Updated March 21, 2026 at 3:58 PM
Published March 21, 2026 at 7:00 AM
Sweden’s Legal Council has delivered a scathing critique of the government’s proposed criminal justice reforms, sparking a debate over the proper role of legal experts in the political process. The council’s assessment, released earlier this month, has drawn accusations that it overstepped its authority by venturing beyond a review of legal technicalities and into the realm of policy.
Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer, Moderate Party.
Photo: Anders Wiklund/TT / TT NEWS AGENCY
The Legal Council rejected the proposal for harsher penalties.
Photo: Cornelia Jönsson / DI TT NEWS AGENCY
This is a column from Expressen’s editorial board. Expressen’s political stance is liberal.
Patrik Kronqvist
The dismantling was a complete massacre. The Legal Council condemned the government’s proposal to increase penalties for around 50 crimes as a “hasty” measure “lacking in quality” and with “deficient preparation.”
The opinion, released a couple of weeks ago, should have prompted agreement. I often criticize Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer for going too far in his eagerness to raise penalties.
But as I read the objections, I was struck by something else.
The Legal Council’s primary task is to review how proposals relate to fundamental laws and the requirements of legal certainty. This proves also tasked with investigating whether legislative changes are purposeful. But in its rejection of the increased penalty scales, it has gone far beyond this mandate.
The appropriate level of punishment in a society is fundamentally a political question – not a legal one. The current government has a different view of punishment than has prevailed until now. Gunnar Strömmer focuses more on victims of crime and public safety than on rehabilitation.
However, the Legal Council effectively deems this shift illegitimate. “For an increased use of punishment to be acceptable, there must be a reasonable purpose,” it states, concluding that no such purpose exists. The ruling underscores the growing tension between the executive and judicial branches in Sweden.
The Legal Council also criticizes the government for the reforms lacking support in research. That is a strange position. If that principle were followed, it would mean that politicians could never test new reforms. They must be implemented before they can be evaluated.
Sweden – plagued by a wave of youth violence unique in the West – would only be able to implement policies that other countries have already tried.
The Council is also critical of the fact that the proposal does not take into account the views of those consulted. The government should, of course, listen to objections, but it is not obliged to yield to them.
That is often how the debate plays out. It is almost as if it is more democratic when bureaucrats decide than when elected officials do. Technocracy has been elevated to an ideal.
“Authorities […] protect the population from selfish politicians and stupid voters,” drily describes doctoral student Silva Mertsola in a worthwhile article in the latest issue of Liberal Debate.
Political arguments have been replaced by legal reasoning
Advertisement
When politicians aim for to signal resolve on value issues, they now reach for the law book. Suddenly, Social Democrats like Morgan Johansson and Annika Strandhäll want to use the constitution to protect public service and abortion rights.
In the debate, political arguments have also been replaced by legal reasoning. Before the refugee crisis of 2015, it was said that international conventions prevented Sweden from choosing a stricter migration policy. And the same is true today when the government wants to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13: it is claimed to violate the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
That type of argument reached its peak after the 2018 election when 261 civil servants in the government offices demanded some kind of guarantee from their employer that the next government would not violate the “government offices’ values.” A potential democratic change of power reduced to an HR issue.
Of course, it is understandable that there is concern about political pressure on civil servants, especially given what is happening in the world. Elon Musk’s purges in the American administration are a disgrace.
But a background to the development in the US is that both the judiciary and the administration have long taken more political power. It is not surprising that they are then also treated as political actors.
Sweden is not immune to such a development. Here there is a paradox. The groups that are most worried about a heavy-handed political control of the authorities are also those who make such a scenario most likely.
Organizations and trade unions are now talking about individual civil servants at authorities refusing to apply laws to stop political reforms that they claim violate international conventions.
That is not how you protect the rule of law. That is how you undermine it.
The Legal Council’s foray into politics is a worrying sign.
Patrik Kronqvist is a political editor and head of Expressen’s editorial board. Read more of his texts here.
