Examination of the motion for a referendum on the pending constitutional proposal adopted by the Riksdag through the decision on the report 2025/26:KU2 on 1 October 2025

TALMANNEN

According to Chapter 8, Section 16 of the Instrument of Government, a referendum on a pending constitutional proposal shall be held if it is requested by at least one-tenth of the members of the Riksdag and at least one-third of the members vote for the request. Such a request shall be submitted within 15 days from the time the Riksdag adopted the constitutional proposal as pending. The request shall not be processed in a committee.

During the Chamber's meeting on 15 October, Jimmie Åkesson (SD) submitted a motion for a referendum on the pending constitutional proposal adopted by the Riksdag through the decision on report 2025/26:KU2 Strengthened protection for democracy and the independence of the courts on 1 October 2025. Since the motion was seconded by at least 35 members, it was tabled for the first time. The motion was tabled again on Thursday 16 October. The motion shall now be taken up for a decision in accordance with Chapter 11, Section 3, first paragraph of the Rules of Procedure.

First, the opportunity is given to submit a statement of vote. No right of reply exists for these statements.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When we handled the proposal in the parliamentary committee, the Sweden Democrats supported it. After the proposal was worked out in the committee, under supposedly amicable conditions, it was sent out for consultation. Then, according to us, another reality emerged: What at first glance appears to be a protection of democracy is in fact an obstacle to the will of the people and democracy.

I shall explain my and the Sweden Democrats' position on this, and when I have done so, it should be obvious that what the Riksdag is now to take a stand on is one of the most important issues we have had to decide here in a long time. In terms of significance, one could compare it to when we joined the EU and in Nato.

Mr. Speaker! The question is whether the constitution is to be locked in its current form, in 2025, or whether we are to have a constitution that can actually be changed in the future. That is what the question is about, and it is what we want to give the Swedish people an opportunity to comment on.

In order for the constitution to be able to be amended today, it applies in all essential respects that the Riksdag needs to make two identical decisions with an election in between by a simple majority. It is a good, well-functioning order that gives the constitution good protection over time but which does not unnecessarily complicate necessary changes.

The government now wants this to be changed so that, instead, a two-thirds majority shall be required at a second vote. It may sound like an insignificant change, and it has been said that it is a protection for democracy. But in practice, it means that a party or a small minority in Sweden's Riksdag can block all future changes to the constitution, even though they have been tested in an election and won the approval of the people's majority.

The effect is therefore that the people's will expressed in the intervening parliamentary election becomes meaningless. Should a party really be able to prevent a majority from wanting to deprive grossly criminal persons of their Swedish citizenship?

The constitutional protection for freedom of the press and freedom of expression is, in contrast to the similar legislation in many other countries, largely based on protecting the technical solutions for conveying expressions. Why should we lock the constitution into technical solutions that we know are constantly changing?

By making the constitution so difficult to change, one does not protect democracy. One does not carry out the will of the people. One does a disservice to democracy. The protection against an impoverishment of the protection of civil rights and liberties is already in place through the rules that have served us well for decades. All public power in Sweden derives from the people. This is established in the portal paragraph of the Instrument of Government. The Sweden Democrats want it to continue to be so, not just in name but also in practice.

I therefore move for the motion to be approved, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jonas Andersson, Pontus Andersson Garpvall, Clara Aranda, Mats Arkhem, Sara-Lena Bjälkö, Bo Broman, Dennis Dioukarev, Staffan Eklöf, Matheus Enholm, Mattias Eriksson Falk, Yasmine Eriksson, Mikael Eskilandersson, Rashid Farivar, Ann-Christine Frohm, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Sara Gille, Göran Hargestam, Erik Hellsborn, Fredrik Lindahl, Linda Lindberg, Christian Lindefjärd, Angelica Lundberg, Adam Marttinen, Thomas Morell, Mona Olin, Eric Palmqvist, Patrick Reslow, Michael Rubbestad, Jessica Stegrud, Robert Stenkvist, Johnny Svedin, Björn Söder, Per Söderlund, Victoria Tiblom, Martin Westmont, Eric Westroth, Markus Wiechel and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) agreed.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! For the Moderates, the question of how the Swedish constitution can be changed over time is of the utmost importance. Our view is clear: While our most central laws must, of course, continue to be able to be changed over time, there are strong reasons to take measures and steps to further strengthen the protection of our constitutions.

In a time when we see that democracy around the world is being challenged in different ways, we must not make the mistake of believing that we in Sweden are and will remain immune to such tendencies. We too can be affected, perhaps not here and now, but who among us here can rule out that in a future there will be forces that want to overthrow the foundation for the social order that our society stands on today and which is expressed in our fundamental laws? The order that applies today for changing the fundamental laws is in such a situation unsatisfactory.

Mr. Speaker! As the sole parliamentary commission stated, Sweden differs from many other European countries in that we lack formal obstacles to constitutional laws being changed with slim parliamentary majorities. The fact that we have in practice had an order where broad majorities in the Riksdag have been sought does not change this fact.

I can state that the joint parliamentary committee highlighted several relevant aspects in its report regarding the balance between the protection of the constitutional laws and the need for constitutional laws that, over time, reflect the majority opinion in society.

With these extensive considerations as a basis, a unanimous constitutional committee then chose to propose the changes that the Sweden Democrats are now questioning in retrospect. They did not do so when it happened, not when it mattered.

Mr. Speaker! Some of the criticism raised now seems to be that the proposed order makes it more difficult to achieve changes in a direction that one, as a party, wants to see in the future, or that individual parties would be given a de facto veto. But in that case, it is an argument that also goes the other way, because with today's order, it is de facto possible for a future slim parliamentary majority to push through constitutional changes that they themselves are very strongly opposed to.

In Sweden, it has been significantly more of a rule than an exception that the governing bloc obtains a majority, largely always a relatively narrow majority, even in subsequent elections. Should it really be so easy to change fundamental principles?

In Sweden, we have rightly had a discussion about the importance of strengthening the right of ownership in the constitution. So far, so good. But one can also observe that in Germany, a different constitutional discussion is currently taking place regarding banning certain parties. Should it be that easy as with a simple majority between one election? A unanimous Swedish constitutional committee concluded that the answer to such a question must be no.

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates stand by our previous position. The order that will result from the now proposed change is highly reasonable. It provides a well-balanced balance between a sharpened protection for our most important laws while still providing good opportunities to adapt and develop the fundamental laws when there is a sufficiently broad consensus in the Riksdag for it. I want to conclude by pointing out that we, in the same way that we take the question of constitutional changes most seriously, see that the possibility of referendums shall be handled with the utmost care.

We have here a proposal that a unanimous parliamentary committee has backed, which has finally landed on the Riksdag's table and which we have also made a decision on. It is not a good idea in such a situation to make it the subject of a referendum. The Moderates will therefore move to reject the request for a special referendum that the Riksdag has to take a position on today.

(Applause)

In this speech, Crister Carlsson, Ludvig Ceimertz, Gustaf Göthberg, Caroline Högström, David Josefsson, Mattias Karlsson in Luleå, Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage, Noria Manouchi, Marie Nicholson, Peter Ollén, Erik Ottoson, Thomas Ragnarsson, Magnus Resare, Oliver Rosengren, Maria Stockhaus, Helena Storckenfeldt, Oskar Svärd and Viktor Wärnick (all M) agreed.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! On October 1, the Riksdag adopted a very important constitutional proposal in a first decision. It concerns strengthening the protection of the constitutional laws by requiring a qualified two-thirds majority in the second parliamentary vote to adopt a constitutional amendment. It is a reform that all parties unanimously supported in the 2020 Constitutional Committee and which we in the Liberals have advocated for a long time.

It is an important change because the liberal view of democracy is about a people's rule where the principle of popular sovereignty is balanced by a strong protection of the individual's fundamental civil and political rights. We believe that neither our fundamental freedoms and rights nor the democratic system's supporting institutions should be able to be set aside by a simple majority.

There is another view of democracy, which has historically been advocated by the Social Democrats. Popular sovereignty should prevail as unhindered as possible. Therefore, the Social Democrats long opposed the demands of the Liberals and other bourgeois parties to provide constitutional protection for our fundamental civil rights and freedoms and to make it more difficult to change our constitutional laws.

Olof Palme said in 1976 in the Riksdag that what he called ingenious constitutional rules and barriers against popular reform work could be a danger rather than a protection for democracy. Such a view is completely foreign to us liberals. Today, the Social Democrats have shifted on this issue, which we welcome.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have now backed away from their previous support for the proposal and want a referendum to be held on this issue. In this way, the Sweden Democrats have taken the position that the Social Democrats previously held, that is, to brake every reinforcement of the constitution's position.

The Liberals intend to vote against the Sweden Democrats' proposal for a referendum because there is very broad parliamentary support for the currently pending constitutional proposal. In our opinion, the referendum institution should not be used in such a situation.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gulan Avci, Malin Danielsson, Joar Forssell, Fredrik Malm, Martin Melin, Elin Nilsson, Lina Nordquist, Helene Odenjung and Cecilia Rönn (all L) agreed.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! There are usually fewer people in the chamber when I speak about the Constitutional Committee's important issues. But our constitutions are not just any laws. They are the foundation of our democracy. That is also why they are superior to all other laws and have a stronger protection. They define how Sweden is governed and protect our fundamental civil rights and freedoms. But even though they have a stronger protection than other laws, examples in the world have shown that one can never take democracy for granted and that democracies are sometimes more fragile than one has anticipated.

In Sweden, there has long been a practice when it comes to changes in the constitutional laws: that we parties strive to reach broad agreements for Sweden's best. Precisely this has occurred in this matter. For three years, a constitutional commission, which has also been unanimous, has investigated how the independence of the courts can be strengthened and the protection for our democracy strengthened.

It used to be the case that one appointed a parliamentary commission which, through a give-and-take, ensured that compromises were found and that what could be obtained broad support was identified. The parties showed mutual trust in one another. It naturally required that all members in a commission did their homework and anchored their position internally within their party.

Now, the practice that for a long time has been regarding tradition in Sweden concerning how we change our constitutional laws is being established.

Mr. Speaker! I truly think it is unfortunate that an investigation that was completely unanimous has led to us standing here now, despite the investigation being given good conditions. It raises questions regarding the trust we can show each other in future parliamentary investigations.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet will vote no to the motion.

(Applause)

In this speech, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, Tony Haddou and Isabell Mixter (all V) concurred.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today, the House will consider the Sweden Democrats' motion regarding a referendum on the pending proposal for a constitutional amendment that the Riksdag decided on on October 1. The proposal that the Riksdag decided to adopt as pending aims to strengthen the institutional protection for Sweden as a democratic state governed by the rule of law and to make it more difficult to change the constitutions.

We see a worrying development in many parts of our world, where previous democratic gains have been rolled back step by step. More and more authoritarian regimes have, for example, taken control of the judiciary by politicizing the appointment of judges, particularly in the supreme courts, and pushed through constitutional amendments that favor the incumbent regime. In many countries, several of the constitutionally protected freedoms and rights that we see as self-evident have been restricted, such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly.

In the Swedish legal system, there is already an inherent inertia in that a constitutional amendment requires two decisions with an intervening election. Given the changes that have been seen in our global environment, the government saw a need to strengthen this to avoid temporary lulls in public opinion resulting in major changes to the democratic system.

That is why the government appointed the 2020 parliamentary constitutional committee, with representatives from all parliamentary parties, for the purpose of demanding even higher parliamentary consensus before changes to the constitution. A unanimous committee, including the Sverigedemokraterna, stood behind the proposals that the government submitted to the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! The pending proposal for a constitutional amendment shall be finally determined after next year's election. When it has entered into force on 1 April 2027, it will be required that at least half of the members of the Riksdag vote to adopt a constitutional proposal as pending. Today, only a simple majority of those who happen to be present in the chamber at the vote is required. After general elections, a qualified majority of at least two-thirds of the members of the Riksdag is then required in the second decision to change the constitution. Today, a simple majority in the chamber is sufficient even for this second decision.

With the proposed changes, the protection of our democracy is strengthened, and the risk of constitutional laws being changed with temporary, weak support in the Riksdag is reduced. It will therefore require broad majorities to change constitutional laws in the future. This contributes to creating stability and predictability, and it reduces the risk of sudden shifts.

The Christian Democrats will vote red and therefore vote for the rejection of the Sweden Democrats' motion for a referendum on this issue.

(Applause)

In this speech, Yusuf Aydin, Camilla Brodin, Dan Hovskär, Magnus Jacobsson and Camilla Rinaldo Miller (all KD) concurred.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a representative and parliamentary system of government. This means, among other things, that even smaller parties can be represented in the Riksdag. It contributes to creating a more representative composition in the sense that more people are involved. Consequently, more voices can be heard and contribute to both dynamics as well as welfare and sustainable development. This is also the case in many other countries. Our Nordic neighbors are some good examples.

The representative system of government is considered by research to be stable and lead to well-anchored and qualitatively good decisions. The price for this is that it can take a little longer to reach a common consensus, but that inertia is also seen as an advantage. It provides time for public debate and dialogue. It is also considered to give more people a sense of greater justice. All voices count, which creates greater trust.

Mr. Speaker! The alternative is the American and British model where each constituency has a seat, and it is taken by the one who receives the most votes. In practice, this has led to a two-party system where a majority decides regardless of how small it is. Such a system is considered to provide greater opportunities for accountability but can at the same time be perceived as more polarizing.

It can also be understood as more media-attractive with a conflict line instead of several perceptions on the same issues. "Us against them" has taken space all the way into Agendas' TV studio. But in Sweden, we have long been known for our striving to seek a common perception and seek consensus in important issues. It is, one could say, an old tradition.

Now we have a proposal to take a position on where the Sweden Democrats choose to leave an agreement in a constitutional law investigation, an agreement that all parties have stood behind, regarding making it more difficult to change constitutional laws by requiring a qualified majority in the second vote, that is, the one that comes after an election.

Mr. Speaker! Many people have embraced the idea of a transition from fossil to renewable, from discarded to recycled, from exploited to restored. This includes a thought that everyone is included and that everyone is needed and can participate. This is reflected, not least, in the United Nations Agenda 2030. A large number of its 169 goals are about "everyone": affordable, decent and safe housing for all and the eradication of poverty for all, to name just a couple of examples – or for that part, goal 16:7 regarding inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making for all.

Now the Sweden Democrats want to clear the ground for a Sweden where democracy explicitly builds on the fact that half plus one eligible voter can decide and that half plus one member shall be able to change constitutional laws.

It is, after all, the laws we have agreed upon together that define the Sweden we want. One could say that the constitutional laws express the values we believe in, such as the right to vote, civil liberties and rights, and free and independent courts. We now want to clarify the practice that has existed for a long time, namely that the constitutional laws should be based on broad agreements, and rather ensure that it becomes more difficult to change them. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet vote no to the motion.

(Applause)

In this speech, Leila Ali Elmi, Mats Berglund, Camilla Hansén, Daniel Helldén, Annika Hirvonen, Linus Lakso, Rebecka Le Moine, Amanda Lind, Katarina Luhr, Amanda Palmstierna, Nils Seye Larsen, Malte Tängmark Roos and Ulrika Westerlund (all MP) agreed.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party will vote no to the motion for a referendum on the pending constitutional proposal that the Riksdag adopted on 1 October 2025. We do so because we safeguard the stability of democracy. We do so because the proposal strengthens the independence of the courts and thereby protects every person's civil rights and freedoms. We do so because it is the result of broad parliamentary cooperation in which all parties participated, even those that are now wavering. A referendum would also risk delaying urgent reforms for the independence of the courts because the entire proposition must be approved as a whole at the second vote.

Mr. Speaker! This is not about party politics. The constitutional laws are not a document for lawyers or political scientists. They are everyone's protection against the abuse of power, against arbitrariness, and against the weakening of democracy when the wind blows. The two-thirds rule, which is now being written in, does exactly this; it secures democracy. It creates stability. It builds in deliberation. It ensures that the rules of the game for democracy cannot be changed by temporary majorities.

Mr. Speaker! This is nothing new. It is a Swedish tradition. Already in the 1700s, during King Adolf Fredrik's reign, it was established that constitutional laws should rest on a broad consensus. The same thing was stated in the Instrument of Government of 1809. One wanted to avoid ill-considered attempts and preempt hasty decisions. Even during the Second World War, the same conclusion was drawn: Constitutional laws should not follow temporary opinions but stand in harmony with a lasting public opinion.

It is this that has built Sweden strong, and it is what we are now defending.

Mr. Speaker! The bill also concerns something crucial: the independence of the courts. An independent judiciary is democracy's insurance against the abuse of power. To stop the reform via a referendum would be to weaken the rule of law, and that is something we can never accept.

Now a referendum is being requested, and it sounds appealing, of course – for who can be against the people having their say? But when one says that this is being done in the name of the people's will, one misses the very core of the people's will. People's will does not mean that the majority should be able to do whatever it wants. It means that power is exercised under the laws and that the laws protect everyone, even those who are in the minority.

The two-thirds rule is precisely that protection. It says that before we change the rules of the game for democracy, we must be more than just a temporary majority who think it should be done. It is wise, and it is cautious – but it is also very strong.

Mr. Speaker! We do not know who will be in power in ten years. We do not know what crises we will face. But we know that we need to stand up for democracy even when the wind blows. Therefore, the Center Party will vote for the rejection of the motion for a referendum.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ulrika Heie, Helena Vilhelmsson and Anders Ådahl (all C) concurred.

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker, members of the Riksdag and listeners! We live in serious times. All around us, war, conflicts, and a growing mistrust towards democratic institutions are raging. The world order that many have taken for granted is shaking in its foundation. In country after country, we can see how democracy is threatened and how the rule of law is challenged and risks being politicized.

What we Swedes take for granted – independent courts, free media, and fundamental human rights – is fundamentally what holds our society together. When these values are threatened in other countries, we must dare to see that this is something that can also affect us. Sweden is still a stable democracy, but we must not be lulled into the belief that our systems specifically are protected by some law of nature. We must, on the contrary, dare to realize that even Sweden can be affected and that even our freedoms and rights can come to be limited and restricted. The awareness of this is, Mr. Speaker, what today's vote is fundamentally about.

Mr. Speaker! Our constitution is the cornerstone of our democracy. It regulates the system of government, guarantees the citizens' civil rights and freedoms, and establishes the principle of Swedish popular rule: that all power in Sweden derives from the people. We are, therefore, not talking about some legal ornament, but about a promise that our country shall be governed with respect for people's freedom, equality, and dignity.

Throughout history, the constitutional laws have been nurtured in broad consensus across block boundaries. They have stood above the daily political bickering, and that has served Sweden well. A strong democracy requires common rules of the game that we all safeguard, completely regardless of party color.

I am glad that we Social Democrats are not alone in thinking this. It is significant that seven of the Riksdag's eight parties have also this time managed to reach an agreement on important constitutional reforms. For this, I would like to extend a sincere thank you to the government parties, the Center Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party. Thank you for prioritizing consensus! Thank you for putting democracy's long-term strength before short-term party politics!

But, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to ignore the political significance of today's vote. That the government's largest party stands in the way when it comes to strengthening the structures that uphold our democracy is nothing less than deeply regrettable. Remember: This is not about minor issues, but about the protection of democracy's fundamental foundations, about securing that which guarantees every person's freedom and rights.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, we Social Democrats, of course, stand wholeheartedly behind the right to be able to request a referendum on a pending constitutional proposal. It is and shall continue to be an important control function to ensure that changes occur with a broad majority and with deliberation.

But with great power comes also a great responsibility. That responsibility, seven of the Riksdag's eight parties are prepared to take. The Sweden Democrats, on the other hand, do as they usually do: They do not take responsibility, they do not follow practice, and they do not put Sweden's best before the party's best. The practice is another, and it obeys chaos and division.

Mr. Speaker! Our democracy must never be taken for granted. It must be won every day. For us Social Democrats, this is a self-evident truth, and therefore we stand behind the proposed constitutional amendment – to safeguard the principles that protect people's freedom, security, and dignity, and to stand guard over that which makes Sweden, Sweden. Therefore, we will vote no to the motion for a referendum.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Andersson, Lena Bäckelin, Åsa Eriksson, Peter Hedberg, Joakim Järrebring, Ida Karkiainen, Gustaf Lantz, Malin Larsson, Sanne Lennström, Fredrik Lundh Sammeli, Leif Nysmed, Lawen Redar, Sofia Skönnbrink, Anna-Caren Sätherberg and Carina Ödebrink (all S) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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