportunities for home care and home visits when it is medically safe. Knowledge of birth injuries also needs to be strengthened.

Against that background, we are critical that the government has reduced the investments in women's healthcare and maternity care by almost one-third in the budget. It unfortunately shows that the government has not chosen to prioritize women's healthcare and maternity care in its budget.

Madam Speaker! The number of cancer patients is expected to increase during the coming decades. This places demands on the entire care chain, from early detection to treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care. In order to improve the possibilities for early detection, the screening programs need to be developed. More must be reached by screening, and participation needs to increase. Better conditions are also needed in primary care to detect cancer early, as it is there that cancer is identified many times.

We also believe that cancer care needs a clearer level structuring. Advanced procedures should be performed where the competence and experience are greatest. National quality registers should be used more systematically to monitor results and contribute to better decisions on how care is organized. As cancer care becomes more specialized, the need for coordination around the patient also increases. Therefore, contact nurses are an important function that needs to be expanded. We also want to see more clinical trials in Sweden and increased state grants to meet the growing costs in cancer care.

The regional cancer centers and the standardized care pathways have improved cancer care. It shows that national coordination and clear methods of work can yield results. That experience should also be taken into account in other areas.

Madam Speaker! A decisive success regarding Swedish cancer care has been the national cancer strategy. The strategic way of working with cancer that we have applied since 2009 has been an inspiration for the European work with their strategy – the EU Commission's beating cancer plan.

Now we in Miljöpartiet, just as has been done in Europe, want to move forward and, in the same unifying strategic manner, work on developing a national cardiovascular strategy.

In Sweden, 2.2 million inhabitants live with cardiovascular diseases. It is the most common cause of death in the country and causes nearly one-third of all deaths. A unified strategic effort is needed here, which includes the preventive work to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, primary care's work for early detection and treatment, specialized care within cardiovascular diseases as well as research in the field. We therefore move that the government be tasked to develop a national strategy for cardiovascular diseases. I therefore move for approval of reservation 10.

Madam Speaker! For people with rare diagnoses, the care is often uneven and fragmented. Expertise is vulnerable, and access to the right care differs between different parts of the country. Therefore, we must move forward with a national strategy for rare diagnoses and diseases.

Socialstyrelsen has submitted a proposal for a strategy to the government. Much of the content is good, but the work needs to be taken further as it is currently stalling a bit. More concrete measures are needed regarding ensuring access to care, support, and treatment all the way through. In order to realize the national strategy for rare diagnoses, we need to appoint a national coordinator for rare health conditions.

We must also ensure that access to orphan drugs is improved. That work has proceeded far too slowly, which has devastating consequences for people with rare diagnoses, who in the worst cases are forced to travel abroad to gain access to life-saving drug treatment.

Madam Speaker! Medical technology development is moving fast. New treatments and medicines provide new opportunities but also lead to difficult decisions regarding implementation, resource allocation, patient groups, and so on. Such decisions must be made in a transparent and professional manner and with a clear anchoring in the healthcare's ethical principles.

That is why we believe that regional ethics councils can be an important support in healthcare. They should consist of healthcare professions and be complemented with expertise in ethics, law, and patient perspectives. They should also have a clear connection to Smer, the State Medical Ethics Council, in order to create a more uniform application throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! We also raise several issues within the area of sexual and reproductive health and rights. This includes, among other things, the need for international limits on how many children a donor may father, a review of the rules for when the person conceived through donation can receive information about the donor's identity, and a modernization of the abortion law so that it covers everyone who can become pregnant.

In conclusion, I want to bring up something that we in Miljöpartiet, in like manner with C, have advocated for, namely that the question of active euthanasia should be properly investigated. It is a difficult question with great ethical and legal consequences. Precisely because of that, it needs to be handled through a serious and broad investigation where all different aspects are weighed against each other and where the individual's right to their own choices shall be strong.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet's proposals in the report aim to make healthcare more equitable, more knowledge-based, and better coordinated. We want to strengthen women's healthcare and maternity care, develop cancer care, develop a national cardiovascular strategy, and improve care for people with rare diagnoses. These are concrete proposals for a healthcare system that better meets the patients' needs.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! What the previous speaker from Miljöpartiet said here in the speaker's chair becomes a good starting point for what I intend to speak about. It is a member who wants to do two different things at the same time and go both forward and backward.

On the one hand, one wants to strengthen women's healthcare, but on the other hand, one wants to remove the word woman from healthcare. Somewhere one must know what is up and what is down; I believe that is something one can demand of a member of Parliament. But I will come to that in my speech.

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 15. I am very pleased that we can debate that reservation today. I believe that this issue has been debated far too little and that far too little information has been provided.

The members who feel secure in where they stand on this issue and who want reservation 15 to be dismissed should still be able to feel secure in discussing, debating, and informing about this. My perception is that that security is not always so strong among those who support the new legislation. The reservation aims to repeal the parliamentary decision from April 2024 regarding the new gender identity law. It is that reservation that I move for approval.

Many decisions are made in this chamber, Madam Speaker. Some wise decisions are made, and some less wise decisions are made. The decision on the gender identity law is one of the least wise decisions that has been made in this chamber during the nearly 20 years that I have served here.

Many, perhaps most, decisions that are hammered out here are about ideological views and judgments. In those cases, it is naturally the party and the ideology one represents that determines whether one considers a decision to be good or bad.

And yes, there are absolutely ideological arguments for why the gender identity law is bad. I will return to that, Madam Speaker. But first and foremost, it is a law that contradicts common sense – or against science and proven experience, if you will. It is based on the idea that gender is something one can choose. Even though those who support this law do not usually want to express it, that is precisely what is stated in the law.

So, one should be able to choose. Tomorrow I can choose to be a woman, and when I am tired of being a woman, I can choose to become a man. If one were to ask people outside this house if this is a reasonable perception, most would shake their heads.

Madam Speaker! One can naturally believe what one wants. I have no problem at all with that. But the fact is that there are two sexes. The fact is also that the sex one is born into is the sex one dies as. One cannot do anything about that. And the belief that one can change sex is a delusion.

Then one might wonder: Why is this a problem? We all suffer from delusions to some extent, and it is surely one's right to believe what one wants? It is, as I was mentioning, of course one's right to believe in whatever. And for most of us, delusions are not a major problem but something we can live with in everyday life. For some individuals, however, delusions become a major problem, and it can even make a good life impossible. For these individuals, care must of course be available to help create as good a quality of life as possible. If it involves confirming the delusion, the treating healthcare staff must assess. But if we let delusions about reality govern legislation and the exercise of authority, it becomes dangerous to society. This naturally applies to all delusions, not just the one that one can choose one's gender.

I believe that most of us realize that if so-called anti-vaxxers had run the Public Health Agency during the pandemic, it would have hit society hard. But, and this is important, Madam Speaker, it is of course the case that the anti-vaxxers are entitled to their opinion. I will, however, always argue against it.

One cannot choose one's gender. One cannot choose one's age. One cannot choose one's parents or a lot of other things. One is born with one's genetic heritage and one's gender. One is born at the time one is born. Then, of course, one can take power over one's life and influence and change the world and oneself to the best of one's ability – absolutely.

Different people are more or less satisfied with their gender, their parents, or the timing of their birth. But it is a part of life to be more or less satisfied with one's lot. Sometimes one may need help with that. Often one manages to handle it on one's own, more or less.

When we handle our interpersonal relationships, there are certain things we need to agree on. Age and gender are two examples of that. It is fundamental for a functioning society, both in small-scale life as well as in legislation. It is so fundamental that it is strange that one should have to say it here in the Swedish Riksdag.

Then the question arises: How could we end up so crazy in an issue that, when explained to people, the vast majority think is wrong? The answer to how we could end up here naturally contains many components, because it is a complicated issue; that must be admitted. But briefly, it can be described with a few points.

First and foremost, it is a societal change that has gone under the radar. Most have not seen it happening, and those who have seen it have thought: It doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect me. Let it go! Unfortunately, it has been a hidden issue in the general debate. That is why I am so glad, Madam Speaker, that I get to bring it up again here. Hopefully, it can mean some kind of change.

Those who have pushed for this change with the new law that was adopted two years ago have had a deliberate strategy to talk as little as possible about gender reassignment itself. They have tried to link it to the rights of LGBT people. And because we, thank God, live in a country and a time where most people think that the rights of LGBT people are important, people have swallowed this without understanding what it implies.

When it has finally become a debate, albeit far too little debate, the next step in the supporters' strategy has arrived. Then it is about threats and hate and shaming. One begins to be questioned, and one is called homophobic and transphobic and other invectives.

There are certainly homophobes and transphobes among those who argue against gender being elective. But in the Swedish debate, I would still like to assert, Madam Speaker, that it is not there that the opponents of the gender identity law can be found. It is first and foremost the Swedish women's movement that has stood for the opposition to the gender identity law, and there it is difficult to find homophobia and transphobia.

This mixing up of the idea that gender is something elective with the self-evident right to love whoever one wants – or to dress as one wants or put on makeup as one wants – has been a foul but successful strategy. And what is truly sad is that the supporters have taken the entire LGBT collective hostage in an issue that is not about LGBT people's rights. It is even sadder that they use strategies such as threats, hate, and shaming against those they see as their opponents. These are strategies that have actually been used for a long time against precisely those who have worked for LGBT people's rights.

That hbt-people are being taken hostage unfortunately affects hbt-people now, not just on an individual level but also on a societal level, as those who actually do not want hbt-people to have their self-evident rights use the criticism of gender as an optional choice to push back hbt-people's rights. The backlash that affects the entire collective is naturally primarily the responsibility of the reactionary forces who have never wanted to accept that one is allowed to love whoever they want. But those who mixed up the issues from the beginning also bear a heavy responsibility for that development.

This, then, is briefly about the gender identity law, how it is based on misconceptions, how it has been possible for it to pass through the Swedish Riksdag, and furthermore how the ideas it is based on have gained traction in Swedish authority exercise within virtually all areas of society.

Madam Speaker! That we have legislation based on faith and not on knowledge, based on delusion and not on science, is naturally reason enough to repeal it. But there are other heavy arguments against the law that we adopted here two years ago and which now applies.

There is, in fact, a reason why the collective Swedish women's movement fought against and still fights against this legislation and a lot of unreasonable phenomena in society which, although they are not included in the legislation, are based on the same misconceptions and are driven by the same groups and individuals.

I stumbled upon this question myself a number of years ago, when I noticed a strange debate on social media. It was about how in healthcare – and now the MP from Miljöpartiet can listen closely – one should avoid the word woman. It was a party colleague of mine who spoke out and pointed out the absurdity of stopping calling women women. This party colleague was then subjected to exactly threats and hate on social media.

What the women's movement saw was, naturally, that if the concept of woman is hollowed out, then the work for equality is hindered. Without women, no women's movement. That is also why it is predominantly women who are fighting back. It is equality on all levels in society that is threatened. Economic, political, and sporting influence in all forms for women is threatened.

For the women's movement, a social analysis based on the understanding of the gender power structure is completely central. It is no stranger than that for the workers' movement it is completely central to have a class analysis to understand how society functions or, for that part, to be very precise with the concept of the worker. These are completely central concepts for the workers' movement in the same way as gender is a central concept for the women's movement.

Men can laugh all the way to the bank, the boardroom, or the podium. It is not male boxers who protest at IOK when they discover they have been paired against four women on the way to the gold medal. It is women who experience discomfort when their spaces, such as changing rooms, are not perceived as safe. It is women who feel threatened if they are forced to shower with men. It is also only women who have ended up in legal disputes when they have questioned that this occurs.

That the gender order is biological is something one cannot get around by letting people choose something that cannot be chosen. It is, as said, so obvious that it is strange to have to say it.

The development that led to the unfortunate decision we made two years ago threatens both girls and women, and it is important to note that it threatens girls and women regardless of their sexual orientation, Madam Speaker. All girls and women are threatened by this development, and in order to primarily satisfy a small group of men, half of humanity is being thrown under the bus.

It is naturally also a risk that it will become much easier to argue that sexual orientation is something one can choose if it can be argued that gender is something one can choose. If one can choose, there will always be someone who thinks you have made the wrong choice, so in order to primarily satisfy a small group of men, one throws, as I have previously stated, the entire LGBT community under the bus. I would say that it is a great risk one is taking in the LGBT movement.

There are further arguments for why this development is dangerous. In my view, it is a development that undermines democracy.

I belong to those who believe that popular movements are an important part of Swedish democracy, but if small, well-organized groups can take over old organizations with a good reputation and standing and use them for new purposes, we risk the trust in Folkrörelsesverige. This could apply to organizations such as RFSU, RFSL and Amnesty International, and there are more examples.

We are looking at the organization Amnesty International. Everyone knows that it is on the right side. The organization was formed to support political prisoners and to work so that people would not be imprisoned for their opinions, but now it works to create political prisoners and imprison them for their opinions – and that is precisely what is happening today with women who fight for their rights.

Experience from our surrounding world also indicates that the ideology that this unfortunate legislation is a result of has several goals that they want to move forward with. It is not just about freely choosing gender, but the same groups have adopted the ultra-liberal ideology of freedom of choice. They want, among other things, to legalize prostitution and surrogacy. One should at least know a bit where one is headed.

As has been said, there are many and weighty arguments against this unfortunate legislation, both in terms of pure common sense and of an ideological nature, and there are very few and weak arguments for it. One of the few weak arguments for this unfortunate decision was that it would improve the situation for children and young people with mental health problems.

Much suggests that it is the opposite. Today, there is no scientific evidence that young people with identity problems and mental diagnoses would feel better if their delusions are confirmed; there is much that indicates it is the opposite. It is also important to remember that a healthcare scandal regarding the treatment of children and young people actually occurred under the old legislation. However, it was a result of the same distorted perception of reality that led to the legislation that should now be changed.

For the sake of clarity, I nevertheless want to point out that I think the old legislation, which made it possible for adults to change their legal gender after a thorough investigation and a government decision, was good. It had a reasonable balance between society's need for order and a small group of individuals' special needs. This can, however, never be a matter of freedom of choice, because then we go completely astray, and that is what we have done now.

That everyone should be treated with respect is important, and that one should be allowed to love whomever one wants is a given. That one has the right to believe that they suffer from electricity allergy or were born in the wrong body is one thing, but that society should subordinate itself to that belief is another. When the Radiation Safety Authority or the National Board of Health and Welfare do not find any scientific evidence for electricity allergy, it does not mean that one lacks respect for those people who consider themselves to suffer from it. It means that one takes their social responsibility.

Madam Speaker! I shall raise two examples of how insane it has become with the development we have had in the area of self-chosen gender. In connection with a very high-profile murder this winter – a horrific crime in the category of men's violence against women – a strange discussion arose about whether the murderer was a man or a woman.

Expressen felt obliged to write an article about why the male murderer was called a man. The article is naturally available online for those who wish to read the whole thing, but Expressen's reporter describes the situation in a short summary as follows:

A former boss of the suspected murderer says that the suspected murderer identified as a woman. During the detention hearing, the prosecutor said "she" regarding the suspect, and so did the judge in the courtroom. The suspect's own defense counsel repeatedly said "he" regarding the suspected perpetrator. The media were divided: Dagens ETC writes "she" in the news section but has opinion pieces about men's violence against women. Dagens Nyheter avoids mentioning gender. Aftonbladet does so as well for a while, but then switches to "man". Svenska Dagbladet and Sveriges Television write "man", and in Ekot, the news reader corrects themselves when she happened to say "man" and changes to "person".

Expressen notes that it is obvious that there is no common language for this event – and if one does not understand that it is a societal problem, I do not really know how clearly it can be expressed.

A prominent debater on these issues, who debates so that one can choose one's gender, is a person named Lukas Romson. When one reads Lukas Romsons position, it becomes a bit unclear, I must say. First, Lukas states that the obvious pronoun for this perpetrator, or suspected perpetrator, is "she" – and one has the right to believe or think that. Then, however, Lukas continues as follows: Yes, I think that one can speak of men's violence against women even here. The one who until recently lived and was perceived as a man cannot so quickly exempt themselves from privileges or, for that matter, reprogram over 20 years of social upbringing.

It means in that case that Lukas means that men who themselves identify as women need a number of years before they can be regarded as women by the surrounding society and, for example, gain access to female rooms. It is thus a "she" that is to be regarded as a "he". It is a bit confusing, to say the least, and this is from an advocate who believes in this bad legislation.

The second example is taken from the parliamentary minutes from March 12 of this year – I could naturally have taken many, but I have already exceeded my speaking time, Madam Speaker, so I will stick to one example. It is the Prime Minister's question time, and the Prime Minister is asked, due to highlighted cases of abuse within elderly care, whether the elderly should have the right to choose the gender of the staff.

The Prime Minister answers: Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat surprised by the debate that has arisen regarding the proposal that as an elderly person one should be able to choose the biological sex of the person who performs very intimate tasks. All of this is serious for real, and therefore we have proposed an amendment that makes it so that as an elderly person one should be able to choose which biological sex the person who is to do the most private things for one in one's home shall have. Mr. Speaker! I find it very difficult to see that this has anything to do with the question of being able to report a change of legal sex after an opinion and that it has become a bit easier.

This is a statement from the Prime Minister that is very surprising and which raises many questions. We have today an order where gender is entirely a matter of self-identification. How is the employer to handle this, and how is the elderly person to navigate in this situation? The Prime Minister does not answer that.

The Prime Minister also seems not to have understood that the law has been changed, and the Prime Minister can possibly be excused for this insofar as the legislation did not come as a government bill but unfortunately after a so-called committee initiative. The Prime Minister has now had the opportunity to rectify the Riksdag's mistake, but he has sat on his hands in this matter, because the Prime Minister believes that it has only become a little easier. The Prime Minister has not understood what kind of legislation the Riksdag has adopted. As was said, it can possibly be excused by the fact that he was not involved.

It was an unfortunate decision when the gender identity law was adopted. I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that it will be repealed. If it does not happen during this parliamentary term, it will eventually. It is precisely this thing about reality being very difficult to stay away from in the long run.

I believe that reason will prevail.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 April.)

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